Lolita Schagene v. Raymond Mabus, Jr.
704 F. App'x 671
| 9th Cir. | 2017Background
- Schagene sued Fiddler’s Cove Marina (the Navy) under Title VII for a hostile work environment based on incidents from 2004–2011; a jury ruled for the Navy and Schagene appealed.
- Before trial Schagene obtained an in limine order precluding evidence of her 1997–1998 charges, confinement, competency determination, or treatment unless leave of court was obtained; a separate request to broadly preclude 1997–1998 mental-health evidence was denied without prejudice.
- At trial the Navy’s expert, Dr. Kalish, testified about Schagene’s 1997–1998 mental-health records (diagnoses, hospitalization, medications, symptoms) without seeking the court’s required leave.
- The Navy cross-examined Schagene’s treating psychologist (Dr. Lazar) about Schagene’s loss of custody in 1997, which Dr. Lazar had discussed with Schagene in later years.
- The Ninth Circuit majority held the district court erred by admitting the 1997–1998 records and custody evidence because the in limine ruling excluded that material and the remote, pre-incident mental-health history was highly prejudicial with little probative value.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of 1997–1998 mental-health records and related facts | Exclusion order barred any evidence of 1997–1998 charges, confinement, competency, or treatment | Evidence was probative to rebut plaintiff’s claim that later workplace harassment caused her mental-health decline | Reversed: admission was error—district court’s in limine order required leave; probative value of remote 1997–1998 evidence was substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice |
| Use of expert to relay facts from excluded records | Such testimony violated the in limine exclusion because it introduced diagnoses, hospitalization, meds, symptoms from 1997–1998 | Navy argued expert rebuttal of causation justified questioning and reliance on earlier records | Reversed: permitting Dr. Kalish to relate these facts without leave contravened the exclusion and was prejudicial |
| Cross-examination about 1997 loss of child custody | Custody loss flowed from 1997 arrest and was barred by the in limine order | Navy contended custody discussions were relevant to causation and impeachment because plaintiff discussed them with her later treating psychologist | Reversed: questioning about custody improperly introduced remote, prejudicial evidence of competency and was not sufficiently probative of events 2004–2011 |
| Whether any error was harmless | Any deviation from the in limine order was nonprejudicial or justified by plaintiff opening the door | Evidence was necessary to rebut plaintiff’s causation theory and credibility attacks | Majority: presumed prejudice from the error and reversed; dissent would affirm, finding plaintiff opened the door through Dr. Lazar’s testimony |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Sepulveda-Barraza, 645 F.3d 1066 (9th Cir.) (district court evidentiary rulings reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- Obrey v. Johnson, 400 F.3d 691 (9th Cir. 2005) (presumption of prejudice when evidentiary error occurs)
- Estate of Barabin v. AstenJohnson, Inc., 740 F.3d 457 (9th Cir.) (party benefiting from error must prove no harm)
- Gonzalez v. Wong, 667 F.3d 965 (9th Cir.) (mental illness may be admissible to impeach only if it manifests during relevant timeframe)
- United States v. Osazuwa, 564 F.3d 1169 (9th Cir.) (party may open the door to otherwise inadmissible evidence)
- United States v. Archdale, 229 F.3d 861 (9th Cir.) (impeachment by prior inconsistent statements and reports is proper when witness testimony opens the door)