Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-00371/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-00371-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983d Civil Rights (Death)

---

1 

18-cv-00371-H-MDD

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ESTATE OF MARK ROSHAWN

ADKINS, by and through his successorin-interest Collette Adkins; COLLETTE 

ADKINS, individually and in her capacity 

as successor-in-interest, 

Plaintiffs,

v. 

COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO; et al., 

Defendants.

Case No.: 18-cv-00371-H-MDD

ORDER: 

1. DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION TO EXCLUDE

DEFENDANTS’ WRONGFUL

DEATH EXPERTS

2. DENYING DEFENDANTS’

MOTION TO EXCLUDE

PLAINTIFF’S POLICE

PRACTICES AND

PROCEDURES EXPERT

[Doc. Nos. 50, 51] 

On May 6, 2019, Plaintiff Collette Adkins (“Plaintiff”) filed a motion to exclude 

Defendants’ wrongful-death experts, (Doc. No. 51) and Defendants County of San Diego, 

William Gore, Armin Vianson, and Jeffrey Perine (collectively, “Defendants”) filed a 

motion to exclude Plaintiff’s police practices and procedures expert, (Doc. No. 50). On 

May 20, 2019, the parties filed oppositions. (Doc. Nos. 60, 64.) On May 23, 2019, the 

Case 3:18-cv-00371-H-MDD Document 75 Filed 06/07/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
2

18-cv-00371-H-MDD

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Court submitted the motions on the parties’ papers. (Doc. No. 68.) On May 24, 2019, the 

parties filed their replies. (Doc. Nos. 70, 72.) For the following reasons, the Court denies 

both motions.

I. Legal Standard

“Under Daubert, the district judge is ‘a gatekeeper, not a fact finder.’ When an expert 

meets the threshold established by Rule 702 as explained in Daubert, the expert may testify

and the jury decides how much weight to give that testimony.” Primiano v. Cook, 598 

F.3d 558, 564-65 (9th Cir. 2010). Under Federal Rule of Evidence 702, an expert’s 

testimony is permissible if “(a) the expert’s scientific, technical, or other specialized 

knowledge will help the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in 

issue; (b) the testimony is based on sufficient facts or data; (c) the testimony is the product 

of reliable principles and methods; and (d) the expert has reliably applied the principles 

and methods to the facts of the case.” “‘[T]he test under Daubert is not the correctness of 

the expert’s conclusions but the soundness of his methodology.’” Primiano, 598 F.3d at 

564 (quoting Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc., 43 F.3d 1311, 1318 (9th Cir. 1995)).

Whether to admit or exclude expert testimony lies within the trial court’s discretion. 

GE v. Joiner, 522 U.S. 136, 141-42 (1997); United States v. Calderon-Segura, 512 F.3d 

1104, 1109 (9th Cir. 2008). “A trial court not only has broad latitude in determining 

whether an expert’s testimony is reliable, but also in deciding how to determine the 

testimony’s reliability.” Mukhtar v. Cal. State Univ., 299 F.3d 1053, 1064 (9th Cir. 2002). 

“Shaky but admissible evidence is to be attacked by cross examination, contrary evidence, 

and attention to the burden of proof, not exclusion.” Primiano, 598 F.3d at 564 (citing 

Daubert, 509 U.S. at 596). “Given that the judge is ‘a gatekeeper, not a fact finder,’ the 

gate [sh]ould not be closed to . . . relevant opinion offered with sufficient foundation by 

one qualified to give it.” Id. at 568 (quoting United States v. Sandoval-Mendoza, 472 F.3d 

645, 654 (9th Cir. 2006)).

Expert testimony is also subject to the other rules of evidence. See, e.g., Sundance, 

Inc. v. Demonte Fabricating Ltd., 550 F.3d 1356, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (“Admission of 

Case 3:18-cv-00371-H-MDD Document 75 Filed 06/07/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
3

18-cv-00371-H-MDD

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

expert testimony remains subject to the Rules of Evidence . . . .”). For instance, expert 

testimony must be relevant to be admissible. Fed. R. Evid. 402. Evidence is relevant if it 

is probative of a fact that is of consequence in determining the action. Fed. R. Evid. 401.

The court may exclude evidence if the risk of unfair prejudice substantially outweighs the 

evidence’s probative value. Fed. R. Evid. 403.

II. Plaintiff’s motion to exclude Defendants’ wrongful-death experts

Plaintiff argues that Defendants’ wrongful death experts should be excluded from 

testifying or providing opinions at trial because Plaintiff did not bring a wrongful death 

claim and the experts are not qualified to testify as to whether the tasing contributed to Mr. 

Adkins’s death. (Doc. No 51 at 5–12.) After considering the briefs, the law, and the 

relevant expert reports and depositions, the Court concludes that Plaintiff’s objections more 

properly go to the weight, not the admissibility, of the opinions. Accordingly, the Court 

denies Plaintiff’s motion to exclude without prejudice subject to a contemporaneous 

objection at the time of trial.

III. Defendants’ motion to exclude Plaintiff’s police practices and procedures 

expert

Defendants argue that Plaintiff’s police practices and procedures expert bases his 

opinions on an unreliable methodology and that he opines on matters outside of his 

expertise. (Doc. No 50-1 at 11–28.) After considering the briefs, the law, and the relevant 

expert reports and depositions, the Court concludes that Defendants’ objections likewise

more properly go to the weight, not the admissibility, of the expert’s opinions. 

Accordingly, the Court denies Defendants’ motion to exclude without prejudice subject to 

a contemporaneous objection at the time of trial.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: June 7, 2019

 

MARILYN L. HUFF, District Judge

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Case 3:18-cv-00371-H-MDD Document 75 Filed 06/07/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3