Martinez v. County of Alameda

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 LISAMARIA MARTINEZ, Case No. 20-cv-06570-TSH

8 Plaintiff, ORDER RE: MOTION IN LIMINE 9 v. Re: Dkt. Nos. 111, 134 10 COUNTY OF ALAMEDA, 11 Defendant.

12 13 I. INTRODUCTION 14 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine No. 4. ECF No. 111. Plaintiff 15 moves to limit the expert testimony of Defendant’s expert Cris Vaughan to exclude testimony that 16 amounts to a conclusion of law. ECF No. 111 at 4. In its February 29, 2024, pretrial order, the 17 Court previously denied this motion without prejudice because the Court had not received a copy 18 of Vaughan’s expert report. ECF No. 124 at 13–14. Plaintiff has since provided a copy of 19 Vaughan’s expert report. ECF No. 134-1. Having considered the quoted statements in context, 20 the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine No. 4. 21 II. DISCUSSION 22 Plaintiff asks the Court to exclude the below four examples of what it contends are legal 23 conclusions, as well as “similar legal opinion testimony” contained in Vaughan’s expert report:

24 (1) “CRO personnel provided effective communication to Martinez to identify the changes that needed to be made to the FBNS.” ECF 25 No. 134-1 [Expert Report of Defendant’s Expert Cris Vaughan (Vaughan Expert Report)] ¶ 12. 26 (2) “The Alameda County CRO did not deny meaningful access to 27 Martinez to file a FBNS on March 29, 2019.” Vaughan Expert Report (3) “By providing the above-described assistance, it is my opinion the 1 CRO is furnishing appropriate auxiliary aids and services necessary to afford individuals with disabilities an equal opportunity to 2 participate in and enjoy the benefits of the service program and activity of the CRO.” Vaughan Expert Report ¶ 21. 3 (4) “In my opinion, the auxiliary aids and services provided by the 4 CRO for completion of a FBNS are effective, are provided in an accessible format, in a timely manner, and in such a way as to protect 5 the privacy and independence of the individual with a disability and are in compliance with the ADA regulation requiring auxiliary aids 6 and services to be provided by a public entity.” Vaughan Expert Report ¶ 28. 7 8 ECF No. 111 at 1. 9 The Court grants Plaintiff’s motion as to each of the examples Plaintiff cites. Each 10 example constitutes an impermissible legal conclusion. See, e.g., United States v. Tamman, 782 11 F.3d 543, 552 (9th Cir. 2015) (“an expert cannot testify to a matter of law amounting to a legal 12 conclusion.”). In their opposition, Defendants do not dispute that any of these examples amounts 13 to an impermissible conclusion of law. See ECF No. 116. 14 First, Vaughan’s anticipated testimony that “CRO personnel provided effective 15 communication” to Plaintiff (Vaughan Expert Report ¶ 12) amounts to a legal conclusion about 16 ultimate factual issues in this case. See, e.g., Defendant’s Trial Brief at 8–9, ECF No. 101 17 (arguing that the ADA “only requires ‘effective communication,’” and that “CRO Clerks Were 18 Able to Effectively Communicate with Plaintiff”). 19 Second, Vaughan’s statement that the CRO “did not deny meaningful access” (Vaughan 20 Expert Report ¶ 14) is a legal conclusion regarding a standard Defendant argues is applicable 21 under Title II of the ADA. See Defendant’s Trial Brief at 5–6 (arguing that “[a] plaintiff may 22 establish prohibited discrimination under section 12132 by showing that a public entity denied her 23 a ‘reasonable accommodation’ necessary to achieve meaningful access to the benefits of a public 24 entity’s services, programs, or activities”) (emphasis added). 25 Third, Vaughan’s anticipated testimony that “[b]y providing the above-described 26 assistance . . . the CRO is furnishing appropriate auxiliary aids and services necessary to afford 27 individuals with disabilities an equal opportunity to participate in and enjoy the benefits of the 1 conclusion. See 28 CFR § 35.160(b)(1) (“A public entity shall furnish appropriate auxiliary aids 2 and services where necessary to afford individuals with disabilities ... an equal opportunity to 3 || participate in, and enjoy the benefits of, a service, program, or activity of a public entity”) 4 (emphasis added); see also Defendant’s Trial Brief at 6 (quoting 28 CFR § 35.160(b)(1)). 5 Finally, Vaughan’s anticipated testimony that “the auxiliary aids and services provided by 6 || the CRO for completion of a FBNS are effective, are provided in an accessible format, in a timely 7 manner, and in such a way as to protect the privacy and independence of the individual with a 8 disability and are in compliance with the ADA regulation requiring auxiliary aids and services to 9 || be provided by a public entity” (Expert Report of Defendant’s Expert Cris Vaughan § 28) likewise 10 amounts to a legal conclusion about ultimate factual issues in this case. See 28 C.F.R. 8 11 35.160(b)(2) (“[iJn order to be effective, auxiliary aids and services must be provided in accessible 12 || formats, in a timely manner, and in such a way as to protect the privacy and independence of the 5 13 individual with a disability.”) (emphasis added). See also Arroyo v. Denaco, LLC, No. 19-cv- 14 3592-FMO-JEM, 2020 WL 2477682, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 20, 2020) (finding that allegations in 3 15 complaint regarding whether paths of travel were “accessible” and “in conformance with the ADA a 16 || standards” constituted legal conclusions rather than factual allegations). 3 17 Accordingly, the Court grants Plaintiff's motion to exclude these opinions. 18 I. CONCLUSION 19 For the reasons stated above, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff's Motion in Limine No. 4. 20 IT IS SO ORDERED. 21 22 Dated: March 13, 2024 23 AY \ . THOMAS S. HIXSON United States Magistrate Judge 25 26 27 28