Le et al v. Urquart et al

Filing 166

MINUTE ORDER. Plaintiffs' motion to preclude defendant King County from offering the expert testimony of James W. Borden, docket no. 67 , and the deferred portions of plaintiffs' motion to exclude experts, docket no. 95 , are GRANTED in part, DENIED in part, and DEFERRED in part. (See Minute Order for details.) Authorized by Judge Thomas S. Zilly. (SWT)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

6
7

BAO XUYEN LE, et al.,

8
9
10
11

Plaintiffs,

REVEREND DR. MARTIN LUTHER
KING, JR. COUNTY, et al.,

MINUTE ORDER

Defendants.

12
13

C18-55 TSZ

v.

The following Minute Order is made by direction of the Court, the Honorable
Thomas S. Zilly, United States District Judge:

14

(1)
Plaintiffs’ motion to preclude defendant King County from offering the
expert testimony of James W. Borden, docket no. 67, and the deferred portions of
15
plaintiffs’ motion to exclude experts, docket no. 95, are GRANTED in part, DENIED in
part, and DEFERRED in part, as follows:
16
(a)
As a result of untimely disclosure, lack of qualification, and unsound
17
methodology, James W. Borden will not be permitted to opine about “human
factors,” “human movement,” or “human performance,” and plaintiffs’ motion to
18
preclude such testimony is GRANTED. See Dasho v. City of Fed. Way, 101 F.
Supp. 3d 1025, 1029-30 (W.D. Wash. 2015) (summarizing the threshold
19
requirements for expert testimony, including reliability demonstrated through
sound methodology and an “analytical connection between the data, the
20
methodology, and the expert’s conclusions”); see also Fed. R. Evid. 702. Borden
does not have the requisite training or education to provide expert testimony about
21
matters of human behavior and psychology. The Court declines to entirely
preclude King County from offering Borden’s late disclosed testimony, but defers
22
ruling on the scope of permissible testimony.
23
MINUTE ORDER - 1

1
2
3
4
5
6

(b)
The Court is persuaded that Caroline Crump, Ph.D. has the
necessary expertise to explain and express opinions about how perception is
affected by expectations, priming, attention, emotional context, and/or stress, and
plaintiffs’ motion to exclude her as a witness is therefore DENIED. Dr. Crump
will not, however, be permitted to opine about which version of events is more
credible, and plaintiffs’ motion to preclude her from testifying about which facts
occurred is GRANTED.
(2)
record.

The Clerk is directed to send a copy of this Minute Order to all counsel of

Dated this 9th day of May, 2019.

7
William M. McCool
Clerk

8
9

s/Karen Dews
Deputy Clerk

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
MINUTE ORDER - 2