Court Opinion

ID: 9963610
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-25 21:00:53.61735+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:24:53.871181
License: Public Domain

In the

    United States Court of Appeals
                 For the Seventh Circuit
                     ____________________
No. 23-1960
XINGJIAN SUN, et al.,
                                                Plaintiffs-Appellants,
                                 v.

GARY GANG XU,
                                                 Defendant-Appellee.
                     ____________________

         Appeal from the United States District Court for the
                     Central District of Illinois.
         No. 2:19-cv-02242 — Eric I. Long, Magistrate Judge.
                     ____________________

    ARGUED FEBRUARY 7, 2024 — DECIDED APRIL 25, 2024
                ____________________

   Before WOOD, LEE, and PRYOR, Circuit Judges.
    LEE, Circuit Judge. Appellants Xingjian Sun and Xing Zhao
accused their professor, Appellee Gary Gang Xu, of sexually
and emotionally abusing them while the two were students at
the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign (UIUC). Sun
and Zhao brought these allegations to UIUC administrators,
and Sun later publicized them during an interview on a na-
tionally televised morning news show. Meanwhile, Appellant
Ao Wang, a professor at Wesleyan University, learned of these
2                                                  No. 23-1960

allegations and posted on an online message board that Xu
had a history of sexually assaulting students, to which Xu re-
sponded by posting negative comments about Wang and by
allegedly sending a letter to his employer.
    Sun, Zhao, and Wang eventually sued Xu: Sun and Zhao
claimed that Xu had sexually assaulted them and others, and
Wang claimed that Xu had wrongfully retaliated against him
for his internet posts. Relevant to this appeal, Xu counter-
claimed, asserting a defamation claim against Sun and claims
for intentional inﬂiction of emotional distress against Sun,
Zhao, and Wang. After a trial, a jury found in favor of Xu on
all issues and awarded him damages against Sun and Wang.
Now, on appeal, Sun and Wang argue that the district court
erred in denying their motion for judgment as a matter of law
as to Xu’s intentional inﬂiction of emotional distress counter-
claims. Appellants also contend that the district court erred in
denying their motion for a new trial, which they believe is
necessary based on the court’s decision to admit evidence that
Sun had a relationship with another professor. For the follow-
ing reasons, we reverse the judgment in favor of Xu on his
counterclaim against Wang. In all other respects, the judg-
ment below is aﬃrmed.
    I.    Background
    While a graduate student at UIUC in 2013, Sun asked Xu,
then a professor in the Department of East Asian Language
and Culture, to advise her project on Chinese ﬁlm. Over time,
Sun alleges, she and Xu engaged in a sexual relationship, a
claim Xu has repeatedly denied. According to Sun, the rela-
tionship turned violent and non-consensual. Indeed, Sun
claims Xu violently raped her, publicly chased her in a car,
and attempted to kill her. Sun told the police and UIUC
No. 23-1960                                                  3

administrators about the relationship, and the University
launched multiple investigations into Xu’s conduct. Sun
would later write an email to UIUC recanting her allegations
against Xu and admitting she had fabricated the stories.
    Zhao was a graduate student at UIUC and assisted Xu
with a book he was writing. Zhao alleged that Xu attempted
to kiss and grab her at an art exhibit. Zhao reported these al-
legations, along with concerns about Xu’s relationship with
Sun, to UIUC. Xu denies he ever assaulted Zhao.
    Wang is a professor at Wesleyan University in Mid-
dletown, Connecticut. Wang and Xu had only met once, but
Wang saw social media posts accusing Xu of rape, sexual as-
sault, and predatory behavior. On March 10, 2018, Wang
wrote a post on douban.com, an online message board, stat-
ing that Xu had committed “numerous misdeeds.” Wang
claimed that Xu had “sexually assaulted students for nearly
20 years, and ﬁnally had to resign and work in another uni-
versity.” Wang also wrote,
      The information I have is that Gang Xu had im-
      proper relationships with many students, so
      that the university did not schedule classes for
      him, hoping that he would leave by himself.
      Frankly speaking, such a notorious person
      should be excluded from the education sector. If
      he chooses to work in a university in the Chi-
      nese mainland, students who are not aware of
      his misdeeds may become victims. So I give a
      warning here.
According to Wang, his “core purpose” in making the post
was to “[g]ive a warning to prevent people from becoming
4                                                 No. 23-1960

