Hammler v. Hernandez
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Cathy Ann Bencivengo (author)
Analysis
Plaintiff, a pro se prisoner, filed an 'Objection to Experts' challenging the admissibility of two non-retained expert witnesses listed by Defendants. The court denied the objection without prejudice, finding it premature to rule on admissibility because discovery was ongoing and no specific opinion testimony had been proffered.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Denial of Plaintiff's 'Objection to Experts' (Doc. No. 50) without prejudice“Plaintiff's Objection to Experts is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE to Plaintiff refiling the motion in conjunction with any dispositive motions or prior to trial.” | agree with court The court correctly identified that the plaintiff's challenge to the admissibility of expert testimony was premature. Under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Evidence, a Daubert challenge or motion in limine regarding the admissibility of expert opinion is typically resolved when the specific testimony is known, often in conjunction with summary judgment or at the pretrial stage. Since the defendants had only disclosed the experts but had not yet provided specific opinions or reports detailing the content of their testimony, the court lacked the necessary factual basis to determine reliability or relevance under Rule 702. Denying without prejudice allows the plaintiff to raise the issue when the record is more developed. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound. It correctly identifies the nature of the motion (Daubert/in limine), applies the correct legal standards for expert admissibility (Rule 702, Daubert), and recognizes the procedural posture (ongoing discovery, lack of specific proffered opinions) as the basis for deferring the ruling. The denial without prejudice is a standard and appropriate procedural mechanism to preserve the plaintiff's rights while ensuring the court has a sufficient record to make a meaningful admissibility determination.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ALLEN HAMMLER, Case No.: 18cv259-CAB-MDD 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING WITHOUT 13 v. PREJUDICE “OBJECTION TO EXPERTS” [Doc. No. 50] 14 J. HERNANDEZ, et al., 15 Defendant. 16 17 Plaintiff Allen Hammler (“Plaintiff”), a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in 18 forma pauperis, filed his complaint on February 2, 2018, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983. 19 This case is currently proceeding on Plaintiff’s claim that Defendants retaliated against 20 him in violation of the First Amendment. On February 3, 2020, Plaintiff filed an 21 “Objection to Experts,” which this Court has deemed a Daubert or in limine motion. 22 [Doc. No. 51.] On February 18, 2020, Defendants filed an opposition to Plaintiff’s 23 Objection. [Doc. No. 54.] Plaintiff did not file a reply. 24 DISCUSSION 25 In the Objection, Plaintiff objects to the two witnesses listed in Defendants’ 26 Disclosure of Expert Witnesses, J. Martinez and E. Frijas. [See Doc. No. 54 at 7-10.] J. 27 Martinez is a correctional lieutenant at Richard J. Donovan Correctional Facility (RJD). 28 [Doc. No. 54 at 8, ¶1.] E. Frijas is a correctional counselor at RJD. [Doc. No. 54 at 8, 1 ¶2.] Both individuals are listed on the Disclosure as Non-Retained Expert Witnesses. 2 [Doc. No. 54 at 8.] Unretained experts are persons who may be asked for expert opinion 3 testimony at trial but who are not engaged or employed by a party to testify. Downey v. 4 Bob’s Discount Furniture Holdings, Inc., 633 F.3d 1, 6 (1st Cir. 2011). Unretained 5 experts are those persons with percipient knowledge who happen to be an expert. It is 6 common to list witnesses such as police officers or government investigators as 7 unretained experts on a disclosure. See Phillips & Stevenson, RUTTER GROUP PRAC. 8 GUIDE: FEDERAL CIV. PRO. BEFORE TRIAL (The Rutter Group 2019) §11:386. 9 Under Federal Rule of Evidence 702, expert opinion evidence must be both 10 reliable and relevant. Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 589- 11 91, 113 S.Ct. 2786, 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993); Primiano v. Cook, 598 F.3d 558, 567 (9th 12 Cir. 2010). The district court functions as a gatekeeper, determining the relevance and 13 reliability of expert testimony and deciding whether it will be admitted. Ellis v. Costco 14 Wholesale Corp., 657 F.3d 970, 982 (9th Cir. 2011) (citations omitted). An expert is 15 generally not permitted to opine on an ultimate issue of fact except in limited 16 circumstances, since such opinions may “invade the province of” the jury. See 17 Nationwide Transport Finance v. Cass Information Systems, Inc., 523 F.3d 1051, 1060 18 (9th Cir. 2008) (“evidence that merely tells the jury what result to reach is not sufficiently 19 helpful to the trier of fact to be admissible”). 20 In the Objection, Plaintiff raises legitimate concerns about whether these non- 21 retained experts should be allowed to give opinions that may be in the province of the 22 jury or may lack foundation. [Doc. No. 50 at 1-2.] However, as Defendants point out, at 23 this point in the litigation, it is premature for the Court to rule on such issues, as 24 discovery is ongoing, Defendants have not proffered any specific opinion testimony, and 25 no dispositive motions have been filed. It is difficult for the Court to rule on the 26 admissibility of such testimony until more specificity is provided. 27 / / / / / 28 / / / / / 1 CONCLUSION 2 For the reasons set forth above, Plaintiff's Objection to Experts is DENIED 3 || WITHOUT PREJUDICE to Plaintiff refiling the motion in conjunction with any 4 || dispositive motions or prior to trial. 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. 6 || Dated: March 5, 2020 € Z 7 Hon. Cathy Ann Bencivengo 8 United States District Judge 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28