1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 

CASE NO.: 1:22-cv-24066-KMM 

GRACE, INC.; ENGAGE MIAMI, INC.; 

SOUTH DADE BRANCH OF THE NAACP; 

MIAMI-DADE BRANCH OF THE NAACP; 

CLARICE COOPER; YANELIS VALDES; 

JARED JOHNSON; and ALEXANDER 

CONTRERAS, 

 Plaintiffs, 

v. 

CITY OF MIAMI, 

 Defendant. 

________________________________________/ 

MOTION TO STRIKE CAROLYN ABOTT’S IMPROPER OPINIONS ASSESSING THE 

CREDIBILITY OF WITNESSES AND SPECULATING ABOUT THE CITY’S 

CONSIDERATIONS AND MOTIVATIONS IN CREATING A NEW PLAN 

 Defendant, City of Miami (the “City” or “Defendant”), hereby moves to strike Dr. Carolyn 

Abott’s opinions, [DE 82-12], which improperly weigh the credibility of witnesses and speculate 

as to the City’s motivations, intentions, or considerations in enacting a new redistricting plan, [see 

DE 77], and in support thereof, states as follows:

INTRODUCTION 

 The City of Miami enacted a new redistricting plan, City of Miami Resolution 23-271 (the 

“Plan” or the “Enacted Plan”), after this Court preliminarily enjoined its earlier plan, City of Miami

Resolution 22-131. [See DE 77]. The Enacted Plan is based, in part, on a proposed plan submitted 

by Plaintiffs after the injunction issued. Prior to the City’s enactment of the Plan, at a June 14, 

2023 Miami City Commission meeting (the “June 14 Meeting”), Miguel De Grandy presented a 

proposed plan—which, with some minor changes, became the Enacted Plan. De Grandy explained 

Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 87 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/12/2023 Page 1 of 9
2 

the considerations, motivations, and intentions in drawing that proposal and articulated the reasons 

for reworking parts of Plaintiffs’ proposal. The Miami City Commissioners also discussed their 

priorities and provided input. The considerations were clear and unequivocal, and are reflected in 

the June 14 Meeting Transcript [DE 82-2]: neither De Grandy nor any of the City Commissioners 

improperly relied upon racial, ethnic, or other characteristics in creating the Enacted Plan. 

 On July 7, 2023, however, Plaintiffs filed Objections to the Enacted Plan, [DE 83], 

claiming that it “remains racially gerrymandered.” [DE 83, at 8]. Plaintiffs rely in large part on 

the Second Expert Report of Dr. Carolyn Abott, dated July 5, 2023, [DE 82-12], in which—

notwithstanding De Grandy’s and the Commissioner’s unequivocal statements about their 

considerations and concerns—Dr. Abott inexplicably “conclu[ded]” that the changes in the City’s 

proposed new map “appear to continue to be designed around racial and ethnic considerations,” 

and “[t]here is no basis on which to make the argument that these considerations were instead 

partisan in nature.” [DE 82-12, at 13]. But Dr. Abott’s so-called conclusions are irreconcilable 

with the City’s stated intentions. They are not an appropriate subject for expert testimony because 

they are speculative and impermissibly comment on the credibility of De Grandy and the City 

Commissioners. The City respectfully requests the Court to strike these improper opinions and 

decline to consider them in connection with Plaintiff’s Objections. 

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

De Grandy’s Presentation at the June 14 Meeting

De Grandy used one of Plaintiffs’ proposed plans “as a template,” [DE 82-2, at 9:1-3, 11:5-

6], and made changes that took “into account the political and policy considerations, such as where 

commissioners have invested district resources in their projects, or the need to balance poor areas 

with areas that have significant economic potential . . . .” [DE 82-2, at 11:23-12:2]. In other 

Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 87 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/12/2023 Page 2 of 9
3 

words, while Plaintiffs’ plan “concentrate[d] the most conservative voters into” District 4, [DE 

82-2, at 14:21-22, 15:22-23], De Grandy’s changes to Plaintiffs’ plan were intended to “result in 

a different political calculus.” [DE 82-2, at 12:3-5]. His proposal used “natural and manmade 

boundaries,” such as “municipal boundaries, the bay, the railroad, the Miami river, an expressway, 

and the contours of traditional neighborhoods,” [DE 82-2, at 12:22-13:4, 15:16-17], and placed an 

emphasis on “keeping as many communities of interest together as feasible,” [DE 82-2, at 12:10-

11]. 

