Harding et al v. County of Dallas, Texas et al
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER denying 85 MOTION to Exclude Opinions of Dr. Peter Morrison filed by Mike Cantrell, County of Dallas, Texas, Evelyn F Daniel, Theresa Daniel, Elba Garcia, Clay Lewis Jenkins, John Wiley Price; denying 86 MOTION to Exclude Opinions of Dr. Ben Voth filed by Mike Cantrell, County of Dallas, Texas, Evelyn F Daniel, Theresa Daniel, Elba Garcia, Clay Lewis Jenkins, John Wiley Price. (Ordered by Judge Sidney A Fitzwater on 3/5/2018) (Judge Sidney A Fitzwater)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
ANNE HARDING, et al.,
COUNTY OF DALLAS, TEXAS,
§ Civil Action No. 3:15-CV-0131-D
In this action alleging violations of § 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (“VRA”),
52 U.S.C. § 10301 et seq., and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment,
defendants move to exclude the opinions of plaintiffs’ experts, Peter Morrison, Ph.D. (“Dr.
Morrison”) and Ben Voth, Ph.D. (“Dr. Voth”). For the following reasons, the court denies
Plaintiffs in this case are Anglo residents of Dallas County, Texas who allege that, as
a result of the Dallas County Commissioners Court’s (“Commissioner’s Court’s”)
redistricting of commissioner precincts in 2011, Anglos who reside in Dallas County are
Under § 205(a)(5) of the E-Government Act of 2002 and the definition of “written
opinion” adopted by the Judicial Conference of the United States, this is a “written opinion[
] issued by the court” because it “sets forth a reasoned explanation for [the] court’s decision.”
It has been written, however, primarily for the parties, to decide issues presented in this case,
and not for publication in an official reporter, and should be understood accordingly.
being denied under the current map (“2011 Map”) the opportunity to elect candidates of their
choice to the Commissioners Court. Plaintiffs sue the County of Dallas, Dallas County Judge
Clay Lewis Jenkins, and Dallas County Commissioners Dr. Theresa M. Daniel, Mike
Cantrell, John Wiley Price, and Dr. Elba Garcia, alleging claims under the VRA and the
Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Plaintiffs have designated Dr. Morrison as an expert demographer to evaluate the
impacts of the 2011 Map on the Anglo minority population and to investigate the possibility
of drawing an alternative map that could better protect the rights of the Anglo minority, while
still properly respecting and ordering the traditional redistricting criteria. They have
designated Dr. Voth, an expert in communication, language, race and politics, and
argumentation, to analyze the presence of racial campaigning in Dallas County.
Defendants move under Fed. R. Evid. 702 and Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc.,
509 U.S. 579 (1993), to exclude the expert opinions of Drs. Morrison and Voth on the
grounds that they are unreliable, unfinished, and have not been fully and properly disclosed.
Plaintiffs oppose the motions.
To the extent defendants move to exclude Dr. Morrison’s opinions on the basis that
his analysis is incorrect and incomplete, and to exclude Dr. Voth’s opinion that race and
ethnically based arguments are strongly evident in political arguments by the candidates on
the basis that Dr. Voth’s methodology is “badly flawed,” Ds. Br. at 4, the court denies
The purpose of Daubert is “to ensure that only reliable and relevant expert testimony
is presented to the jury.” Rushing v. Kansas City S. Ry. Co., 185 F.3d 496, 506 (5th Cir.
1999) (emphasis added) (citing Daubert, 509 U.S. at 590-93). Thus “[m]ost of the
safeguards provided for in Daubert are not as essential in a case such as this where a district
judge sits as the trier of fact in place of a jury.” Gibbs v. Gibbs, 210 F.3d 491, 500 (5th Cir.
2000). “Daubert requires a binary choice—admit or exclude—and a judge in a bench trial
should have discretion to admit questionable technical evidence, though of course he must
not give it more weight than it deserves.” SmithKline Beecham Corp. v. Apotex Corp., 247
F.Supp.2d 1011, 1042 (N.D. Ill. 2003).
Given that this case will be tried to the court rather than to a jury, the objectives of
Daubert are no longer implicated. Moreover, “[v]igorous cross-examination, presentation
of contrary evidence, and careful instruction on the burden of proof are the traditional and
appropriate means of attacking shaky but admissible evidence.” Daubert, 509 U.S. at 596.
Accordingly, the court denies the motions to exclude expert testimony to the extent based on
The court also denies defendants’ motions to exclude the expert opinions of Drs.
Morrison and Voth to the extent based on their alleged delay in disclosing certain data
underlying their expert opinions.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(e)(1) requires the supplementation of Rule 26 disclosures “in a
timely manner if the party learns that in some material respect the disclosure or response is
incomplete or incorrect, and if the additional or corrective information has not otherwise
been made known to the other parties during the discovery process or in writing.” Expert
witnesses are required to supplement “information included in the report and . . . information
given during the expert’s deposition . . . by the time the party’s pretrial disclosures under
Rule 26(a)(3) are due.” Rule 26(e)(2).
It is unclear what, if any, underlying data or information defendants still require from
Dr. Morrison or Dr. Voth. In any event, the deadline for making pretrial disclosures under
Rule 26(a)(3) has not yet passed.2 Accordingly, the court declines to strike any portion of
Dr. Morrison’s or Dr. Voth’s expert reports based on their alleged delay in providing
defendants with the data underlying their expert opinions. If the court later determines that
plaintiffs have failed to make an expert disclosure, or have made an untimely disclosure, and
that this should result in excluding the evidence to which the disclosure pertains, the court
can disregard the evidence in question when rendering its decision on the merits.
The trial of this case is scheduled to commence on April 16, 2018. Pretrial
disclosures are due 30 days before the scheduled trial date. See Oct. 18, 2016 Trial Setting
Order ¶ 12 (providing that disclosures under Rule 26(a)(3) are due 30 days before the date
of the trial setting).
Accordingly, for the reasons explained, the court denies defendants’ motion to exclude
opinions of Dr. Morrison and motion to exclude opinions of Dr. Voth.
March 5, 2018.
SIDNEY A. FITZWATER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?