Solly v. Mausser et al

Filing 80

ORDER - DENYING 55 Motion to Appoint Expert filed by Gregory L. Solly. Signed by Magistrate Judge Elizabeth Preston Deavers on September 27, 2017. (jlk)(This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
GREGORY L. SOLLY,
Plaintiff,
Case No. 2:15-cv-956
Judge Algenon L. Marbley
Magistrate Judge Elizabeth P. Deavers

v.

CYNTHIA MAUSSER,
et al.,
Defendants.
OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Request for Court-Appointed Statistician
pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 706(a). (ECF No. 55.) Defendants have not responded to
Plaintiff’s Request.
Evidence Rule 706(a) provides that, “[o]n a party’s motion or on its own, the court may
order the parties to show cause why expert witnesses should not be appointed and may ask the
parties to submit nominations. . . .” Whether to appoint an expert under Rule 706 “rests solely in
the Court’s discretion and is to be informed by such factors as the complexity of the case and the
Court’s need for a neutral, expert view.” Stanley v. Ohio Dep’t of Rehab. & Corr., No. C2–02–
178, 2002 WL 31844686 at *3 (S.D. Ohio Dec.12, 2002) (internal citation and quotation marks
omitted). “Courts should not appoint expert witnesses under Rule 706 in order to aid a litigating
party.” Hughes v. Lavender, No. 2:10–cv–674, 2011 WL 2550740, at *1 (S.D. Ohio June 23,
2011) (citing Carranza v. Fraas, 763 F. Supp. 2d 113, 2011 WL 380164 at *4 (D.D.C. Feb.7,
2011)). In addition, “‘the use of court-appointed experts is relatively infrequent and most judges

view the appointment of an expert as an extraordinary activity that is appropriate only in rare
circumstances.’” Davis-Bey v. City of Warren, 2017 WL 1230509, at *3 (E.D. Mich. Apr. 4,
2017) (quoting Mikko v. Smock, No. 10-12845, 2012 WL 8963806, at *1 (E.D. Mich. Sept. 6,
2012)).
Here, Plaintiff represents that he has obtained “numerous” statistics relating to parole
releases and race. (ECF No. 55 at 1–2.) According to Plaintiff, the appointment of an expert
statistician will “aid the Court.” (Id. at 2.) The Court is not persuaded that Plaintiff has made the
requisite showing that this case presents one of the “rare circumstances” justifying the
appointment of an expert. Therefore, at this juncture, the Court does not need expert statistical
assistance. “If such a need arises in the future, the Court can at that time order the parties to
show cause why an expert witness should be appointed.” Hughes, 2011 WL 2550740, at *2
(citing Brown v. Kentucky State Penitentiary, 2011 WL 1403201 at *2 (W.D. Ky. Apr.13,
2011)). Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Request for Court-Appointed Statistician pursuant to Fed. R.
Civ. P. 706(a) is DENIED. (ECF No. 55.)
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Date: September 27, 2017

/s/ Elizabeth A. Preston Deavers
ELIZABETH A. PRESTON DEAVERS
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2