next victims [sic] and exclude the misbehaving persons like
Gary Gang Xu from the education sector.” To that end, Wang
encouraged students to “inform each other” of Xu’s mis-
deeds, if universities did not punish Xu appropriately. Mere
hours after Wang posted on douban.com, Xu responded to
Wang via email, denying the claims and threatening legal ac-
tion. A week later, Wang republished his comments on a dif-
ferent message board, zhihu.com. These posts apparently re-
ceived over one million views.
    In 2019, Sun, Zhao, and Wang ﬁled a ten-count complaint
against Xu, claiming he had abused and raped multiple stu-
dents, forced Sun and Zhao into unpaid labor, and improp-
erly retaliated against Wang for publicizing the allegations.
The suit garnered much media attention, and Sun appeared
on CBS This Morning, a nationally broadcast morning news
show, to publicize her allegations. In her interview, Sun
claimed that Xu had tried to run her over with a car and had
subjected her to physical, sexual, and emotional abuse, in-
cluding numerous instances of rape. The broadcast also in-
cluded an image of Sun with a blackened eye purportedly
caused by Xu.
    In his answer to the complaint, Xu denied all of the claims
and brought counterclaims accusing Sun of defamation and
Sun, Zhao, and Wang of intentional inﬂiction of emotional
distress. After discovery, the parties ﬁled cross-motions for
summary judgment, and the district court allowed several of
Appellants’ claims, as well as Xu’s counterclaims, to proceed
to trial.
    The trial took three days, and the jury returned a verdict
against Sun, Zhao, and Wang on their claims against Xu. As
for Xu’s counterclaims, the jury found in favor of Xu and
No. 23-1960                                                    5

awarded him $100,000 in compensatory damages against Sun
and $700,000 in compensatory and punitive damages against
Wang.
    At the conclusion of trial, Appellants asked the court to en-
ter judgment as a matter of law pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 50(b) or, alternatively, for a new trial pursu-
ant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59. Relevant to this ap-
peal, Wang and Sun argued that no reasonable jury could ﬁnd
their conduct met the standard for intentional inﬂiction of
emotional distress under Illinois law. Appellants also asserted
that a new trial was warranted because the district court’s de-
cision to admit testimony regarding Sun’s relationship with
another professor was unduly prejudicial in violation of Fed-
eral Rule of Evidence 412. The district court denied these mo-
tions, and Appellants now appeal.
   II.      Discussion
    We review the district court’s denial of judgment as a mat-
ter of law de novo, viewing all facts and making all reasonable
inferences in the light most favorable to the non-moving
party. Van Stan v. Fancy Colours & Co., 125 F.3d 563, 567 (7th
Cir. 1997). We review the district court’s denial of a request
for a new trial and the district court’s decision to allow testi-
mony under a highly deferential abuse of discretion standard.
United States v. Young, 955 F.3d 608, 614 (7th Cir. 2020).
         A. Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law
   Appellants Sun and Wang argue that the trial record does
not support the jury’s verdict on Xu’s intentional inﬂiction of
emotional distress claims. A court may enter judgment as a
matter of law under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50(b) if a
party has been “fully heard on an issue during a jury trial and
6                                                  No. 23-1960

