Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Save to My Library
Look up keyword
Like this
0Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
3:13-cv-05038 #38

3:13-cv-05038 #38

Ratings: (0)|Views: 11 |Likes:
Published by Equality Case Files
Doc 38 - Plaintiffs' objections to defendants' evidence in support of their cross-motions for summary judgment
Doc 38 - Plaintiffs' objections to defendants' evidence in support of their cross-motions for summary judgment

More info:

Categories:Business/Law
Published by: Equality Case Files on Oct 08, 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

10/08/2013

pdf

text

original

 
Plaintiffs’ Objections to Defendants’ Evidence - 1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTDISTRICT OF NEW JERSEYTRENTON DIVISIONTARA KING, ED.D.
, individually and on behalf of her patients,
RONALDNEWMAN, PH.D.
, individually and on behalf of his patients,
NATIONALASSOCIATION FOR RESEARCH ANDTHERAPY OF HOMOSEXUALITY(NARTH)
,
AMERICAN ASSOCIATIONOF CHRISTIAN COUNSELORS(AACC)
,Plaintiffs,v.
CHRISTOPHER J. CHRISTIE
, Governor of the State of New Jersey, in his officialcapacity,
ERIC T. KANEFSKY
, Director of the New Jersey Department of Law andPublic Safety: Division of Consumer Affairs, in his official capacity,
MILAGROS COLLAZO
, ExecutiveDirector of the New Jersey Board of Marriage and Family Therapy Examiners, inher official capacity,
J. MICHAELWALKER 
, Executive Director of the NewJersey Board of Psychological Examiners, inhis official capacity;
PAUL JORDAN
,President of the New Jersey State Board of Medical Examiners, in his official capacity,Defendants.Case No. 13-cv-5308
PLAINTIFFS’ OBJECTIONS TO DEFENDANTS’ EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF THEIR CROSS-MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Plaintiffs, by and through counsel and pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 and L.Civ.R. 56.1submit these objections to the evidence proffered in support of both Defendants’ Cross-Motions
Case 3:13-cv-05038-FLW-LHG Document 38 Filed 09/20/13 Page 1 of 9 PageID: 1225
 
Plaintiffs’ Objections to Defendants’ Evidence - 2for Summary Judgment, and for the reasons shown below, moves that this evidence be deemedinadmissible and stricken from the record.
GENERAL OBJECTIONS
Plaintiffs object generally to the Declarations of Defendants’ experts, Dr. Drescher, Dr.Haldeman, Dr. Herek, and Dr. Davies to the extent they are offered as scientific opinion on thelack of safety or efficacy of sexual orientation change efforts (SOCE) generally or on minors in particular, for the same reasons that Defendant-Intervenor Garden State Equality (GSE) objectedto Plaintiffs’ experts: The APA Task Force, on which Dr. Drescher served, itself found that therewas insufficient evidence of either benefit or harm from SOCE to draw any scientificconclusions. Fed. R. Evid. 104, 702;
 Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharms., Inc.
, 509 U.S. 570, 5899-95 (1993). In addition, Plaintiffs object to the testimony of these witnesses because they have notdemonstrated sufficient familiarity with the actual practice of SOCE to merit offering experttestimony on it. For example, neither Dr. Drescher nor Dr. Davies claims any experience withSOCE either in administering it directly or in counseling clients who have experienced itthemselves. While Dr. Haldeman claims some experience with clients who report havingundergone some form of SOCE, he makes no claim to ever having actually offered SOCEdirectly, and is similarly silent as to whether he has ever dealt with a client currently undergoingSOCE.
SPECIFIC OBJECTIONS1. Dr. Jack Drescher
The State Defendants offer Dr. Drescher, who was hired as a “consultant (Decl. Drescher at ¶ 1), “for the sole purpose of aiding the Court in understanding what the challenged statute prohibits and why.” State Br. at 2, n.1. But Dr. Drescher’s testimony does not serve that “sole
Case 3:13-cv-05038-FLW-LHG Document 38 Filed 09/20/13 Page 2 of 9 PageID: 1226
 
Plaintiffs’ Objections to Defendants’ Evidence - 3 purpose,” and so should be stricken as irrelevant insofar as it fails to fulfill the purpose for whichit was offered.Plaintiffs object to the following specific portions of Dr. Drescher’s Declaration:Para. 8 because it lacks an adequate foundation, is speculative, argumentative and unduly prejudicial. FRE 401, 602, 702.The first sentence of para. 9, as speculative and lacking a foundation.
 Id.
 Para. 10, lack of foundation, speculative, argumentative and unduly prejudicial.Para. 11, lack of foundation, speculative. FRE 401, 602, 702.Para. 12, lack of foundation, speculative. FRE 401, 602, 702.Para. 13, lack of foundation, speculative. FRE 401, 602, 702.Para. 14, lack of foundation, speculative. FRE 401, 602, 702.Para. 15, lack of foundation.Para. 16, lack of foundation, speculative. FRE 401, 602, 702.Para. 17, best evidence; Task Force Report speaks for itself.Para. 18, hearsay, lack of foundation. FRE 803, 401, 602.Para. 19, lack of foundation, speculative, hearsay. FRE 401, 602, 702, 803.Para. 20, lack of foundation, speculative, argumentative, hearsay. FRE 401, 602, 702, 803.Para. 21, lack of foundation, speculative. FRE 401, 602, 702.Para. 22, lack of foundation. FRE 602.Para. 23, lack of foundation, speculative, argumentative. FRE 401, 602, 702.Para. 24, lack of foundation, speculative, hearsay. FRE 401, 602, 702, 803.Para. 25, lack of foundation, speculative, argumentative, unduly prejudicial. FRE 401, 602, 702.Para. 26, lack of foundation, speculative. FRE 401, 602.
Case 3:13-cv-05038-FLW-LHG Document 38 Filed 09/20/13 Page 3 of 9 PageID: 1227

You're Reading a Free Preview

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