Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-00288/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-00288-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 443
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Accommodations
Cause of Action: 42:3601 Fair Housing Act

---

– 1 – 16cv288

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

NATSUE ELLIOTT, et al., 

Plaintiffs,

Case No. 16-cv-00288-BAS-AGS

ORDER GRANTING 

PLAINTIFFS’ MOTIONS TO 

EXCLUDE FROM TRIAL THE 

TESTIMONY OF DEFENDANTS’ 

DESIGNATED EXPERT 

WITNESSES ROBERT 

GRISWOLD AND BOB EVANS

[ECF Nos. 181, 182 ]

v.

VERSA CIC, L.P., et al., 

Defendants.

Plaintiffs have filed motions in limine to exclude from trial the expert witness 

testimony of Robert Griswold and Bob Evans, two individuals whom Defendants 

Versa CIC, L.P. (“Versa”) and ConAm Management Corporation (“ConAm”) 

(together, “Defendants”) have designated as expert witnesses for trial. (ECF Nos. 

181, 182.) Defendants oppose. (ECF No. 187.) For the reasons herein, the Court 

grants Plaintiffs’ motions to exclude from trial the testimony of Griswold and Evans. 

LEGAL STANDARD

A party may use a motion in limine to exclude inadmissible or prejudicial 

evidence before it is introduced at trial. Luce v. United States, 469 U.S. 38, 40 n.2 

(1984). The motion is an important tool available to the trial judge to ensure the 

Case 3:16-cv-00288-BAS-AGS Document 205 Filed 11/16/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 4
– 2 – 16cv288

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

expeditious and evenhanded management of the trial proceedings. See Jonasson v. 

Lutheran Child & Family Servs., 115 F.3d 436, 440 (7th Cir. 1997). By resolving 

the motion, potentially prejudicial evidence may be prevented from being presented 

to the jury, therefore avoiding the need for the trial judge to attempt to neutralize the 

taint of prejudicial evidence. See Brodit v. Cambra, 350 F.3d 985, 1004–05 (9th Cir. 

2003). 

A motion in limine may be used to exclude or limit an expert’s testimony. “[I]t 

is the proponent of the expert who has the burden of proving admissibility.” Lust v. 

Merrell Dow Pharms., Inc., 89 F.3d 594, 598 (9th Cir. 1996). Federal Rule of 

Evidence 702 supplies the general standard applicable to admission of expert 

testimony. Under the Rule, “[a] witness who is qualified as an expert by knowledge, 

skill, experience, training, or education may testify in the form of an opinion or 

otherwise . . .” Fed. R. Evid. 702. The Rule imposes various constraints, the most 

relevant of which for the purpose of the present motions is that “the expert’s 

scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge” must “help the trier of fact to 

understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue.” Id. 702(a) (emphasis 

added). The admission of an expert witnesses requires that the witness’s testimony 

“both rests on a reliable foundation and is relevant to the task at hand.” Daubert v. 

Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 597 (1993) (emphasis added). 

ANALYSIS

Resolution of Plaintiffs’ motions to exclude largely turns on whether 

admission of the testimony of Robert Griswold and Bob Evans will “help the trier of 

fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue.” Fed. R. Evid. 702(a). 

The Court concludes it will not. In view of the Court’s summary judgment order and 

the Final Pretrial Order, there are two overarching liability issues remaining for trial: 

(1) did Defendants make statements that suggest to the ordinary listener a preference, 

limitation, or discrimination in connection with the sale or rental of a dwelling, and 

(2) did Defendants intentionally discriminate against Plaintiffs by treating them 

Case 3:16-cv-00288-BAS-AGS Document 205 Filed 11/16/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 4
– 3 – 16cv288

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

differently on the basis of Elliott’s disability. (ECF No. 178 (Final Pretrial Order); 

ECF No. 181 at 2–3.) Resolution of these issues does not “require[] expert testimony 

since a lay jury is capable of understanding the facts and issues here to reach a 

determination without the aid of an expert, since for this purpose ‘scientific technical, 

or other specialized knowledge’ is not required.” See Brink v. Union Carbide Corp., 

41 F. Supp. 2d 402, 405 (S.D.N.Y. 1997) (citations omitted). The Court does not 

otherwise find the testimony of Evans and Griswold—neither of whom is being 

proffered as a fact witness—appropriate for this task.

First, Defendants seek to rely on Evans’s testimony solely to establish that the 

area in which Plaintiffs parked and at which they were allegedly subject to disparate 

treatment on the basis of Elliott’s disability was a fire lane. (ECF No. 182-3.) That 

Evans has a background in architecture and architectural design does not mean that 

he has expertise relevant to the evaluation of claims concerning housing

discrimination on the basis of disability. See Brink, 41 F. Supp. 2d 402 at 405. Evans

does not indicate that he has such a background. Whether the area in which Plaintiffs 

allegedly parked was a fire lane or not, the issue for the jury to decide is whether 

Defendants’ reasons for their alleged conduct turned on Elliott’s alleged disability. 

Second, it is clear to the Court that through the guise of an expert on real estate 

and property management “standards of care,” Defendants seek to proffer Robert 

Griswold to opine on the ultimate question of whether Plaintiffs suffered 

discrimination in violation of federal and state law. That Robert Griswold has a 

background in real estate and property management does not mean that he has 

expertise relevant to the evaluation of housing discrimination claims concerning 

discrimination on the basis of disability. Id. In fact, Griswold’s report does not 

proclaim any expertise in evaluating claims of housing discrimination broadly, or the 

disability discrimination at the heart of this case. (See generally ECF No. 181-3 

(copy of Griswold report dated April 12, 2017).) A review of Griswold’s report 

reveals to the Court that his “‘expert’ opinions are merely his own assessment of the 

Case 3:16-cv-00288-BAS-AGS Document 205 Filed 11/16/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 4
– 4 – 16cv288

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

facts.” Benhabib v. Hughes Elecs. Corp., No. CV 04-0095 CAS (VBKx), 2006 WL 

5014569, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 6, 2006).1 “[W]here an expert becomes an advocate 

for a cause, he therefore departs from the ranks of an objective expert witness, and 

any resulting testimony would be unfairly prejudicial and misleading.” Viterbo v. 

Dow Chemical Co., 646 F. Supp. 1420, 1425–26 (E.D. Tex. 1986), aff’d, 826 F.2d 

420 (5th Cir. 1987). 

CONCLUSION & ORDER

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs’ motions to exclude from trial the 

testimony of Robert Griswold and Bob Evans are GRANTED. (ECF Nos. 181, 182.) 

The Court EXCLUDES Griswold and Evans from testifying at trial.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: November 16, 2018

 

1 Griswold begins his report by concluding that “I do not see any supporting evidence or 

testimony based on the materials I have reviewed to date that confirms any such allegation of 

discrimination or failure to properly respond to a reasonable accommodation request.” (ECF No. 

181-3 at 4.) He then proceeds to give his views on the facts. Even setting aside the issues with 

Griswold’s opining on the ultimate issue of discrimination, six of Griswold’s eight opinions are no 

longer relevant in view of the Court’s order granting summary judgment for Defendants on 

Plaintiffs’ reasonable accommodation claims. (Compare ECF No. 167 at 12–30 with ECF No. 181-

3 at ¶¶ 2–3 (larger apartment request), ¶¶ 5–7 (handicap parking space), ¶ 8 (apartment lockout).) 

Griswold’s remaining opinion concerns fire lanes at Defendants’ property (id. ¶ 4), which the Court 

has concluded does not require expert testimony. 

Case 3:16-cv-00288-BAS-AGS Document 205 Filed 11/16/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 4