the court ﬁnds that a reasonable jury would not have a legally
suﬃcient evidentiary basis to ﬁnd for the party on that issue.”
Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(b). As such, we reverse only if no reasonable
juror could have found on the trial record that Xu established
all the elements of the claim. See Van Stan, 125 F.3d at 567. In
conducting this analysis, we view all evidence in the light
most favorable to Xu, the non-moving party, and draw all rea-
sonable inferences in his favor. Mangren Rsch. & Dev. Corp. v.
Nat’l Chem. Co., 87 F.3d 937, 941 (7th Cir. 1996).
    To prevail on an intentional inﬂiction of emotional distress
claim under Illinois law, a claimant must prove three ele-
ments. Schweihs v. Chase Home Fin., LLC, 77 N.E.3d 50, 63 (Ill.
2016). First, the conduct in question was truly extreme and
outrageous. Id. Second, the actor intended to inﬂict severe
emotional distress or knew that there was at least a high prob-
ability that his conduct would have caused such distress. Id.
Third, the conduct in fact caused severe emotional distress. Id.
    The tort “does not extend to ‘mere insults, indignities,
threats, annoyances, petty oppressions, or other trivialities.’”
McGrath v. Fahey, 533 N.E.2d 806, 809 (Ill. 1988) (quoting Re-
statement (Second) of Torts § 46 cmt. d (1965)). Liability is
found only when “the conduct has been so outrageous in
character, and so extreme in degree, as to go beyond all pos-
sible bounds of decency, and to be regarded as atrocious, and
utterly intolerable in a civilized community.” Id. (quoting Re-
statement (Second) of Torts § 46 cmt. d (1965)).
          1. Claim Against Wang
     Wang contends that no reasonable jury could ﬁnd on this
record that his conduct was extreme and outrageous under
Illinois law. We agree.
No. 23-1960                                                     7

    The Illinois Supreme Court has identiﬁed three non-
exclusive factors that inform whether conduct is extreme and
outrageous. McGrath, 533 N.E.2d at 809–10. First, the extreme
and outrageous nature of the conduct may arise from
defendant’s “abuse of some position that gives him authority
over the plaintiﬀ or the power to aﬀect the plaintiﬀ’s
interests.” Schweihs, 77 N.E.3d at 63. Second, courts consider
the reasonableness of a defendant’s belief that his objective is
legitimate. McGrath, 533 N.E.2d at 811. Third, courts evaluate
whether the defendant is aware that the plaintiﬀ is
particularly susceptible to emotional distress. Kolegas v. Heftel
Broad. Corp., 607 N.E.2d 201, 211 (Ill. 1992). These factors are
“to be considered in light of all of the facts and circumstances
in a particular case, and the presence or absence of any of
these factors is not necessarily critical to a cause of action for
intentional inﬂiction of emotional distress.” Schweihs, 77
N.E.3d at 63. The outrageousness of the conduct “must be
determined in view of all the facts and circumstances pled
and proved in a particular case.” Id.
    No reasonable jury could ﬁnd on this record that Wang’s
conduct exhibited any of these factors. Wang did not abuse a
position of power over Xu, as both parties admit they barely
knew each other. Nor is there any indication that Wang knew
that Xu was particularly susceptible to emotional distress. The
only debatable point is whether Wang reasonably believed
that his objective was legitimate. In this regard, Illinois courts
give greater latitude to defendants who “pursu[e] a reasona-
ble objective even if that pursuit results in some amount of
distress for a plaintiﬀ.” Honaker v. Smith, 256 F.3d 477, 491 (7th
Cir. 2001). Actors cannot, however, pursue that legitimate
purpose in an extreme or outrageous manner. See McGrath,
533 N.E.2d at 810 (“Although the reasonable belief that his
8                                                    No. 23-1960

