Search Team

Search by Last Name
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
O
P
Q
R
S
T
U
V
W
X
Y
Z

Caruso v. Bon Secours Charity Health System Inc. at al

Area of Law:

Employment discrimination based on gender, race, ethnicity, national origin, and age under federal (including Title VII) and state law, torts. This case arose out of Plaintiff’s termination by her employer.

Grounds:

Defendants filed a Daubert motion to exclude testimony of Plaintiff’s expert Dr. Rachel Bush as unreliable and of Plaintiff’s experts Dr. Chitra Raghavan and William Cucolo because they had not provided reports as required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(B).

Outcome:

Granted.

Analysis:

Motion to exclude the testimony of Dr. Bush:

Dr. Bush is a clinical psychologist. The court held that Dr. Bush’s opinions were not sufficiently reliable because she did not conduct her own review of the evidence, instead relying upon a list of statements sent to her by plaintiff’s counsel. Slip op. at 11. Expert’s deposition testimony revealed critical gaps in her knowledge of the facts as well as mistaken assumptions, reflecting her failure to verify the veracity and completeness of the facts supplied by plaintiff’s counsel. Id. Furthermore, her report did not explain the methodology she used to reached her opinions and appeared to be a regurgitation of plaintiff’s arguments. Id. at 12. Thus, the court held the opinions of Dr. Bush unreliable and granted the motion to preclude her testimony. Id.

Motion to exclude the testimony of Dr. Raghavan and Mr. Cucolo:

The court excluded the testimony because these were testifying experts who had failed to produce required reports. Plaintiff failed to submit reports for Dr. Raghavan and Mr. Cucolo by the deadline. Plaintiff argued that reports were not necessary because these experts “may be providing testimony on a voluntary, unpaid basis and not as an expert ‘retained or specially employed to provide expert testimony.’” Slip op. at 14. The court pointed out that the distinction between an expert under Rule 26(a)(2)(B), who must submit a written report, and an expert under Rule 26(a)(2)(C), who need only provide a summary of the expert’s opinions, turns on whether the expert has been retained for the purpose of providing expert testimony, regardless of whether or how they were paid. The court also considered the importance of Dr. Raghavan’s and Mr. Cucolo’s proffered testimony, as well as the prejudice to plaintiff in excluding the testimony. The subject matter of Dr. Raghavan’s opinions was largely the same as Dr. Bush’s. Mr. Cucolo’s opinions focused on “employee and union relations when the employee is represented by a union under a collective bargaining agreement.” Slip op. at 7 n. 5. The court found the importance of the testimony and prejudice from the exclusion to be minimal.