For example, in Plaintiffs’ proposed plan, “the most conservative voters from the northwest 

part of Flagami and West Flagler” were removed from District 1, and parts of Overtown were 

moved into District 1, resulting “in a more liberal-leaning electorate . . . .” [DE 82-2, at 10:7-9]. 

But De Grandy felt that because Plaintiffs’ plan “sever[ed] parts of Overtown,” it could “negatively 

impact the ability of th[at] compact and cohesive community to have an equal opportunity to elect” 

its candidate of choice. [DE 82-2, at 8:15-17]. Thus, he proposed “keep[ing] historic Overtown 

intact in District 5.” [DE 82-2, at 11:3-6]. This was in line with Commissioner King’s “strong 

advoca[cy]” to keep Overtown in her district to improve “issues such as affordable housing [and] 

public transit solutions” and to promote economic growth in “what she has publicly described as 

the lowest per capita income district in the city.” [DE 82-2, at 12:12-22]. 

Similarly, De Grandy’s proposed boundaries for Districts 3 and 4 were “based, in part, on 

the request of Commissioner Reyes to maintain in his district areas such as Shenandoah,” [DE 82-

2, at 15:2-12], so District 3 “wraps around District 4 . . . to preserve most of Shenandoah in [District 

4], while preserving Little Havana intact in” District 3. [DE 82-2, at 15:13-14]. And the proposal 

shifted the entirety of “the Bahamian Grove” into District 2 which, Commissioner King noted, was 

Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 87 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/12/2023 Page 3 of 9
4 

a “huge contention” with the previous map that split the Bahamian Grove out of District 2. [DE 

82-2, at 84:1-18]. 

Miami City Commissioners’ Input

After De Grandy’s presentation, Commissioners Carollo and Reyes discussed certain 

changes to De Grandy’s proposal to balance populations within the districts: Commissioner Reyes, 

for example, stated his “belief” that “Domino Park should be part of District 3, Little Havana,” 

[DE 82-2, at 36:22-23], and Commissioner Carollo immediately proposed a “simple” solution to 

maintain that area intact—without first referencing or reviewing the demographics in the areas at 

issue. [DE 82-2, at 37:1-2]. 

The Commissioners also discussed “small, minute tweaks” to the map, concerned only with 

the population numbers and not improperly relying on demographics. [DE 82-2, at 37:4-39:10]. 

One such change was “cut[ting]” Coconut Grove, which Commissioner Carollo believed was 

acceptable because, although “One Grove” “sounds great,” there are “many, many different 

communities” or “neighborhoods” within Coconut Grove, each with “major differences.” [DE 82-

2, at 40:9-15]. He explained, for example, that one “neighborhood” is “walled in” and “pay[s] for 

[its] own security”; another has “reduced” lot sizes, with less expensive, older homes that are being 

“fix[ed] up”; yet another has “a lot of townhouses” and apartments; in South Grove, “you get into, 

again, very expensive areas”; and then there is “what we now have named Little Havana, the old 

Black Grove,” which is “changing every week because it’s being gentrified like there’s no 

tomorrow.” [DE 82-2, at 39:18-40:12]. 

Additionally, Commissioners Covo and King discussed a desire to keep Morningside 

united, [DE 82-2, at 43:15-46:23], Commissioner Carollo wanted his district to retain a “little 

square” in Silver Bluff where his district had “just invested some significant amounts in a park,” 

Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 87 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/12/2023 Page 4 of 9
5 

[DE 82-2, at 35:13-15], and Commissioners King and Diaz de la Portilla agreed to keep a 

restaurant, People’s Bar-B-Que, in District 5 because it is “a historic restaurant that means a lot to

that community,” [DE 82-2, at 70:9-21]. The Enacted Plan was passed after the Meeting, on June 

14, 2023. 

Dr. Abott’s Second Report

 Without referencing any of the foregoing statements or discussions from the June 14 

Meeting, and after essentially comparing only the demographics in the City’s previously enjoined 

plan to the newly Enacted Plan, Dr. Abott concluded that race was the primary determinant of the 

district boundaries. [DE 82-12, at 1-2, 11-13]. She claimed that she reached her conclusions based 

upon her “personal knowledge,” and “the standard methodology that political scientists use when 

investigating precinct and census data.” [DE 82-12, at 1-2]. Respectfully, the City submits that 

they are speculative, unreliable, and should be stricken. 

