Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword or section
Like this
1Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
2:12-cv-00887 #56

2:12-cv-00887 #56

Ratings: (0)|Views: 13 |Likes:
Published by Equality Case Files
Doc #56 - Memo of Points and Authorities in Support of BLAG's Motion to Exclude expert testimony
Doc #56 - Memo of Points and Authorities in Support of BLAG's Motion to Exclude expert testimony

More info:

Categories:Types, Business/Law
Published by: Equality Case Files on Feb 26, 2013
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

04/22/2014

pdf

text

original

 
 
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728Paul D. Clement (DC Bar 433215) pclement@bancroftpllc.comH. Christopher Bartolomucci (DC Bar 453423)cbartolomucci@bancroftpllc.com Nicholas J. Nelson (DC Bar 1001696)nnelson@bancroftpllc.comMichael H. McGinley (DC Bar 1006943)mmcginley@bancroftpllc.comBANCROFT PLLC1919 M Street, N.W.Suite 470Washington, D.C. 20036202-234-0090 (telephone)202-234-2806 (facsimile)
Of Counsel:
Kerry W. Kircher, General Counsel (DC Bar 386816)Kerry.Kircher@mail.house.govWilliam Pittard, Deputy General Counsel (DC Bar 482949)William.Pittard@mail.house.govChristine Davenport, Senior Assistant Counsel (NJ Bar 043682000)Christine.Davenport@mail.house.govTodd B. Tatelman, Assistant Counsel (VA Bar 66008)Todd.Tatelman@mail.house.govMary Beth Walker, Assistant Counsel (DC Bar 501033)MaryBeth.Walker@mail.house.govEleni M. Roumel, Assistant Counsel (SC Bar 75763)Eleni.Roumel@mail.house.govOFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSEL,U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES219 Cannon House Office BuildingWashington, D.C. 20515202-225-9700 (telephone)202-226-1360 (facsimile)
Counsel for Intervenor-Defendant Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the U.S. House of Representatives
 
Case 2:12-cv-00887-CBM-AJW Document 56 Filed 11/06/12 Page 1 of 26 Page ID #:735
 
 
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTCENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIAWestern Division
)TRACEY COOPER-HARRIS and ) No. 2:12-cv-00887-CBM (AJWx)MAGGIE COOPER-HARRIS, ))Plaintiffs, )
 
)
 
v. ))UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al., ))Defendants, ))BIPARTISAN LEGAL ADVISORY )GROUP OF THE U.S. HOUSE )OF REPRESENTATIVES, ) Hearing: December 10, 2012) Time: 10:00 a.m.Intervenor-Defendant. ) Hon. Consuelo B. Marshall)
 
MEMORANDUM OFPOINTS ANDAUTHORITIES INSUPPORT OF MOTION TOEXCLUDE THE EXPERTTESTIMONY OF DR.LAWRENCE J. KORB ANDMAJ. GEN. (RET.) DENNISLAICH
Case 2:12-cv-00887-CBM-AJW Document 56 Filed 11/06/12 Page 2 of 26 Page ID #:736
 
 
i12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728TABLE OF CONTENTSI.
 
BACKGROUND ................................................................................................... 2II.
 
ARGUMENT ........................................................................................................ 5A.
 
Legal Standard under Federal Rule of Evidence 702 ................................. 5B.
 
The Proffered Opinions Will Not Assist the Trier of Fact BecauseThey Are Neither Based on Specific Facts nor the Product of AnyDiscernible Methodology ........................................................................... 71.
 
The Witnesses’ General Statements Regarding EmployeeIncentives and Motivation Are Inadmissible. .................................. 82.
 
The Witnesses’ Conclusions About the Overall Impact of DOMAand Title 38 on Military Goals Also Are Inadmissible. ................. 113.
 
The Testimony Cannot Be Supported by Vague Assertions of “Experience” .................................................................................. 12C.
 
Because They Are Based on Fundamental Misunderstandings of theEffects of DOMA Section 3 and the Title 38 Spousal Definitions, theOpinions Are Neither Reliable nor Relevant. .......................................... 141.
 
The Opinions Are Predicated on an Incorrect LegalUnderstanding Regarding Uniform Treatment of Same-SexMarriages in the Absence of DOMA Section 3 and Title 38’sSpousal Definitions. ....................................................................... 142.
 
Opinions Regarding Family Readiness Groups Reflect anIncorrect Application of DOMA Section 3 .................................... 16III.
 
CONCLUSION .................................................................................................. 18CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
Case 2:12-cv-00887-CBM-AJW Document 56 Filed 11/06/12 Page 3 of 26 Page ID #:737

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->