Cleveland v. The Behemoth et al, No. 3:2019cv00672 - Document 101 (S.D. Cal. 2022)
Court Description: ORDER denying 65 Plaintiff Robert Cleveland's Daubert - Motion to Exclude Defendant from making use of the testimony of Dominick Addario, M.D... Signed by District Judge Ruth Bermudez Montenegro on 10/06/2022. (jpp)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Cleveland v. The Behemoth et al Doc. 101 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ROBERT CLEVELAND, an individual, Plaintiff, 12 13 v. 14 THE BEHEMOTH, a California corporation; and DOES 1 through 10, 15 Case No.: 3:19-cv-00672-RBM-BGS ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF ROBERT CLEVELAND’S DAUBERT MOTION TO EXCLUDE DEFENDANT FROM MAKING USE OF THE TESTIMONY OF DOMINICK ADDARIO, M.D. Defendants. 16 17 [Doc. 65] 18 19 20 On March 4, 2022, Plaintiff Robert Cleveland (“Plaintiff”) filed a Motion to Exclude 21 Defendant from Making Use of the Testimony of Dominick Addario, M.D. (“Motion”). 22 (Doc. 65.) 23 opposition to the Motion (“Opposition”). (Doc. 80.) In the Motion, Plaintiff argues Dr. 24 Addario’s testimony would not be helpful to the trier of fact and is irrelevant, unreliable, 25 and inadmissible under the Federal Rules of Evidence (“Rules” or “Rule”). (Doc. 65–1 at 26 2.) For the reasons discussed below, Plaintiff’s Motion is DENIED. 27 28 On March 18, 2022, Defendant The Behemoth (“Defendant”) filed an /// 1 3:19-cv-00672-RBM-BGS Dockets.Justia.com 1 I. BACKGROUND 2 Plaintiff is a former quality assurance specialist at Defendant, a video game 3 development company headquartered in San Diego. (Doc 1–2 at 4.) On February 20, 2019, 4 Plaintiff filed the instant action alleging that from March 2016 to February 2018, 5 “Defendant[] subjected Plaintiff to systemic employment discrimination based on his 6 gender” and “engendered, endorsed, and/or ratified a hostile work environment violative 7 of state and federal law.” (Id. at 4, 7.) 8 In particular, Plaintiff brings claims for: (1) hostile work environment/sexual 9 harassment in violation of California Fair Employment and Housing Act, (2) retaliation in 10 violation of California Fair Employment and Housing Act, (3) wrongful termination in 11 violation of public policy, (4) violation of California Business and Professions Code § 12 17200, (5) intentional infliction of emotional distress, (6) negligent infliction of emotional 13 distress, (7) failure to prevent harassment, (8) hostile work environment/sexual harassment 14 in violation of Title VII [42 U.S.C. §§ 2000(e) et seq.], and (9) retaliation in violation of 15 Title VII [42 U.S.C. §§ 2000(e) et seq.]. (Id. at 3.) Plaintiff’s complaint has requested 16 general, compensatory, and/or special damages in any amount to be proven at trial. (Id. at 17 21.) The complaint also requests punitive damages in an amount sufficient to punish and 18 deter Defendant from harming other employees. (Id.) In light of Plaintiff’s claims of emotional distress, “both parties engaged expert 19 20 witnesses to render opinions relating to Plaintiff’s mental health.” (Doc. 71 at 3.) 21 Defendant designated expert witness Dominick Addario, M.D., a medical doctor and 22 licensed psychiatrist with over forty-five years of clinical and forensic psychiatric 23 experience. (Doc. 80 at 6.) Plaintiff contends that Dr. Addario’s testimony should be 24 excluded because it is not helpful or reliable, and his “expert report and opinions suffer 25 from a litany of evidentiary defects.” (Doc. 65–1 at 6.) 26 /// 27 /// 28 /// 2 3:19-cv-00672-RBM-BGS 1 II. LEGAL STANDARD 2 Rule 702 provides that expert testimony is admissible if: 3 (a) the expert’s scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will help the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue; (b) the testimony is based on sufficient facts or data; (c) the testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods; and (d) the expert has reliably applied the principles and methods to the facts of the case. 4 5 6 7 FED. R. EVID. 702. For expert testimony to be admitted, it must be useful to the trier of 8 fact, the expert must be qualified to provide the testimony, and the proposed evidence must 9 be reliable or trustworthy. Sterner v. U.S. Drug Enf’t Agency, 467 F. Supp. 2d 1017, 1033 10 (S.D. Cal. 2006). 