ARGUMENT 

DR. ABOTT’S CONCLUSIONS ARE SPECULATIVE AND OUTSIDE THE BOUNDS OF 

PERMISSIBLE EXPERT TESTIMONY BECAUSE THEY COMMENT ON THE CITY’S 

MOTIVATIONS AND CONSIDERATIONS, AND IMPROPERLY WEIGH THE 

CREDIBILITY OF WITNESSES 

 Under Federal Rule of Evidence 702, an expert may not opine on state of mind, motive, or 

intent: “[t]hese matters are not the proper subject of expert opinion” and, rather, are merely 

“matters to be argued by counsel based on the evidence.” In re Seroquel Products Liability 

Litigation, No. 6:06-md-1769, 2009 WL 3806436, at *4 (M.D. Fla. July 20, 2009); see also Plain 

Bay Sales, LLC v. Gallaher, No. 18-cv-80581, 2022 WL 585707, at *4 (S.D. Fla. Feb. 25, 2022) 

(“[N]either of the experts shall be permitted to testify, opine, or speculate about the intent or motive 

of any person, party, or witness, or whether any person, party, or witness was or is honest or 

truthful, or made misrepresentations, false statements, or omissions.”); Santos v. Experian 

Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 87 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/12/2023 Page 5 of 9
6 

Information Solutions, Inc., No. 19-23084, 2021 WL 6144643, at *4 (S.D. Fla. Nov. 30, 2021) 

(expert opinion on “knowledge and motive” is “improper[]”); Kirchman v. Novartis 

Pharmaceuticals Corp., No. 8:06-cv-1787, 2014 WL 12617778, at *2 (M.D. Fla. May 22, 2014) 

(precluding expert from “opin[ing] on [defendant’s] intent, motive, or alleged bad faith”). 

In the same vein, “[i]t is settled law in the Eleventh Circuit that expert testimony concerning 

the truthfulness or credibility of a witness is inadmissible because it invades the jury’s province in

determining credibility.” Day v. Edenfield, No. 5:19cv506, 2022 WL 972430, at *8 (N.D. Fla. 

March 31, 2022); Jetport, Inc. v. Landmark Aviation Miami, LLC, No. 1:16-cv-23303, 2017 WL 

7734095, at *9 (S.D. Fla. July 19, 2017) (excluding expert opinion regarding causation because 

they were, “in effect, expert opinions concerning witnesses’ credibility, which is improper under 

Daubert”); Ibarra v. Future Motion, Inc., No. 22-cv-14067, 2023 WL 3215817, at *4 (S.D. Fla. 

May 2, 2023) (precluding testimony regarding “the credibility of Plaintiff or any other party or 

witness,” the “interpretation” of testimony, and “the meaning behind certain statements made by 

[p]laintiff,” because “[t]his is not the proper role of any expert witness”)

Dr. Abott’s report violates these fundamental principles. In concluding that “[r]ace is still 

the primary determinant of the shapes of the districts” in the Enacted Plan, [DE 82-12, at 1], and 

that “[t]here is no basis on which to make the argument that these considerations were instead 

partisan in nature,” [DE 82-12, at 13], Dr. Abott is effectively declaring that she does not believe 

De Grandy or the Commissioners, who unequivocally stated their concerns and considerations—

none of which impermissibly involved race—on the record at the June 14 Meeting. [DE 82-2]. 

Further, she is improperly speculating about their intentions, which she has no way of knowing. 

Indeed, directly contrary to Dr. Abott’s “conclusions,” De Grandy explained that the 

district boundaries were created beginning with Plaintiffs’ proposed plan, with changes to account 

Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 87 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/12/2023 Page 6 of 9
7 

for Commissioners’ concerns and priorities in their respective districts—including economic 

growth, political concerns, and maintaining the integrity and unity of particular neighborhoods. 

This was further confirmed and underscored by multiple comments and requests made by each of 

the Commissioners; notably, during the June 14 Meeting while the Commissioners proposed and 

discussed changes to the district boundaries, no one questioned the demographics or racial makeup 

of any area; on the contrary, they were concerned with balancing the size of the districts, in terms 

of population numbers only. [See DE 82-2, at 41:12-19]. The Enacted Plan also takes into account 

(and corrects) certain objections to the enjoined plan: for example, by moving the entirety of the 

“Bahamian Grove” into District 2. 

