Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_02-cv-05741/USCOURTS-caed-1_02-cv-05741-13/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOHN ADAMS, et al., CASE NO. CV F 02-5741 LJO DLB

Plaintiffs, ORDER ON PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION IN

LIMINE TO EXCLUDE DEFENSE EXPERT

vs. (Doc. 187.)

PAUL SPEERS, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

Plaintiffs seek to exclude testimony of defense expert Jared L. Zwickey on grounds that his: (1)

opinions are inadmissible conclusions of law; (2) testimony lacks credibility; and (2) testimony and

report fail to provide explanations for the trier of fact. This Court considers plaintiffs’ motion in limine

(doc. 187) on the record and VACATES the June 13, 2008 hearing.

In light of the authority and reasoning of F.R.Evid. 704 and Davis v. Mason County, 927 F.2d

1473, 1484-1485 (9th Cir. 1986), the motion is denied on the first basis requested in the motion. An

expert may indeed testify on the ultimate issue in a case. This does NOT mean that an expert may testify

on an ultimate issue of LAW in the case, and neither side's expert may so testify. Despite whether an

expert uses the word "reasonable" or "justified," the key on whether the testimony will be admissible is

the definition of the terms. If it indeed is defined to voice an opinion about the LAW, it will be

disallowed. Counsel have the duty to so notify their respective experts BEFORE they testify.

The motion is also denied on the second basis requested in the motion, i.e. an absence of

Case 1:02-cv-05741-LJO-DLB Document 198 Filed 06/12/08 Page 1 of 2
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

2

reliability based specifically on a failure to mention specifics regarding the CHP policy or practice. The

Zwickey report is light on mention and analysis concerning the CHP policy or practice but mentions that

this is one basis for his opinions. The Court agrees with the opposition that once mentioned, it was the

function of the deposition to discover the specifics relied upon.

The third basis for claimed relief in the motion is similarly denied. There is nothing to suggest

that the expert testimony of BOTH expert witnesses (one on each side) will be void of adequate

explanations. It will be up to the jury to weigh the testimony on credibility factors.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 12, 2008 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

66h44d UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:02-cv-05741-LJO-DLB Document 198 Filed 06/12/08 Page 2 of 2