11 A trial court acts as a gatekeeper in excluding unreliable expert testimony. Cooper 12 v. Takeda Pharms. Am., Inc., 239 Cal. App. 4th 555, 576 (2015); see Daubert v. Merrell 13 Dow Pharms., Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 600 (1993) (“Rule 702 confides to the judge some 14 gatekeeping responsibility in deciding questions of the admissibility of proffered expert 15 testimony”). Moreover, a trial court has broad discretion in deciding whether to admit 16 expert testimony and in determining an expert’s reliability. United States v. Hankey, 203 17 F.3d 1160, 1168 (9th Cir. 2000); see also United States v. Espinosa, 827 F.2d 604, 611 (9th 18 Cir. 1987) (“[t]he decision to admit expert testimony is committed to the discretion of the 19 district court and will not be disturbed unless manifestly erroneous”). 20 III. DISCUSSION 21 Plaintiff argues that Dr. Addario’s testimony should be excluded from trial because 22 it would not be helpful to the trier of fact, and it is irrelevant, unreliable, and inadmissible 23 under the Rules. (Doc. 65–1 at 2.) In particular, Plaintiff alleges Dr. Addario: (1) made 24 broad conclusions, (2) offered improper opinions relating to Plaintiff’s credibility, (3) 25 administered a single objective test to anchor his findings, and (4) allowed his assistant to 26 administer the test in violation of industry practice. (Id. at 7.) Additionally, Plaintiff 27 criticizes “Dr. Addario’s reliance on Plaintiff’s alleged electronic and social media 28 communications to conclude that Plaintiff did not suffer a psychiatric disorder as a result 3 3:19-cv-00672-RBM-BGS 1 of [Defendant] exposing Plaintiff to pedophilic and obscene content is unscientific and 2 unreliable” and argues such testimony is inadmissible. (Id. at 15.) Plaintiff contends Dr. 3 Addario’s testimony relating to Plaintiff’s “foul language, derogatory statements, sexist 4 comments, and dealing with very sexual issues” is a violation of Rule 412, which prohibits 5 evidence offered to prove a victim’s sexual behavior or predisposition unless its probative 6 value outweighs any harm or unfair prejudice. (Doc. 65–1 at 20); FED. R. EVID. 712. 7 It is Defendant’s position that Dr. Addario’s testimony is helpful to the jury, reliable, 8 not character evidence, and admissible under the Rules. Defendant alleges that Dr. Addario 9 conducted an independent medical evaluation which “lasted approximately 2.25 hours and 10 consisted of a clinical interview and a battery of psychological tests.” (Doc. 80 at 7–8.) 11 “Dr. Addario concluded that Plaintiff did not suffer severe emotional distress as a result of 12 the alleged conduct by Defendant.” (Id. at 10.) Rather, “Plaintiff’s mild [generalized 13 anxiety disorder] is a preexisting condition that was likely exacerbated by other events in 14 Plaintiff’s life, including the terminal illness and death of his mother, the death of a beloved 15 pet rat, and having his car towed and resulting litigation.” (Id.) 16 Moreover, Defendants claim that “Dr. Addario has not and will not offer an opinion 17 at trial regarding Plaintiff’s credibility as a witness in general.” (Id. at 12.) Instead, 18 Defendant explains that “documents that reflect Plaintiff’s use of sexually explicit language 19 are relevant to Dr. Addario’s clinical assessment ‘[b]ecause they point towards his 20 sensitivity to sexually laden material,’” which is relevant to whether and to what extent 21 Plaintiff suffered emotional distress as a result of the alleged conduct. (Id.) Additionally, 22 Defendants contend that Dr. Addario’s administration of the objective test, the Minnesota 23 Multiphasic Personality Inventory–2 (“MMPI–2”), was not improper. (Id. at 18.) Even 24 though Dr. Addario’s assistant