(Please note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the participants in this sexual harassment/personal injury case and its proceedings.)
Plaintiffs Jim Green, John Brown, Stan White, and Paul Jones hereby oppose defendants’ Motion in Limine No. 12 To Exclude Evidence, Testimony and Argument Regarding the Expert Opinion Testimony of Plaintiffs’ Expert Michael Black.
BECAUSE EXPERT OPINION REGARDING PLAINTIFFS’ SEXUAL HARASSMENT CAUSES OF ACTION WOULD ASSIST THE TRIER OF FACT, MICHAEL BLACK’S TESTIMONY IS RELEVANT AND ADMISSIBLE IN THIS CASE.
Standards of Relevance and Admissibility.
No evidence is admissible except relevant evidence. Evid. Code § 350. Except as otherwise provided by statute, all relevant evidence is admissible. Evid. Code § 351.
Relevant evidence means evidence, including evidence relevant to the credibility of a witness or hearsay declarant, having any tendency in reason to prove or disprove any disputed fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action. Evid. Code § 210.
The court in its discretion may exclude evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the probability that its admission will (a) necessitate undue consumption of time or (b) create substantial danger of undue prejudice, of confusing the issues, or of misleading the jury. Evid. Code § 352.
There are three distinct requirements for admissibility of expert opinion testimony in this personal injury matter:
The subject matter must be sufficiently beyond common experience that the opinion would assist the jury;
The witness must have appropriate qualifications; i.e., some special knowledge, training or experience in that subject matter; and the opinion must be based on reliable matter.
Evid. Code § 801. (See Part 2 of 7.)
For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.