Ferreira v. Penzone
2:15-cv-01845
| D. Ariz. | Nov 16, 2017Background
- This is a civil-rights wrongful-death suit by the estate of Zachary Daughtry against Maricopa County jail officials; Daughtry was found injured in jail on July 9, 2014 and later died.
- Defendants disclosed psychiatric expert Dr. Joseph Penn in February 2017; Plaintiffs disclosed rebuttal psychiatric expert Dr. Bhushan S. Agharkar on March 21, 2017.
- Defendants moved to exclude Dr. Agharkar under FRCP 26 (insufficient report / improper rebuttal), FRE 403 (irrelevant or cumulative), and FRE 702/Daubert (unreliable or unhelpful).
- Plaintiffs responded that Agharkar reviewed thousands of pages of records, conducted two clinical interviews of Bates, and directly rebutted Penn’s methodology and conclusions; Plaintiffs proffered Agharkar as a rebuttal expert and disclosed him within the rebuttal deadline.
- The court held an evidentiary/legal Daubert-type analysis addressing Rule 26 adequacy, cumulative/prejudicial concerns under Rule 403, and Rule 702 reliability, relevance, and qualifications, and denied the motion to exclude.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Compliance with FRCP 26(a)(2)(B) — basis/reasons for opinions | Agharkar listed the documents he reviewed and reported his opinions; interviews of Bates provided adequate basis | Report is conclusory and lacks the required explanation of basis/reasons | Court: Report satisfies Rule 26(a)(2)(B); sources reviewed and interviews provide adequate basis |
| Proper classification as a rebuttal expert under FRCP 26(a)(2)(D) | Agharkar specifically rebuts Dr. Penn’s methodology and conclusions on the same subject matter; disclosure was timely (rebuttal deadline) | Agharkar is a late affirmative expert disguised as rebuttal | Court: Agharkar qualifies as a rebuttal expert; disclosure was timely; some opinions might still be contested at trial |
| FRE 403 — irrelevant or needlessly cumulative evidence | Agharkar’s opinions relate to civil claims (deliberate indifference) and differ from Dr. Stewart in key respects (clinical interviews, daily living capacity) | Testimony is irrelevant (tied to criminal Rule 11 context) and duplicates Dr. Stewart | Court: Not needlessly cumulative or irrelevant at this stage; overlap alone insufficient to exclude under 403 |
| FRE 702 / Daubert — reliability, relevance, and qualifications | Agharkar is dual-board-certified, reviewed records, conducted interviews; methodology and credentials make testimony reliable and fit the case | Opinions are conclusory, based on post-incident interviews, lack corrections experience, and thus are unreliable/unhelpful | Court: Agharkar meets FRE 702 threshold on reliability, relevance/fit, and qualifications; admissible; weight and timing issues go to cross-examination |
Key Cases Cited
- Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., 509 U.S. 579 (gatekeeping for expert reliability and relevance)
- Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., 43 F.3d 1311 (9th Cir.) (applying Daubert factors in this circuit)
- Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (flexible reliability inquiry for non-scientific experts)
- Yeti by Molly, Ltd. v. Deckers Outdoor Corp., 259 F.3d 1101 (exclusion appropriate for Rule 26 disclosure failures)
- Hangarter v. Provident Life & Accident Ins. Co., 373 F.3d 998 (expert qualification and application of experience to conclusions)
- Guidroz-Brault v. Missouri Pacific R.R., 254 F.3d 825 (facts relied upon must exist for expert to testify)
- Kennedy v. Collagen Corp., 161 F.3d 1226 (challenges to credentials or methodology generally affect weight, not admissibility)
- McKendall v. Crown Control Corp., 122 F.3d 803 (expert must help trier of fact; relevance/fit requirement)
- Children’s Broadcasting Corp. v. Walt Disney Co., 357 F.3d 860 (factual basis attacks go to credibility, not admissibility)