Lindsay Hunt v. City of Portland
599 F. App'x 620
9th Cir.2013Background
- Lindsay K. Hunt, a Portland Police Bureau officer, sued the City defendants alleging First Amendment retaliation and sought damages for psychological harm after reporting officer misconduct.
- District court granted summary judgment for the City on Hunt’s First Amendment claim, finding her speech was pursuant to official duties.
- At trial the defense presented expert psychiatrist Dr. Eugene Klecan. The district court limited his live testimony to damages causation and excluded opinion on Hunt’s credibility.
- The district court admitted a redacted 24‑page written report by Dr. Klecan into evidence and allowed it to go to the jury room. Hunt objected to the report as hearsay and prejudicial character evidence.
- The Ninth Circuit affirmed summary judgment and the limited admission of live expert testimony, but held the written report was inadmissible hearsay; it nevertheless found the error harmless and affirmed the verdict.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Hunt’s internal reports of officer misconduct are protected First Amendment speech | Hunt contends her reports were citizen speech protecting her from employer discipline | City argues Hunt spoke pursuant to official duties (duty to report misconduct), so Garcetti governs | Court: Speech was pursuant to official duties; summary judgment for City affirmed |
| Admissibility of defense expert’s live testimony on causation and credibility | Hunt argued expert testimony should not address credibility or be used to undermine perception of events | City argued expert may testify on damages causation and relevant psychological issues | Court: District court properly limited testimony to damages causation and excluded credibility opinions; admission not an abuse of discretion |
| Admissibility of expert’s written report (entered as exhibit and sent to jury) | Hunt argued the written report was hearsay and prejudicial character evidence; its admission required reversal | City argued report was cumulative and redacted; admission harmless | Court: Report was inadmissible hearsay and admission was error, but error was harmless given redactions, cumulativeness, counsel’s involvement, and lack of demonstrated prejudice; verdict affirmed |
| Prejudicial effect warranting new trial | Hunt argued report’s character and credibility attacks were highly prejudicial and affected verdict | City argued any error was not more likely than not to have tainted the verdict | Court: Majority found no prejudice; concurrence would reverse and remand for new trial due to severe prejudice from the report |
Key Cases Cited
- Davis v. Las Vegas, 478 F.3d 1048 (9th Cir.) (standard for reviewing summary judgment)
- Garcetti v. Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410 (2006) (public employees’ speech pursuant to official duties is not protected by the First Amendment)
- Gen. Elec. Co. v. Joiner, 522 U.S. 136 (1997) (abuse-of-discretion standard for admissibility of expert testimony)
- Defenders of Wildlife v. Bernal, 204 F.3d 920 (9th Cir.) (reversal of evidentiary rulings requires showing of prejudice)
- Tennison v. Circus Circus Enterprises, Inc., 244 F.3d 684 (9th Cir.) (harmless-error prejudice standard for evidentiary errors)
- Dahlia v. Rodriguez, 735 F.3d 1060 (9th Cir.) (communications confined to chain of command relevant in Garcetti analysis)