Sacramento Sexual Harassment Lawyer Blog

(Please note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the participants in this sexual harassment/personal injury case and its proceedings.)

Defendants Have Not Shown That Expert Witness Michael Black's Opinion Testimony Is Inadmissible.
Defendants argue that any and all testimony by plaintiffs' sexual harassment expert, Michael Black, should be excluded allegedly because some of the opinions in his report: (1) go beyond the scope of his expertise and designation; (2) exceed the bounds of permissible expert testimony by offering legal conclusions; and (3) would place inadmissible hearsay before the jury. Defendants further argue that Mr. Black’s expert opinion regarding whether defendants' conduct violated internal policies and procedures is not relevant to any issue in this personal injury case, and that its admission would create substantial danger of undue prejudice by confusing or misleading the jury into wrongly believing that Mr. Black’s statements of law or fact are accurate or that his opinions pertain to the issues to be determined in this case.

As a threshold matter, it is important to note that defendants seek to exclude all of Mr. Black’s expert opinion testimony based on their objections to some of the opinions in his Expert Report. In considering defendants' motion in limine, plaintiffs request that the Court keep the following background in mind: First, defendants chose not to designate their own sexual harassment expert. They should not be permitted to keep out testimony by plaintiffs' expert just because they could not find an expert who could support what they did in this case. Second, defendants chose not to depose Mr. Black who was timely designated. They should not be permitted to keep out all of his expert opinions just because they failed to explore the scope and bases for those opinions by deposing Mr. Black.

Continue reading " Firefighters Seek Sacramento Expert Testimony In Sexual Harassment Case, Part 3 of 7 " »

(Please note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the participants in this sexual harassment/personal injury case and its proceedings.)

With respect to subject matter: The jury need not be wholly ignorant of the subject matter of the opinion . . . if that were the test, little expert opinion testimony would ever be heard, particularly in a sexual harassment matter like this. Instead, the statute declares that even if the jury has some knowledge of the matter, expert opinion may be admitted whenever it would assist the jury. People v. McDonald (1984) 37 Cal.3d 351, 367 (overruled on other grounds in People v. Mendoza (2000) 23 Cal.4th 896, 914). Expert opinion testimony is excluded only when it would add nothing at all to the jury's common fund of information. Id.

Otherwise admissible opinion testimony is not objectionable (simply) because it embraces the ultimate issue to be decided by the trier of fact (e.g., fault, causation, breach of contract, etc.). Evid. Code § 805 [parentheses added]. Thus, expert opinion about an ultimate issue (or any conclusion for that matter) is admissible if it assists the jury. Summers v. A.L. Gilbert Co. (1999) 69 Cal.App.4th 1155, 1182-1183.

With respect to expert qualification in this type of personal injury case, there are no hard and fast rules. The determinative issue is whether the witness has sufficient knowledge, skill or experience in the field so that his or her testimony would be likely to assist the jury in its search for the truth. Mann v. Cracchiolo (1985) 38 Cal.3d 18, 37-38. Whether a particular person has sufficient expertise to testify as an expert witness depends upon the facts of the particular case, the questions propounded to the witness, and the witness' specific qualifications. People v. Davis (1965) 62 Cal.2d 791, 80.

With respect to reliable matter, an expert's opinion may be based on evidence whether or not admissible . . . if it is the kind of information experts reasonably rely upon in forming an opinion on the subject matter involved. Evid. Code § 801(b); People v. Hallquist (2005) 133 Cal.App.4th 291, 295-296. Therefore, expert witnesses are specifically permitted to state that they have reviewed, considered and relied upon inadmissible hearsay evidence as the basis for their opinion. The expert may not, however, testify as to the details of those matters if they are otherwise inadmissible. People v. Coleman (1985) 38 Cal.3d 69, 92 [He may not under the guise of reasons bring before the jury incompetent hearsay evidence.]

Continue reading " Sexual Harassment Action Filed By Sacramento Firefighters, Part 2 of 7 " »

(Please note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the participants in this sexual harassment/personal injury case and its proceedings.)

Plaintiffs Jim Green, John Brown, Stan White, and Paul Jones hereby oppose defendants' Motion in Limine No. 12 To Exclude Evidence, Testimony and Argument Regarding the Expert Opinion Testimony of Plaintiffs' Expert Michael Black.

BECAUSE EXPERT OPINION REGARDING PLAINTIFFS' SEXUAL HARASSMENT CAUSES OF ACTION WOULD ASSIST THE TRIER OF FACT, MICHAEL BLACK'S TESTIMONY IS RELEVANT AND ADMISSIBLE IN THIS CASE.

Standards of Relevance and Admissibility.
No evidence is admissible except relevant evidence. Evid. Code § 350. Except as otherwise provided by statute, all relevant evidence is admissible. Evid. Code § 351.

Relevant evidence means evidence, including evidence relevant to the credibility of a witness or hearsay declarant, having any tendency in reason to prove or disprove any disputed fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action. Evid. Code § 210.

The court in its discretion may exclude evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the probability that its admission will (a) necessitate undue consumption of time or (b) create substantial danger of undue prejudice, of confusing the issues, or of misleading the jury. Evid. Code § 352.

There are three distinct requirements for admissibility of expert opinion testimony in this personal injury matter:
The subject matter must be sufficiently beyond common experience that the opinion would assist the jury;

Continue reading " Sacramento Firefighters Sue For Sexual Harassment, Part 1 of 7 " »