Case 3:13-cv-05038-FLW-LHG Document 38 Filed 09/20/13 Page 1 of 9 PageID: 1225

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY TRENTON DIVISION TARA KING, ED.D., individually and on behalf of her patients, RONALD NEWMAN, PH.D., individually and on behalf of his patients, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR RESEARCH AND THERAPY OF HOMOSEXUALITY (NARTH), AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF CHRISTIAN COUNSELORS (AACC), Plaintiffs, v. CHRISTOPHER J. CHRISTIE, Governor of the State of New Jersey, in his official capacity, ERIC T. KANEFSKY, Director of the New Jersey Department of Law and Public Safety: Division of Consumer Affairs, in his official capacity, MILAGROS COLLAZO, Executive Director of the New Jersey Board of Marriage and Family Therapy Examiners, in her official capacity, J. MICHAEL WALKER, Executive Director of the New Jersey Board of Psychological Examiners, in his 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. 56.1 submit these objections to the evidence proffered in support of both Defendants Cross-Motions

Plaintiffs Objections to Defendants Evidence - 1

Case 3:13-cv-05038-FLW-LHG Document 38 Filed 09/20/13 Page 2 of 9 PageID: 1226

for Summary Judgment, and for the reasons shown below, moves that this evidence be deemed inadmissible 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 the lack 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) objected to Plaintiffs experts: The APA Task Force, on which Dr. Drescher served, itself found that there was insufficient evidence of either benefit or harm from SOCE to draw any scientific conclusions. Fed. R. Evid. 104, 702; Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharms., Inc., 509 U.S. 570, 589995 (1993). In addition, Plaintiffs object to the testimony of these witnesses because they have not demonstrated sufficient familiarity with the actual practice of SOCE to merit offering expert testimony on it. For example, neither Dr. Drescher nor Dr. Davies claims any experience with SOCE either in administering it directly or in counseling clients who have experienced it themselves. While Dr. Haldeman claims some experience with clients who report having undergone some form of SOCE, he makes no claim to ever having actually offered SOCE directly, and is similarly silent as to whether he has ever dealt with a client currently undergoing SOCE. SPECIFIC OBJECTIONS 1. 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. Dreschers testimony does not serve that sole Plaintiffs Objections to Defendants Evidence - 2

Case 3:13-cv-05038-FLW-LHG Document 38 Filed 09/20/13 Page 3 of 9 PageID: 1227

purpose, and so should be stricken as irrelevant insofar as it fails to fulfill the purpose for which it was offered. Plaintiffs object to the following specific portions of Dr. Dreschers 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. Plaintiffs Objections to Defendants Evidence - 3

Case 3:13-cv-05038-FLW-LHG Document 38 Filed 09/20/13 Page 4 of 9 PageID: 1228

Para. 27, lack of foundation, speculative. FRE 401, 602. Dr. Douglas Haldeman Para. 7, lack of foundation, speculative. FRE 401, 602. Para, 8, lack of foundation, speculative. FRE 401, 602. Para. 9, lack of foundation, speculative. FRE 401, 602. Dr. Haldeman engages in gross generalizations. Para. 10, lack of foundation, speculative. FRE 401, 602. Dr. Haldeman fails to provide any foundation for his extravagant claims, and engages in rank speculation as to what patients feel and think in the context of SOCE treatment. Para. 11, lack of foundation, speculative. FRE 401, 602. Para. 12, lack of foundation, speculative. FRE 401, 602. Once again, Dr. Haldeman engages in over-generalizations. Para. 13, lack of foundation, speculative. FRE 401, 602. Para. 14, lack of foundation, speculative. FRE 401, 602. Para. 15, lack of foundation, speculative. FRE 401, 602. Para. 16, lack of foundation, speculative. FRE 401, 602. Para. 17, best evidence. The Task Force Report speaks for itself. Para. 19, lack of foundation, speculative. FRE 401, 602. Plaintiffs specifically object to the alleged videotaped testimony of Dr. Spitzer as hearsay, which was never presented to Plaintiffs in this case nor was it ever introduced in the Pickup case, despite the representation on its cover. FRE 803. Para. 20, lack of foundation, speculative. FRE 401, 602. Para. 21, lack of foundation, speculative. FRE 401, 602. Plaintiffs Objections to Defendants Evidence - 4