objective is legitimate does not provide a defendant carte
blanche to pursue that objective by outrageous means, it is a
substantial factor in evaluating the outrageousness of his con-
duct.”) (internal citations omitted).
    Here, Wang consistently claimed that his objective in post-
ing the comments was to prevent other students from being
victims of Xu’s behavior. He wrote this in his online posts and
repeated it at trial, stating his intention was to “do the right
thing, which is to protect women, especially female students.”
While Wang never raised these allegations with Xu, he testi-
ﬁed that he believed the assertions and had heard of multiple
instances of Xu’s sexual misconduct. By contrast, Xu pre-
sented no evidence at trial to contradict the veracity of Wang’s
intentions. Wang’s posting of his genuinely held belief in Xu’s
alleged misconduct for the purpose of warning other students
does not rise to the level of extreme and outrageous conduct
under Illinois law. See, e.g., Kiebala v. Boris, No. 1:16 CV 7478,
2017 WL 4339947, at *6 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 29, 2017), aﬀ’d, 928 F.3d
680 (7th Cir. 2019) (“[W]e cannot conclude Boris’ negative and
allegedly defamatory online reviews of Kiebala’s business
practices could plausibly be considered so extreme as to go
beyond all possible bounds of decency, and to be regarded as
intolerable in a civilized community, particularly where Boris
did not stand in a position of power over Kiebala.”) (internal
citation omitted).
   Relying on Dawson v. New York Life Insurance Co., 932 F.
Supp. 1509 (N.D. Ill. 1996), the district court concluded that
the jury, not the court, should decide if Wang’s conduct was
extreme and outrageous. But Dawson is not helpful. There, the
defendant insurance company disputed whether and how its
employees disseminated the allegedly defamatory materials
No. 23-1960                                                   9

at issue. The court found that these disputes constituted Daw-
son’s “theory of the case” and must be proved at trial to sup-
port a claim of intentional inﬂiction of emotional distress. Id.
at 1546. By contrast, here, there was no dispute about the con-
tent and manner of Wang’s posts. As noted above, Xu oﬀered
no evidence at trial to contradict Wang’s assertions that he
was trying to help women or to show Wang did not believe
his statements to be true. Unlike in Dawson, there was no con-
ﬂicting evidence for the jury to weigh. Thus, we conclude that
the district court erred in denying Wang’s motion for judg-
ment as a matter of law.
          2. Claim Against Sun
    Unlike the claim against Wang, there is suﬃcient evidence
in the record for a reasonable juror to ﬁnd that Sun’s conduct
met the requirements for intentional inﬂiction of emotional
distress. On appeal, Sun contends that her conduct was not
extreme and outrageous and that she did not cause Xu to suf-
fer any severe emotional distress. We address these argu-
ments in turn.
    As with Wang, the pivotal issue is whether Sun reasonably
believed that her objective in publicizing her allegations
against Xu was legitimate. We tread carefully here, because
we are mindful that overcorrection may chill good faith
claims of sexual harassment and assault. In such circum-
stances, when an individual in fact believes that they were the
victim of sexual harassment or sexual assault and publicizes
this belief in order to obtain accountability and redress, a
claim for intentional inﬂiction of emotional distress would be
baseless. But the circumstances here are very diﬀerent. As we
shall see, whether Sun actually believed that Xu had sexually
assaulted her at the time she made those accusations public
10                                                   No. 23-1960

was hotly contested at trial. And so, we take our evaluation of
Sun’s intent in two steps. We ﬁrst consider whether Xu pre-
sented suﬃcient evidence at trial for a reasonable juror to ﬁnd
that Sun was fabricating her claims. Second, if Xu did present
such evidence, we ask whether Sun’s knowingly false allega-
tions of rape are suﬃciently extreme and outrageous to sup-
port an intentional inﬂiction of emotional distress claim under
Illinois law.
    Based on the trial record, we conclude that a reasonable
jury could ﬁnd that Sun was lying about the nature of her re-
lationship with Xu when she made her accusations against
him public. For example, the jury heard the testimony of
Kaamilyah Abdullah-Span, an administrator in the Oﬃce of
Diversity, Equity, and Access at UIUC. She testiﬁed that even
though Sun initially had reported that she had had a sexual
relationship with Xu, Sun “withdrew her allegations on mul-
tiple occasions.” The jury also read Sun’s emails retracting her
claims and her written statement that she had “made up the
stories about sexual abuse.” Furthermore, the jury observed
Sun give her account at trial and watched Xu as he testiﬁed
that he had never had sex with Sun and that he was the one
who had rejected her advances. On the other hand, there was
evidence at trial that would lend some support to Sun’s state-
ments, such as Sun’s video deposition testimony, her initial
complaints to UIUC administrators, and photos of her and Xu
together. But we jealously guard the jury’s province to weigh
conﬂicting evidence, evaluate witness credibility, and deter-
mine the facts. This is why, when reviewing a district court’s
ruling on a motion for judgment as a matter of law, we “dis-
regard all evidence favorable to the moving party that the jury
was not required to believe.” Hossack v. Floor Covering Assocs.
of Joliet, Inc., 492 F.3d 853, 859 (7th Cir. 2007). Here, the jury
No. 23-1960                                                   11