Of course, Plaintiffs may challenge these stated considerations in drawing the Enacted Plan 

through argument or cross-examination1at the appropriate time. But the law makes clear that 

credibility determinations rest squarely within the purview of the factfinder—not an expert. Stated 

simply, Dr. Abott’s conclusions amount to nothing more than improper speculation, and they 

should thus be stricken. In re Trasylol Products Liability Litigation, No. 08-MD-01928, 2010 WL 

1489793, at *9 (S.D. Fla. Feb. 24, 2010) (finding opinion “inadmissible because it rests on 

speculation about . . . subjective motivations, which is not a proper subject for expert testimony”); 

Hilson v. GEICO Gen. Ins. Co., No. 8:11-cv-00013, 2013 WL 12156414, at *4 (M.D. Fla. Aug. 

13, 2013) (excluding expert and lay testimony as to motive); Taylor v. Novartis Pharmaceuticals 

Corp., No. 06-61337, 2013 WL 5118945, at *3 (S.D. Fla. Apr. 22, 2013) (“The question of intent 

 

1

 This is not to suggest that any City commissioner has waived their legislative privilege, but even 

if they refuse to do so, speculative attacks on their intent are not justified by the assertion of a 

privilege. See Vill. of Arlington Heights v. Metro. Hous. Dev. Corp., 429 U.S. 252, 268 (1977) 

(discussing the types of evidence that may indicate “whether invidious discriminatory purpose was 

a motivating factor” and observing that in “extraordinary circumstances” commissioners may be 

called to testify, but “even then such testimony frequently will be barred by privilege”). 

Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 87 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/12/2023 Page 7 of 9
8 

or motive is a classic jury question and not one for experts.”) (quoting In re Trasylol Products 

Liability Litigation, 2010 WL 1489793, at *8 (excluding expert testimony regarding FDA and 

corporate defendant’s desire and state of mind)). 

CONCLUSION 

 For these reasons, the City respectfully requests the Court to strike Dr. Abott’s report and 

decline to consider her opinions regarding the credibility of any witnesses or the City’s 

motivations, intentions, and considerations in creating the Enacted Plan. 

Respectfully submitted, 

GRAYROBINSON, P.A.

333 S.E. 2nd Avenue, Suite 3200 

Miami, Florida 33131 

Telephone: (305) 416-6880 

Facsimile: (305) 416-6887 

 By: s/ Christopher N. Johnson 

Christopher N. Johnson 

 Florida Bar No. 69329 

Email: Christopher.Johnson@gray-robinson.com 

Marlene Quintana, B.C.S. 

Florida Bar No. 88358 

Email: Marlene.Quintana@gray-robinson.com 

GRAYROBINSON, P.A. 

Jason L. Unger, Esquire 

Florida Bar No. 991562 

George T. Levesque 

Florida Bar No. 55551 

Andy Bardos 

Florida Bar No. 822671 

301 S. Bronough Street 

Suite 600 

Tallahassee, Florida 32301 

Telephone: (850) 577-9090 

Facsimile: (850) 577-3311 

CITY OF MIAMI 

VICTORIA MENDEZ, City Attorney 

Florida Bar No. 194931 

JOHN A. GRECO, Chief Deputy City Attorney 

Florida Bar No. 991236 

KEVIN R. JONES, Deputy City Attorney 

Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 87 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/12/2023 Page 8 of 9
9 

Florida Bar No. 119067 

KERRI L. MCNULTY

Litigation & Appeals Division Chief 

Florida Bar No. 16171 

Office of the City Attorney 

444 S.W. 2nd Avenue 

Miami, FL 33130 

Telephone: (305) 416-1800 

Facsimile: (305) 416-1801 

 Attorneys for Defendant 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

 I hereby certify that on July 12, 2023, I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of the 

Court by using the CM/ECF. I also certify that the foregoing document is being served this day on all

counsel of record or pro se parties either via transmission of Notice of Electronic Filing generated by 

CM/ECF or in some other authorized manner for those counsel or parties who are not authorized to 

receive electronically Notices of Electronic Filing. 

 By: s/ Christopher N. Johnson 

Christopher N. Johnson, Esq. 

Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 87 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/12/2023 Page 9 of 9