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
2Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Michigan Brief to Reject Regnerus as Expert Witness

Michigan Brief to Reject Regnerus as Expert Witness

Ratings: (0)|Views: 696 |Likes:
Michigan Gay Marriage Trial DeBoers are the lesbian Plaintiffs
Plaintiffs ask Court to REJECT Regnerus as an EXPERT
in the Gay Marriage Trial
Michigan Gay Marriage Trial DeBoers are the lesbian Plaintiffs
Plaintiffs ask Court to REJECT Regnerus as an EXPERT
in the Gay Marriage Trial

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

02/28/2014

pdf

text

original

 
1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION APRIL DEBOER,
et al 
., Plaintiffs, Civil Action No. 12-cv-10285 HON. BERNARD A. FRIEDMAN vs. RICHARD SNYDER, et al., Defendants.
PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION
IN LIMINE
TO EXCLUDE TESTIMONY OF MARK REGNERUS
 NOW COME THE PLAINTIFFS, by and through their attorneys, and  pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. 104, 403, and 702, move this Court for an Order excluding testimony of Mark Regnerus in this matter for the reasons stated in the attached supporting Brief. 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 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
2:12-cv-10285-BAF-MJH Doc # 116 Filed 02/05/14 Pg 1 of 20 Pg ID 2307
 
2
Detroit, MI 48202 Lake Orion, MI 48362 (313) 577-3968 (248) 814-9470 rsedler@wayne.edu
 
kmogill@bignet.net Dated: February 5, 2014
BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION IN
LIMINE
TO EXCLUDE TESTIMONY OF MARK REGNERUS I. INTRODUCTION
Mark Regnerus
, Defendants’ purported expert,
fails to meet the minimum requirements imposed by the Federal Rules of Evidence. His flawed methodology and generic conclusions, untethered to any of the specific factual issues in this case, render his opinion unreliable and irrelevant under Federal Rules of Evidence 104, 403, and 702. For the reasons explained herein, the Court should exclude R 
egnerus’s
testimony in advance of trial. However, if the Court permits Regnerus to testify, Plaintiffs ask the Court to exclude his testimony from evidence or accord it little to no weight.
II. THE LEGAL STANDARD GOVERNING EXPERT TESTIMONY
Federal Rule of Evidence 702 provides that expert testimony relating to
“scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge” is admissible only if it “will
help the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to d
etermine a fact in issue.” Fed.
 R. Evid. 702(a);
 see Pride v. BIC Corp
., 218 F.3d 566, 578 (6th Cir. 2000) (citing
 Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals
, Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 592 n.10 (1993)) (explaining that an expert must
testify to scientific knowledge that will assist the
2:12-cv-10285-BAF-MJH Doc # 116 Filed 02/05/14 Pg 2 of 20 Pg ID 2308
 
3
trier of fact in understanding and disposing of issues relevant to the case
). A witness qualified as an expert may only offer testimony if
the testimony is based upon sufficient facts or data; the testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods; and the expert has reliably applied the principles and methods to the facts
of the case.”
Fed. R. Evid. 702(b)-(d)
.
Additionally, expert testimony is subject to general evidentiary rules, such as Federal Rules of Evidence 401 and 403.
See United States v. LeBlanc
, 45 Fe
d. App’x 393, 400 (6th Cir. 2002)
(
“Obviously, expert
testimony is subject to the same relevancy constraints as all other kinds of
evidence.”);
 Moisenko v. Volkswagenwerk Aktiengesellschaft 
, 198 F.3d 246 (6th Cir. 1999) (applying Fed. R. Evid. 403 balancing test to expert testimony).
A. Expert Witness Testimony Must Be Based on Scientific, Technical, or
“Other
 
Specialized” Knowledge and Must Concern a Matter Beyond a Layperson’s
 Common Knowledge
An expert’s
 
testimony must be based on “scientific
, technical, or other specialized knowledge [that] will help
the trier of fact.” Fed. R. Evid. 702
(a). A witness may not testify as an expert unless he or she testifies about matters that are  beyond the ability and experience of the average layperson.
See, e.g., Berry v. City of Detroit 
,
 
25 F.3d 1342, 1349-50 (6th Cir. 1994) (
If everyone knows [the knowledge in question], then we do not need an expert because the testimony will
not ‘assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact
 in issue
. . . .
 (quoting Fed. R. Evid. 702)).
2:12-cv-10285-BAF-MJH Doc # 116 Filed 02/05/14 Pg 3 of 20 Pg ID 2309

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)//-->