League of Women Voters of Michigan et al v. Benson

Filing 193

ORDER Denying Secretary's Motions in Limine to Exclude the Expert Report of Dr. Jowell Chen #147 and to Exclude Testimony Concerning Gerrymandering Metrics #148 . Signed by District Judge Gordon J. Quist. (LSau)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF
MICHIGAN, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
Case No. 2:17-CV-14148
v.
JOCELYN BENSON, in her official capacity
as Michigan Secretary of State, et al.,

Hon. Eric L. Clay
Hon. Denise Page Hood
Hon. Gordon J. Quist

Defendants.
_____________________/

ORDER DENYING SECRETARY’S MOTIONS IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE THE
EXPERT REPORT OF DR. JOWEI CHEN (ECF No. 147) AND TO EXCLUDE
TESTIMONY CONCERNING GERRYMANDERING METRICS (ECF No. 148)
Before the Court are Defendant Secretary of State Ruth Johnson’s Motion in Limine to
Exclude the Expert Report of Dr. Jowei Chen (ECF No. 147) and Motion in Limine to Exclude
Testimony Concerning Various Proffered Gerrymandering Metrics (ECF No. 148). The Secretary
argues that Dr. Chen’s methodology and the evidence concerning five social science
gerrymandering metrics fail to satisfy the standards of Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and Daubert
v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 113 S. Ct. 2786 (1993).
However, both motions in limine and Daubert challenges are inapplicable to bench trials.
A motion in limine is a tool used to prevent evidence “that clearly ought not be presented to the
jury” from reaching the jury. Jonasson v. Lutheran Child & Family Servs., 115 F.3d 436, 440 (7th
Cir. 1997). Similarly, a Daubert challenge is used to “prevent the jury” from hearing unreliable
scientific evidence. Daubert, 509 U.S. at 597, 113 S. Ct. at 2798. These two gatekeeping doctrines
were “designed to protect juries and [are] largely irrelevant in the context of a bench trial.” Deal

v. Hamilton Cnty. Bd. of Educ., 392 F.3d 840, 852 (6th Cir. 2004). “The proper course of action
for this Court, therefore, is to admit the evidence and then afford it whatever weight the Court
deems appropriate.” Michigan State A. Philip Randolph Inst. v. Johnson, No. 16-CV-11844, 2018
WL 1180886, at *2 (E.D. Mich. Mar. 7, 2018).
Therefore, Defendant Secretary of State Ruth Johnson’s Motion in Limine to Exclude the
Expert Report of Dr. Jowei Chen (ECF No. 147) is DENIED.
Defendant Secretary of State Ruth Johnson’s Motion in Limine to Exclude Testimony
Concerning Various Proffered Gerrymandering Metrics (ECF No. 148) is also DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 15, 2019

/s/ Gordon J. Quist
Signed for and on behalf of the panel:
HONORABLE GORDON J. QUIST
United States District Judge
HONORABLE ERIC L. CLAY
United States Circuit Judge
HONORABLE DENISE PAGE HOOD
United States District Judge

2