Doe v. Colgate University et al, No. 5:2017cv01298 - Document 58 (N.D.N.Y 2020)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM-DECISION and ORDER granting in part and denying in part 44 Motion for Summary Judgment. The First and (parallel) Fifth causes of action (COA) are Denied; the Second COA is Denied; the Third and Fourth COA are Granted. 45 Motion to Preclude Expert Testimony is Granted. This case will proceed to trial on 9/14/2020 at 10:00am in Syracuse. A final pretrial order will be issued at a later date.. Signed by Senior Judge Frederick J. Scullin, Jr on 4/30/2020. (bjw, )
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
support, it pointed to the First Circuit’s holding that “‘[t]he overwhelming majority of courts have concluded that [Dr. Smith’s] “willingness-to-pay” methodology is either unreliable or not likely to assist the jury in valuing hedonic damages, or both.’” Crawford, 2015 WL 13703301, at *8 (quoting Smith v. Jenkins, 732 F.3d 51, 66 (1st Cir. 2013)); (citing Stokes v. John Deere Seeding Group, No. 4:12 Civ. 04054 (SLD)(JAG), 2014 WL 675820, at *3 (C.D. Ill. Feb. 21, 2014) (“the weight of mandatory and persuasive precedent counsels strongly against admitting Dr. Smith’s [expert] testimony.”) (other citation omitted)). “These decisions typically hold that [Dr.] Smith’s methodology is not sufficiently reliable to be allowed at trial.” Id. Specifically, the Crawford court noted that the First and Seventh Circuits questioned “the logic of relying on career selection and government regulation to quantify an individual’s valuation of her own life.” Id. at *9 (citing Smith, 732 F.3d at 67; Mercado [v. Ahmed], 974 F.2d [863,] 871 [(7th Cir. 1992)]) (other citation omitted). The Seventh Circuit provided the following: [W]e have serious doubts about [Dr. Smith’s] assertion that the studies he relies upon actually measure how much Americans value life. For example, spending on items like air bags and smoke detectors is probably influenced as much by advertising and marketing decisions made by profit-seeking manufacturers and by government-mandated safety requirements as it is by any consideration by consumers of how much life is worth. Also, many people may be interested in a whole range of safety devices and believe they are worthwhile, but are unable to afford them. More fundamentally, spending on safety items reflects a consumer’s willingness to pay to reduce risk, perhaps more a measure of how cautious a person is than how much he or she values life. Mercado v. Ahmed, 974 F.2d 863, 871 (7th Cir. 1992). “The willingness-to-pay methodology thus requires ‘too large a leap to accept’ the notion that the consumer, workplace, and regulatory decisions of individual actors, viewed in - 19 - Case 5:17-cv-01298-FJS-ATB Document 58 Filed 04/30/20 Page 20 of 21 the aggregate, ‘accurately reflects the value society places on the average human life.’” Crawford, 2015 WL 13703301, at *9 (quoting Saia v. Sears Roebuck & Co., 47 F. Supp. 2d 141, 148 (D. Mass. 1999)). Dr. Smith’s testimony thus lacks the reliability that Rule 702 and Daubert require. Accordingly, the Court adopts the Crawford court’s reasoning to hold that Dr. Smith may not testify about Plaintiff’s hedonic damages based on his willingness-to-pay methodology. IV. CONCLUSION After carefully considering the entire file in this matter, the parties’ submissions, and the applicable law, and for the above-stated reasons, the Court hereby ORDERS that Defendant’s motion for summary judgment, see Dkt. No. 44, is DENIED IN PART and GRANTED IN PART; and the Court further ORDERS that Defendant’s motion for summary judgment as to Plaintiff’s first cause of action for violation of Title IX of 20 U.S.C. § 1681 et seq., under the theories of erroneous outcome and selective enforcement, and parallel fifth cause of action for violations of the New York State Human Rights Law is DENIED; and the Court further ORDERS that Defendant’s motion for summary judgment as to Plaintiff’s second cause of action for breach of contract is DENIED; and the Court further ORDERS that Defendant’s motion for summary judgment as to Plaintiff’s third and fourth causes of action, interpreted as violations of the breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing and equitable estoppel, is GRANTED; and the Court further ORDERS that Defendant’s motion to preclude Plaintiff’s expert, Dr. Stan V. Smith, Ph.D., from testifying about hedonic damages, see Dkt. No. 45, is GRANTED; and the Court further - 20 - Case 5:17-cv-01298-FJS-ATB Document 58 Filed 04/30/20 Page 21 of 21 ORDERS that the trial of this action shall commence at 10:00 a.m. on September 14, 2020, in Syracuse, New York. The Court will issue a separate Final Pretrial Scheduling Order, setting forth the deadlines for filing pretrial submissions, including motions in limine, at a later date. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: April 30, 2020 Syracuse, New York - 21 -
]]>
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.
