Opinion
Case No.: 2:00CV774
April 25, 2003
ORDER
Before the Court is intervenor plaintiff Crystic Collins' motion in limine to exclude the proposed expert testimony of Dr. David Ranks and Dr. Noel Garder. The Court heard oral argument on the motion on April 9, 2003. Having considered the arguments at the hearing, the parties' briefs, and the applicable legal standards the Court finds that the motion should be GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.
The Court finds that Dr. Gardner's expert report is inadmissibly tainted with opinions and analysis that would usurp the role of the jury if wholly admitted into evidence. A substantial portion of Dr. Gardner's report focuses on Ms. Collins' deposition testimony. Not only does Dr. Gardner extensively discuss what he perceives to be numerous inconsistencies within the deposition testimony, Dr. Gardner also opines that Ms. Collins' testimony is controverted and confusing. However, an expert's opinion is admissible only "up to the point where an expression of opinion would require the expert to pass upon the weight or credibility of the evidence." Frase v. Henry, 444 F.2d 1228, 1231 (10th Cir. 1971); United States v. Adams, 271 F.3d 1236, 1245 (10th Cir. 2001). Dr. Gardner's expert report has crossed that line. His report has invaded the exclusive province of the jury by weaving into his otherwise proper opinions detailed analysis of Ms. Collins' deposition testimony. Dr. Garder, however, does not stop there. instead Dr. Gardner summarizes his report by explaining that Ms. Collins' testimony is simply not credible. Therefore, the Court finds that Dr. Gardner's report is improper and fails to meet the standards of Federal Rule of Evidence 702.
Despite these findings, however, Dr. Gardner is not completely precluded from testifying in this case. The Court finds that Dr. Gardner may opine about the presence or absence of malingering as indicated by Ms. Collins' test results. This testimony may be properly admitted because it will assist the jury to determine the extent, if any, of Ms. Collins' mental and/or emotional injury. Furthermore, the Court believes that Dr. Gardner's opinion regarding malingering can be separated from the otherwise improper analysis discussed in his report. The Court reiterates that Dr. Gardner may not include within his testimony any opinions that are based upon, either directly or indirectly, Ms. Collins' deposition testimony. This specifically includes any opinion that the sexual abuse and other harassment occurred or did not occur. Such testimony is the equivalent of "merely vouching for the credibility of the alleged victim." United States v. Charley, 189 F.3d 1251, 1267 (10th Cir. 1999).
The Court also holds that the diagnoses and evaluation made by Dr. Ranks' would not be of assistance to the jury in this case. "The touchstone of admissibility of expert testimony is its helpfulness to the trier of fact." Werth v. Makita Elec. Works, Ltd., 950 F.2d 643, 648 (10th Cir. 1991). Furthermore, Rule 702's "helpfulness" standard requires a valid link between the expert's testimony and the jury's factual inquiry. See Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, 509 U.S. 579, 591 (1993). However, Dr. Ranks' report provides no information that could assist the jury in this case. Instead, his report ventures into mental and emotional descriptions that are not relevant to the jury's factual inquiry in this case. Furthermore, Dr. Ranks' diagnoses are so broad that they would prevent the jury from reaching any meaningful conclusions. Because the Court finds Dr. Ranks' testimony to be completely unhelpful to a jury, Dr Ranks testimony is inadmissible except in the event that plaintiffs attempt to attack the methodology and testing used by Dr. Ranks and relied upon by Dr. Gardner. IT IS SO ORDERED.