was best positioned to consider the totality of the evidence at
trial and determine whether it was Sun or Xu who was telling
the truth.
    Because there was suﬃcient evidence at trial from which
a reasonable jury could ﬁnd that Sun had fabricated her state-
ments about Xu, we now ask whether such actions constitute
extreme and outrageous conduct under Illinois law. We con-
clude that they do. Intentional dissemination of false allega-
tions of rape on a nationally televised program is the type of
conduct that would lead a reasonable person to “hear the facts
and be compelled to feelings of resentment and outrage.”
Duﬀy v. Orlan Brook Condo. Owners’ Ass’n, 981 N.E.2d 1069,
1079 (Ill. App. Ct. 1st Dist. 2012).
    The Illinois Supreme Court’s decision in Kolegas is instruc-
tive. 607 N.E.2d at 213. There, a local disc jockey stated on-air
that a caller’s wife and son—both of whom suﬀered from neu-
roﬁbromatosis (commonly known as Elephant Man dis-
ease)—had deformed heads and that no one would want to
marry the wife except out of duress. Id. at 212. While such
statements expressed privately might constitute mere insults,
the court noted, the disc jockey’s derogatory remarks were ex-
treme and outrageous “by virtue of its publication to the com-
munity at large.” Id. In comparison, Sun’s conduct here was
more extreme and outrageous. She broadcasted her allega-
tions of rape (which the jury found to be false) to a national
audience and made accusations that could—and did—jeop-
ardize Xu’s career and reputation.
    In response, Sun contends that false accusations of rape
can never support a claim of intentional inﬂiction of emo-
tional distress. But the cases she cites are inapposite. They in-
volve claims of intentional inﬂiction of emotional distress
12                                                    No. 23-1960

brought by alleged abusers against their educational institu-
tions for the way the schools handled sexual assault claims.
See Doe v. Trs. of Univ. of Pa., 270 F. Supp. 3d 799, 827 (E.D. Pa.
2017) (dismissing student’s claim based on the University’s
mishandling of a sexual assault allegation against him); Doe v.
Columbia Coll. Chi., 299 F. Supp. 3d 939, 963 (N.D. Ill. 2017)
(dismissing a male student’s claim where the University
Hearing Panel found he sexually assaulted a female student);
Fellheimer v. Middlebury Coll., 869 F. Supp. 238, 247 (D. Vt.
1994) (dismissing a male student’s claim against the college
for confronting him about a female student’s allegation of
rape). The facts here are markedly diﬀerent. Here, as the jury
found, Sun fabricated claims of sexual assault and rape and
knowingly publicized them to university administrators and
the world. Under Illinois law, such intentional conduct is ex-
treme and outrageous.
     Next, Sun argues that the record lacks any evidence that
her actions caused Xu to suﬀer severe emotional distress. Un-
der Illinois law, emotional distress can include “all highly un-
pleasant mental reactions, such as fright, horror, grief, shame,
humiliation, embarrassment, anger, chagrin, disappointment,
worry, and nausea.” Feltmeier v. Feltmeier, 798 N.E.2d 75, 84
(Ill. 2003) (citing Restatement (Second) of Torts § 46 cmt. j
(1965)). But just experiencing these emotions is not enough;
the law only intervenes when “the distress inﬂicted is so se-
vere that no reasonable man could be expected to endure it.”
Pub. Fin. v. Davis, 360 N.E.2d 765, 767 (citing Restatement (Sec-
ond) of Torts at § 46 cmt. j (1965)). Moreover, in determining
the severity of the distress, Illinois courts consider the “inten-
sity and duration” of that distress. Id.
No. 23-1960                                                     13