explained the test to Plaintiff, “Dr. Addario subsequently 25 explained the test to Plaintiff and gave him the opportunity to answer any question that he 26 might have had about approaching the exam” and he “is a qualified psychiatrist who 27 supervised the administration of the MMPI–2, including the brief portion in which Dr. 28 Addario’s assistant handed the test to Plaintiff.” (Id. at 17.) Defendants also argue Dr. 4 3:19-cv-00672-RBM-BGS 1 Addario was not required to administer another test in addition to the MMPI–2. (Id.) 2 The Court finds Dr. Addario’s testimony regarding causation of Plaintiff’s emotional 3 distress is admissible. See Weekley v. City of Los Angeles, 656 F. App’x 824, 827 (9th Cir. 4 2016) (finding the expert did not opine on the plaintiff’s general credibility but rather 5 “explained, based on his qualifications as an expert, that [the plaintiff’s] responses to the 6 testing he conducted suggested that [the plaintiff] has exaggerated his symptoms”). Dr. 7 Addario is a qualified expert, and his testimony, similar to the testimony of Plaintiff’s 8 expert Ellen Stein, Ph.D., may be helpful to the trier of fact in determining whether and to 9 what extent Plaintiff suffered emotional distress and whether such distress was caused by 10 Defendant. However, Plaintiff’s argument seeking exclusion of any broad, conclusory 11 statements made by Dr. Addario as to Plaintiff’s credibility is well taken, and any attempt 12 by Dr. Addario to introduce inadmissible character evidence shall be excluded at trial. See 13 United States v. Barnard, 490 F.2d 907, 913 (9th Cir.1973) (finding exclusion of 14 psychiatrist’s and psychologist’s testimony that witness was a sociopath and 15 not credible was proper, and that admitting such testimony “may cause juries to surrender 16 their own common sense in weighing testimony”). 17 In regard to Dr. Addario’s clinical methodology and testing, the Court finds Dr. 18 Addario used reliable principles and methods in his administration of the MMPI–2. Dr. 19 Addario’s expert testimony is based on a variety of factors including: (1) his review of 20 medical documents, including medical records, employment records, and deposition 21 testimony, (2) a clinical interview with Plaintiff, and (3) various clinical tests, including 22 the MMPI–2. (See Doc. 80 at 16.) While Plaintiff argues the MMPI–2 testing is unreliable 23 because Dr. Addario allowed his assistant to administer the test, Defendant clarifies that 24 Dr. Addario’s assistant explained the MMPI–2 test to Plaintiff and “Dr. Addario 25 subsequently explained the test to Plaintiff and gave him the opportunity to answer any 26 question that he might have had about approaching the exam.” (Doc. 80 at 17.) Moreover, 27 Dr. Addario’s administration of the test is consistent with the test publisher’s guidance 28 which provides the test “can be administered by [a] trained secretary, clerk, or technician.” 5 3:19-cv-00672-RBM-BGS 1 (See Doc. 80–2 at 72.) Thus, the Court finds Dr. Addario’s reliance on objective testing 2 admissible. 3 In regard to Plaintiff’s argument that the expert impermissibly relied upon 4 communications made by Plaintiff that may be excluded under Rule 412, the Court 5 incorporates by reference its ruling on the Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine No. 1 (Doc. 68–1.) 6 Finally, any of Plaintiff’s concerns regarding Dr. Addario’s testimony may be See Daubert, 509 U.S. at 596 (“[v]igorous cross- 7 examined on cross examination. 8 examination, presentation of contrary evidence, and careful instruction on the burden of 9 proof are the traditional and appropriate means of attacking shaky but admissible 10 evidence). 11 IV. CONCLUSION 12 For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s Motion is DENIED. 13 IT IS SO ORDERED. 14 15 16 DATE: October 6, 2022 _________________________________ HON. RUTH BERMUDEZ MONTENEGRO UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 6 3:19-cv-00672-RBM-BGS
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
