Hirata v. Southern Nevada Health District
2:13-cv-02302
D. Nev.May 31, 2016Background
- Plaintiff Valerie Hirata sued the Southern Nevada Health District and others alleging a hostile work environment and related employment-law issues; the disputes involve expert testimony designations.
- Hirata designated Dr. Alison Osinski as an aquatics expert and Dr. Jay Finkleman as a human-resources/industrial-organizational expert.
- The Health District moved to strike Osinski (ECF No. 100) and Finkleman (ECF No. 103) under Daubert and Rule 702, arguing lack of qualification and unreliability.
- Hirata moved to strike the Health District’s rebuttal expert, Dr. William Rowley (ECF No. 125), alleging undisclosed materials were considered in Rowley’s report.
- The magistrate judge evaluated (1) whether Osinski’s aquatics credentials qualified her to opine on organizational/HR deficiencies, (2) whether Finkleman’s opinions were supported by reliable methodology, and (3) whether Rowley’s use of deposition summaries (not listed in his report) violated Rule 26 and warranted exclusion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Dr. Osinski is qualified to opine on the Health District’s organizational/HR deficiencies | Osinski’s extensive aquatics, inspection, and training experience qualifies her to comment on workplace processes and administration | Osinski lacks HR/organizational management education or experience and cannot opine on those subjects | Excluded — Osinski not qualified to render organizational/HR opinions |
| Whether Dr. Finkleman’s human-resources opinions are reliable under Rule 702/Daubert | Finkleman relies on professional experience and cited facts/depositions to identify departures from policy and practice | Opinions are conclusory, lack articulated methodology, and fail to link specific policies to deviations | Excluded — Finkleman’s opinions unreliable and legally insufficient |
| Whether Dr. Rowley’s failure to list deposition summaries in his Rule 26 report requires exclusion | Rowley’s use of summaries was limited and harmless; defendant says summaries were only a navigation aid and not relied upon | Health District concedes Rowley consulted summaries but did not list them in his report, violating Rule 26 | Not excluded for nondisclosure — harmless; Hirata given opportunity to depose Rowley on the summaries by deadline |
| Whether Rowley should be permitted as a rebuttal expert if Osinski is excluded | N/A (Hirata opposes Rowley’s undisclosed reliance) | Rowley is a rebuttal expert to Osinski | Recommended excluded — because Osinski is excluded, Rowley has no admissible initial opinion to rebut and cannot be used in the defendant’s case-in-chief |
Key Cases Cited
- Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., 43 F.3d 1311 (9th Cir. 1995) (trial court gatekeeping and reliability standards for expert testimony)
- Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (U.S. 1999) (gatekeeping role of district courts for all expert testimony)
- Claar v. Burlington N. R. Co., 29 F.3d 499 (9th Cir. 1994) (expert opinions inadmissible when speculative and insufficiently explained)
- United States v. Chang, 207 F.3d 1169 (9th Cir. 2000) (expert may be qualified in general field but unqualified on specific sub-issue)
- Lust v. Merrell Dow Pharm., 89 F.3d 594 (9th Cir. 1996) (proponent bears burden to show expert admissibility)
- United States v. Hankey, 203 F.3d 1160 (9th Cir. 2000) (experience-based expert testimony must still articulate basis and sources)
- Fidelity Nat’l Title Ins. Co. v. Intercounty Nat’l Title Ins. Co., 412 F.3d 745 (7th Cir. 2005) (materials given to an expert to review must be disclosed under Rule 26)