    At trial, Xu testiﬁed that Sun’s comments on CBS This
Morning caused him to lose “everything.” The interview also
was uploaded to YouTube and the public website of Sun’s
counsel. Xu said that this caused “an incredible amount of
pressure and nightmare [sic] and explanation to, to my fam-
ily.” Xu further stated that he felt sick due to the accusations
and experienced tremendous nervousness and anxiety. He
also testiﬁed that he had nightmares and was “waking up in
the middle of the night, thinking of all the accusations, think-
ing of what life could have been without all this.” As he
feared, Xu was ﬁred from his job and was unable to ﬁnd other
employment in the United States or China.
     A reasonable juror could ﬁnd that this combination of
symptoms constitutes severe emotional distress as deﬁned by
Illinois law. Xu claimed that he was both ﬁnancially and rep-
utationally ruined by Sun’s allegations. This harm exceeds the
distress the Illinois Supreme Court found suﬃcient in Kolegas,
where Kolegas claimed that the disc jockey’s oﬀensive com-
ments caused him to be “greatly injured in his reputation and
business” and that “the attendance receipts earned from [a re-
lated charity festival] were greatly diminished.” 607 N.E.2d at
206.
     Sun also contends that Illinois law requires a third party
to corroborate the emotional distress Xu experienced. But Illi-
nois law does not require outside conﬁrmation of claims of
emotional distress. See Bristow v. Drake St. Inc., 41 F.3d 345, 350
(7th Cir. 1994) (noting that neither consultation with a psychi-
atrist nor medical evidence is required to show distress under
Illinois law). Sun and Wang cite Biggs v. Dupo for the proposi-
tion that “when the injured party provides the sole evidence,
he must reasonably and suﬃciently explain the circumstances
14                                                  No. 23-1960

of his injury and not resort to mere conclusory statements.”
892 F.2d 1298, 1304 (7th Cir. 1990). But Xu did just that. He
recounted for the jury the many ways that Sun’s statements
harmed his life and emotional state. For example, he de-
scribed how Sun’s interview ruined his personal and profes-
sional reputation and career, as well as the nightmares, sleep-
less nights, anxiety, and stress he experienced as a result. This
is suﬃcient to demonstrate harm under Illinois law. See, e.g.,
Amato v. Greenquist, 679 N.E.2d 446, 455 (Ill. App. Ct. 1997)
(ﬁnding depression, despair, insomnia, anxiety, nervousness,
and emotional trauma suﬃcient without validation from a
medical professional).
    Finally, Sun argues that Xu’s intentional inﬂiction of emo-
tional distress claim cannot stand because her comments were
a matter of public concern and protected by the First Amend-
ment. But this is a new argument made for the ﬁrst time on
appeal. Before the district court, Sun merely argued that it
would be “against public policy” to allow an intentional in-
ﬂiction of emotional distress action for publicizing sexual as-
sault. Now, she contends that Snyder v. Phelps, 562 U.S. 443
(2011), forecloses the claim because Xu’s alleged abuse was a
matter of public concern. This argument on appeal is more
than a “new twist” on the argument that Sun made to the dis-
trict court. See United States v. Billups, 536 F.3d 574, 578 (7th
Cir. 2008). While Sun is not limited to the “precise” arguments
raised below, she made no mention of the First Amendment
or Snyder in her briefs before the district court, and the argu-
ment is waived. See Yee v. City of Escondido, 503 U.S. 519, 534
(1992); Puﬀer v. Allstate Ins. Co., 675 F.3d 709, 718 (7th Cir.
2012).
No. 23-1960                                                  15