Case 3:13-cv-05038-FLW-LHG Document 38 Filed 09/20/13 Page 5 of 9 PageID: 1229

Para. 22, lack of foundation, speculative. FRE 401, 602. Para. 23, lack of foundation, speculative, argumentative. FRE 401, 602. The claim that SOCE is imposed on a minor in all cases is utterly without foundation and absurd on its face. Para. 24, lack of foundation, speculative. FRE 401, 602. In addition, Plaintiff objects to this paragraph on grounds that Dr. Haldeman here exposes a particularly strong anti-religious bias, effectively elevating sexual orientation over religious orientation. Para. 25 similarly exposes the bias against religion inherent in the APA Task Force Report and in A3371 as well. Plaintiffs object. Para. 26, lack of foundation, speculative, argumentative. FRE 401, 602. Dr. Haldeman has no basis for speculating as to whether or not minors are forced into SOCE by parents in all cases. Para. 27, speculative. Dr. Laura Davies Para. 7, lack of foundation, speculative. FRE 401, 602. Para. 8, lack of foundation, speculative. FRE 401, 602. Para. 9, lack of foundation. FRE 602. In fact, Dr. Davies bald assertion that [t]here is no credible evidence that sexual abuse changes sexual orientation is flatly contradicted by the APA Task Force itself: some clients who seek SOCE may have histories of trauma (Ponticelli, 1999), and in some individuals sexual abuse can cause sexual orientation identity confusion and other sexuality-related concerns. APA Report at 57 (emphasis added). Para. 12, lack of foundation. FRE 602. Para. 15, lack of foundation, speculative. FRE 401, 602. Para. 17, lack of foundation, speculative. FRE 401, 602. Para. 18, lack of foundation, speculative. FRE 401, 602. Plaintiffs Objections to Defendants Evidence - 5

Case 3:13-cv-05038-FLW-LHG Document 38 Filed 09/20/13 Page 6 of 9 PageID: 1230

Para. 19, lack of foundation, speculative. FRE 401, 602. Dr. Gregory Herek Para 4: Irrelevant. FRE 403. Paras 5-7: Irrelevant. FRE 403. Para 9: Speculative. Lack of foundation. FRE 401, 602. Para 11: Irrelevant, lack of foundation. FRE 403, 602. Para 12: Irrelevant, lack of foundation, speculative. FRE 401, 403, 602. Para 13: Irrelevant. Para 15: Irrelevant, speculation, hearsay. Para 15: Irrelevant, speculation, hearsay. Paras 16-17: Irrelevant. Para 18: Irrelevant, hearsay Para 19: Irrelevant, speculation, hearsay. Para 20: Speculation, hearsay. Para 21: Speculation, hearsay. Para 22: Speculation, irrelevant. Para 23: Speculation, lack of foundation. Para 24: Speculation. Para 25: Speculation, hearsay, irrelevant. Para 26: Speculation, lack of foundation. Para 27: Speculation, lack of foundation, hearsay, irrelevant. Para 28: Irrelevant.

Plaintiffs Objections to Defendants Evidence - 6

Case 3:13-cv-05038-FLW-LHG Document 38 Filed 09/20/13 Page 7 of 9 PageID: 1231

Para 29: This paragraph demonstrates Dr. Hereks bias against SOCE and religion. Plaintiffs object. Para 31: Bias. Para 32, footnote 29: Speculation and unduly prejudicial, hearsay. Also, Para. 32, footnote 34: Lack of foundation, speculative, prejudicial. Para 33: Lacks foundation, speculation. Para 34: Best evidence; mischaracterizes Spitzer retraction. Para 35: Hearsay. Para 39: Hearsay, speculation. Para 40: Hearsay. Para 41: Irrelevant. Paras 42-44: Irrelevant they are position statements, not science. Para 45: Speculation, irrelevant.

Plaintiffs Objections to Defendants Evidence - 7

Case 3:13-cv-05038-FLW-LHG Document 38 Filed 09/20/13 Page 8 of 9 PageID: 1232

Respectfully submitted, /s/ Demetrios Stratis Demetrios Stratis New Jersey Bar No. 022391991 Mathew D. Staver* Stephen M. Crampton* Daniel J. Schmid* Liberty Counsel Attorneys for Plaintiffs P.O. Box 11108 Lynchburg, VA 24502 Tel. 434-592-7000 Fax: 434-592-7700 court@LC.org * Admitted Pro Hac Vice

Plaintiffs Objections to Defendants Evidence - 8

Case 3:13-cv-05038-FLW-LHG Document 38 Filed 09/20/13 Page 9 of 9 PageID: 1233

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was filed electronically with the court on September 20, 2013. Service will be effectuated by the Courts electronic notification system upon all counsel of record.

/s/ Demetrios Stratis Demetrios Stratis New Jersey Bar No. 022391991 Mathew D. Staver* Stephen M. Crampton* Daniel J. Schmid* Liberty Counsel Attorneys for Plaintiffs P.O. Box 11108 Lynchburg, VA 24502 Tel. 434-592-7000 Fax: 434-592-7700 court@LC.org *Admitted Pro Hac Vice Attorneys for Plaintiffs

Plaintiffs Objections to Defendants Evidence - 9