UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

Amy Chavez,

Plaintiff, Case No. 09-12336

v. Hon. Sean F. Cox

Waterford School District,

Defendants.

______________________________/

OPINION & ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION IN LIMINE TO STRIKE

INAPPROPRIATE EXPERT AND OPINION TESTIMONY, REGARDING THE DE

BENE ESSE DEPOSITION OF LINDA FREEZE

The parties in this case have filed 14 motions in limine and one motion for sanctions. 

Plaintiff Amy Chavez (“Chavez”) filed this ADA claim against her former employer, Defendant

Waterford School District (“Defendant”) asserting claims under the Americans with Disabilities

Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq. (Count I) and Michigan’s Persons with Disabilities Civil Rights

Act, M.C.L. § 37.1201 et seq. (Count II). [Doc. No. 18]. The matter is currently before the

Court on Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine to Strike Inappropriate Expert and Opinion Testimony,

Regarding the De Bene Esse Deposition of Linda Freeze [Doc. No. 115]. The parties have

briefed the issues and the Court declines to hold oral argument pursuant to Local Rule 7.1(f)(2). 

For the reasons below, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion.

ANALYSIS

Plaintiff seeks to preclude Defendant from introducing certain testimony from the

deposition of Laura Freeze, a teacher and one of Plaintiff’s former co-workers. Plaintiff alleges

that a portion of Ms. Freeze’s testimony discussed matters which “require specialized knowledge

of pedagogical, education, and medical/scientific knowledge.” Id. at 2. Plaintiff further asserts

2:09-cv-12336-SFC-MKM Doc # 171 Filed 03/14/11 Pg 1 of 3 Pg ID 1968
that no foundation has been laid to qualify Ms. Freeze as an expert on the matters to which she

testified, in violation of Fed. R. Evid. 701 and 702. The testimony that Plaintiff seeks to exclude

is found on Page 10, Lines 12-15, and Page 12, Lines 14-15 of the deposition transcript [Tr. of

Dep. of Laura Freeze, Doc. No. 115, Ex. 1], and reads:

Q: Now being someone who has taught middle school social

studies and math, would you think that that would result in

less communication, or less talking by Amy to her students?

A: I don’t see how social studies allows you less talking. What

it would allow is fewer students to get to know. Instead of

having four separate groups of children in math, she would

have the same students for social studies and math.

Q: But - - 

A: But you still have to talk the same amount of time.

Q: Okay.

A: At least that’s how it worked for me. I don know what her

plan was.

(P. 10)

* * *

Q: Okay. Based on your 31 years as a teacher, do you think it’s

beneficial that students have substitutes for two months at a

time?

A: (Nodding.)

Q: No?

A: Personal opinion would be no.

Q: Okay. Did you think that the students in Ms. Chavez’s

classes were getting the best education that the Waterford

Schools could offer?

A: I think having substitute teachers come in for extended

periods of time, and that the back and forth, was not ideal for

them.

(P. 12)

Tr. of Dep. of Laura Freeze at 10, 12. 

Defendant first asserts that Plaintiff has waived any objections to the de bene esse

deposition because Plaintiff failed to object to the testimony at the time of the deposition. [Doc.

No. 132 at 2]. Defendant also asserts that Ms. Freeze is qualified “to give opinions relating to

the amount of speaking by a teacher teaching social studies as opposed to math, as well as the

2:09-cv-12336-SFC-MKM Doc # 171 Filed 03/14/11 Pg 2 of 3 Pg ID 1969
impact that frequent and/or extended substitute teachers have on the education of children.” Id.

Notwithstanding the issue of Plaintiff’s potential waiver of objections, the Court finds

that Ms. Freeze is qualified under Fed. R. Evid. 702 to testify as to the matters objected to by

Plaintiff. With more than 30 years of experience teaching both math and social studies, Ms.

Freeze possesses the specialized knowledge and experience to opine on whether a teacher speaks

more while teaching a math class, as oppose to a social studies. Furthermore, Ms. Freeze is

qualified to testify regarding the impact that long-term periods of substitute teaching has on

students.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons above, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion in limine.

IT IS SO ORDERED

S/Sean F. Cox 

Sean F. Cox

United States District Judge

Dated: March 14, 2011

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon counsel of record on

March 14, 2011, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

S/Jennifer Hernandez 

Case Manager

2:09-cv-12336-SFC-MKM Doc # 171 Filed 03/14/11 Pg 3 of 3 Pg ID 1970