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
Like this
1Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Michigan Brief To Reject Sherif Girgis as an Expert Witness

Michigan Brief To Reject Sherif Girgis as an Expert Witness

Ratings: (0)|Views: 68|Likes:
Michigan Gay Marriage Trial Plaintiffs DeBoers
Brief to the Court asking the Court to REJECT
Sherif Girgis as an Expert Witness.
Michigan Gay Marriage Trial Plaintiffs DeBoers
Brief to the Court asking the Court to REJECT
Sherif Girgis as an Expert Witness.

More info:

Published by: SexualMinorityResear on Feb 09, 2014
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

03/04/2014

pdf

text

original

 
1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION APRIL DEBOER,
et al.
, Plaintiffs, -vs- E.D.Mich. No. 12-10285 Hon. Bernard A. Friedman RICHARD SNYDER,
et al.
, Defendants.  __________________________/
PLAINTIFFS’
DAUBERT  
 MOTION TO PRECLUDE TESTIMONY OF
STATE DEFENDANTS’
PROPOSED EXPERT SHERIF GIRGIS
 NOW COME THE PLAINTIFFS, April DeBoer and Jayne Rowse,
et al 
.  by and through their attorneys, and move this Court, pursuant to Rules 104, 403, and 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, and pursuant to the standards set forth in
 Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc.
, 509 U.S. 579 (1993) and its progeny, for an
order precluding the testimony of the State Defendants’
 proposed expert Sherif Girgis (or striking it after its presentation) based upon the following reasons. 1. State Defendants have advised that they will offer the testimony of Mr. Girgis to support their claim that there is a rational basis for the two Michigan laws challenged herein: the same-sex marriage ban and the ban on second parent adoptions.
2:12-cv-10285-BAF-MJH Doc # 117 Filed 02/05/14 Pg 1 of 13 Pg ID 2453
 
2
2. This Court has indicated that it will entertain any motions made pursuant to the
 Daubert
decision, to preclude proposed expert testimony, simultaneous with its consideration of the trial evidence in this case. 3. For the reasons set forth in the attached memorandum of law, this witness clearly is not qualified to offer the proposed testimony offered. 4. In addition, the testimony of the witness is irrelevant to the questions  before this Court, the testimony is not based upon a reliable or discernible methodology, and the testimony is otherwise unreliable. 5. In addition, the aforementioned testimony should not be admitted because
it lacks probative value, it will waste the Court’s time and it will create confusion.
 WHEREFORE, based upon the foregoing reasons and based upon the facts and argument set forth in the attached memorandum of law, Plaintiffs move this Court, pursuant to Rules 104, 403, and 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, and  pursuant to the standards set forth in
 Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc.
, 509 U.S. 579 (1993) and its progeny, for an order precluding the testimony of the State
Defendants’
 proposed expert Sherif Girgis. Respectfully submitted,
 s/Carole M. Stanyar 
 
 s/ Dana Nessel 
 CAROLE M. STANYAR P34830 DANA M. NESSEL P51346 221 N. Main Street, Suite 300 645 Griswold Street, Suite 4300 Ann Arbor, MI 48103 Detroit, MI 48226 (313) 819-3953 (313) 556-2300 cstanyar@wowway.com dananessel@hotmail.com
2:12-cv-10285-BAF-MJH Doc # 117 Filed 02/05/14 Pg 2 of 13 Pg ID 2454
 
3
Dated: February 5, 2014 Attorneys for Plaintiffs Of counsel:
 s/Robert A. Sedler 
 
 s/ Kenneth M. Mogill 
 ROBERT A. SEDLER P31003 Kenneth M. Mogill P17865 Wayne State University Law School MOGILL, POSNER & COHEN 471 W. Palmer Street 27 E Flint Street, 2
nd
 Floor Detroit, MI 48202 Lake Orion, MI 48362 (313) 577-3968 (248) 814-9470 rsedler@wayne.edu
 
kmogill@bignet.net
BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’
DAUBERT  
 MOTION TO PRECLUDE TESTIMONY OF STATE
DEFENDANTS’
PROPOSED EXPERT SHERIF GIRGIS I. INTRODUCTION
Sherif Girgis, the State
Defendants’ purported expert, fails to meet the
minimum requirements imposed by the Federal Rules of Evidence. He is not qualified to testify as an expert. His flawed methodology and generic conclusions render his opinion unreliable and irrelevant under Federal Rules of Evidence 104, 403, and 702 and
 Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals
, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993). For the reasons explained herein, the Court should exclude
Girgis’s
 testimony in advance of trial. However, if the Court permits Girgis to testify, Plaintiffs ask the Court to exclude his testimony from evidence or accord it little to no weight.
2:12-cv-10285-BAF-MJH Doc # 117 Filed 02/05/14 Pg 3 of 13 Pg ID 2455

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)//-->