33 F. Supp. 3d 1381
M.D. Ala.2014Background
- On Aug. 4, 2014, court issued a merits opinion on Alabama’s staff-privileges statute governing abortion providers.
- Court now supplements that opinion, addressing evidentiary matters: newspaper exhibits, expert opinions, and witness credibility.
- Newspaper articles were offered to reflect statements by Alabama legislators/governor; hearsay objections were raised.
- Court discussed rules governing hearsay and residual exceptions, limiting articles to non-truth purposes (reader climate) rather than proving statements actually made.
- Five Daubert challenges were raised to experts: Anderson (credentialing and supplemental report), Hayes (deposition testimony), Duggar (testimony), Moore (supply of physicians), and Freedman (stigma research).
- Parties include Planned Parenthood Gulf Coast and Planned Parenthood Southeast; exhibits PX 30, 31, 32, 72, 80 and DX 44–48 were admitted/considered.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of newspaper articles | Articles reflect statements by officials; admissible as evidence of legislative intent. | Articles are hearsay and should be excluded or limited in purpose. | Articles excluded for truth but admitted for reader-effect/atmosphere; not admitted to prove statements. |
| Daubert standard for Anderson | Anderson qualified to discuss credentialing; data from Data Bank guide is acceptable. | Data Bank reporting and supplemental Rue report lack reliability; not admissible. | Credentialing opinions excluded; Rue-driven supplemental-report opinions deemed unreliable; some factual statements allowed if supported by other admitted evidence. |
| Daubert standard for Hayes | Informal poll and experience are admissible under Daubert as bench-trial-relevant. | Poll methodology is unscientific and not probative to key issues. | Testimony admissible but given little weight; poll methodology and relevance limited. |
| Daubert standard for Duggar | Duggar’s lay and fact-testimony about privileges and care is admissible as relevant. | Duggar’s opinions are not well-founded or disclosed as expert; limited reliability. | Opinions admissible but given limited weight; some consistency issues with hospital testimony undermined weight. |
| Expert testimony of Moore and Freedman | Moore and Freedman provide credible expertise on violence and stigma affecting access. | Moore’s opinions about recruitment are speculative; Freedman’s qualitative methods questionable. | Moore credible on violence; some opinions excluded for lack of grounding. Freedman admissible and credible; methods supported by peer-reviewed context. |
Key Cases Cited
- Brooks v. Miller, 158 F.3d 1230 (11th Cir.1998) (hearsay limits on newspaper evidence for legislative intent)
- Kumho Tire Co., Ltd. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (Supreme Court 1999) (gatekeeping extends to all expert testimony)
- Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (Supreme Court 1993) (reliability and relevance gatekeeping standard)
- United Fire & Cas. Co. v. Whirlpool Corp., 704 F.3d 1338 (11th Cir.2013) (even if parts of testimony are unreliable, admissible parts may remain)
- Quiet Tech. DC-8, Inc. v. Hurel-Dubois UK Ltd., 326 F.3d 1333 (11th Cir.2003) (admissibility vs. persuasiveness; credibility matters)
- Larez v. City of Los Angeles, 946 F.2d 630 (9th Cir.1991) (reasonableness of alternatives in evidentiary proof)