Trejo v. California Forensic Medical Group

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5

7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9

10 JOSE TREJO, et al., Case No.: 20-cv-1465-DDL 11 Plaintiffs, ORDER RE EXPERT TESTIMONY 12 v. 13 CALIFORNIA FORENSIC MEDICAL 14 GROUP, 15 Defendant. 16 17 During the ongoing trial in this case, both parties have presented witness testimony 18 under Federal Rule of Evidence 702. Plaintiffs called Tim Gravette and Nichole Johnson, 19 M.D., and Defendant called Kimberly Pearson, R.N. Other than an issue regarding an 20 aspect of Pearson’s testimony that the Court resolved prior to trial, neither side objected to 21 the other’s presentation of expert testimony from these witnesses, and the Court allowed 22 the parties to proceed under Rule 702 as to each witness. 23 “The Federal Rules of Evidence allow expert testimony that will assist a trier of fact 24 in understanding the evidence or in determining a fact in issue, so long as (1) the testimony 25 is based upon sufficient facts or data, (2) the testimony is the product of reliable principles 26 and methods, and (3) the witness has applied the principles and methods reliably to the 27 facts of the case.” Boyd v. City & Cnty. of San Francisco, 576 F.3d 938, 945 (9th Cir. 2009) 28 1 (citing Fed. R. Evid. 702). “[E]xpert testimony must be both relevant and reliable to be 2 admissible.” BillFloat Inc. v. Collins Cash Inc., 105 F.4th 1269, 1275 (9th Cir. 2024); 3 Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 597 (1993) (trial judge must ensure 4 “that an expert’s testimony both rests on a reliable foundation and is relevant to the task at 5 hand”). “Expert opinion testimony is relevant if the knowledge underlying it has a valid 6 connection to the pertinent inquiry.” City of Pomona v. SQM N. Am. Corp., 750 F.3d 1036, 7 1044 (9th Cir. 2014). “And it is reliable if the knowledge underlying it has a reliable basis 8 in the knowledge and experience of the relevant discipline.” Id. “The district court is not 9 tasked with deciding whether the expert is right or wrong, just whether his testimony has 10 substance such that it would be helpful to a jury.” Alaska Rent-A-Car, Inc. v. Avis Budget 11 Grp., Inc., 738 F.3d 960, 969-70 (9th Cir. 2013). 12 “Reliability findings must be made explicit on the record – an implicit finding does 13 not suffice.” United States v. Holguin, 51 F.4th 841, 853 (9th Cir. 2022). “To carry out its 14 gatekeeping role, a district court must find that an expert’s testimony is reliable – an inquiry 15 that focuses not on what the experts say, or their qualifications, but what basis they have 16 for saying it.” Id. at 854.2 The Court previously applied these standards in denying 17 Plaintiffs’ motion in limine to preclude Pearson from testifying that Jose Banda Pichardo’s 18 suicide was not preventable. See Dkt. No. 215. Specifically, the Court concluded that 19 Pearson’s testimony was relevant and that she appropriately based her opinions, in part, on 20 statistical information that is “reasonably relied upon by experts in the field.” Id. at 5-6. 21 Having considered the qualifications and experience of Gravette, Johnson and 22 Pearson elicited during their trial testimony and the basis for the opinions they offered, the 23 Court finds the testimony of each of these witnesses “both rests on a reliable foundation 24 25 26 1 Unless otherwise noted, internal quotation marks, ellipses, brackets, citations, and 27 footnotes are omitted from citations. 2 The Ninth Circuit has not addressed whether explicit findings are required where, as 28 1 || and is relevant to the task at hand.” Daubert, 509 U.S. at 597. Each expert testified based 2 ||on their years of experience in their respective fields — Gravette with the Bureau of Prisons 3 ||and Johnson and Pearson as a psychiatrist and a registered nurse, respectively. “For some 4 ||experts, the relevant reliability concerns may focus upon personal knowledge or 5 ||experience,” and the reliability analysis “may cover whether the expert’s experience 6 ||supports the expert’s conclusions” or “whether the expert’s reasoning is adequately 7 ||explained.” Jd. at 855. The Court finds the testimony offered by Gravette, Johnson and 8 || Pearson was supported by their relevant personal experience in corrections and correctional 9 || healthcare and that they each explained how that experience informed the reasoning behind 10 opinions. As such, the Court confirms its prior ruling allowing these witnesses to 11 testify under Rule 702. 12 IT IS SO ORDERED. 13 || Dated: October 1, 2024 ents 14 Tb Lh, a 15 “Hon. DavidD.Leshner SCS 16 United States Magistrate Judge 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28