       B. Motion for New Trial
   Appellants Sun, Wang, and Zhao also request a new trial
on the grounds that the district court erred in admitting testi-
mony regarding Sun’s relationship with another professor,
thereby unduly prejudicing the jury’s perception of her. We
review a district court’s decision to exclude evidence under
the highly deferential abuse-of-discretion standard. Young,
955 F.3d at 614. This is because the district judge has “ﬁrst-
hand exposure to the witnesses and the evidence as a whole,”
along with “familiarity with the case and ability to gauge the
impact of the evidence in the context of the entire proceed-
ing.” United States v. Groce, 891 F.3d 260, 268 (7th Cir. 2018).
    Evidence regarding a victim’s past sexual behavior is gen-
erally prohibited under Federal Rule of Evidence 412. This
rule serves two important purposes. First, it protects “victims
against the invasion of privacy, potential embarrassment and
sexual stereotyping that is associated with public disclosure
of intimate sexual details.” Young, 955 F.3d at 614 (citing Rule
412 advisory committee’s note to 1994 amendment). Second,
it encourages “victims to participate in legal proceedings
without fear of those consequences.” Id. Rule 412, however,
has two exceptions; the second is relevant here.
       In a civil case, the court may admit evidence of-
       fered to prove a victim’s sexual behavior or sex-
       ual predisposition if its probative value substan-
       tially outweighs the danger of harm to any vic-
       tim and of unfair prejudice to any party. The
       court may admit evidence of a victim’s reputa-
       tion only if the victim has placed it in contro-
       versy.
16                                                 No. 23-1960

Fed. R. Evid. 412(b).
    At trial, Sun oﬀered Dr. Lynn Ponton as her damages ex-
pert. In the second of two expert reports, Dr. Ponton opined
that Xu’s sexual assault and rape of Sun caused Sun to suﬀer
from severe emotional and psychological distress. On the
way, Dr. Ponton acknowledged that Sun had a relationship
with another professor after her relationship with Xu, but
opined that, because that professor was nurturing, he could
not have caused any of the emotional distress that Sun was
experiencing, placing the fault squarely on Xu. Given this,
Xu’s counsel understandably wanted to cross-examine Dr.
Ponton to ensure that she had excluded the other relationship
as a cause of Sun’s trauma.
    Recognizing the dictates of Rule 412 and the need for Xu’s
counsel to test Dr. Ponton’s testimony as to causation, the dis-
trict court engaged in a lengthy colloquy with the attorneys
and Dr. Ponton and allowed Xu’s counsel to ask Dr. Ponton
the following:
     Q. And then you further state in your report: “Fol-
        lowing Professor Xu, Ms. Sun engaged in a rela-
        tionship with [a former] professor who was
        even older than Professor Xu, but Ms. Sun de-
        scribed a very diﬀerent relationship with him to
        [you].” Is that what you put in your report?
     A. That’s what I put in my report.
     Q. All right, so—
     A. That’s correct.
     Q. My question, then, is: What weight, if any, did
        you give to that disclosure in arriving at your
No. 23-1960                                                 17

          opinions and conclusions with respect to Ms.
          Sun’s problems today?
In response, Dr. Ponton brieﬂy described the other relation-
ship and noted that it was caring and kind.
    The district court did not abuse its discretion in allowing
this limited questioning of Dr. Ponton. The court carefully
conducted the balancing required by Rule 412(b). It heard
both parties on the issue and carefully considered the oppos-
ing arguments, even going so far as to modify the proposed
questions (to just ask about a “relationship” as opposed to a
“sexual aﬀair”) and admonished Dr. Ponton to answer only
the question asked. Given that Sun’s own expert opened the
door, we cannot say that the district court abused its discre-
tion in doing so. The court deftly narrowed the questioning to
limit the prejudice it would have had on Sun, while allowing
Xu the opportunity to test Dr. Ponton’s testimony. We thus
aﬃrm the denial of Appellants’ motion for a new trial.
   III.      Conclusion
    For the forgoing reasons, we REVERSE the district court’s
denial of Wang’s motion for judgment as a matter of law. We
AFFIRM the district court’s denial of Sun’s motion for judg-
ment as a matter of law and the denial of Appellants’ motion
for a new trial.