Jane Doe v. Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP, and Does 1–60

Summary

The United States District Court for the District of New Mexico denied Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP’s Daubert motions to exclude the testimony of experts Charol Shakeshaft and Laurie Fortin. The court held that Shakeshaft was qualified to testify about school policies, training, and responses to sexual-abuse reports, and that Fortin was qualified to testify about environmental and cultural factors facilitating grooming. The court concluded that the defendants’ challenges principally concerned the weight and credibility of the testimony rather than its admissibility.

Holdings

1. Shakeshaft was qualified under Rule 702 to testify regarding Portsmouth Abbey’s policies, training, and response to reports of sexual abuse within the scope disclosed in her report. Her academic credentials and extensive research experience were sufficient even though she lacked the particular practical experience and recent on-the-ground boarding-school experience asserted by the defendant.
2. The court declined to exclude Shakeshaft’s opinions on reliability or relevance grounds because the defendant’s objections primarily challenged the weight, credibility, or factual bases of the testimony. Shakeshaft could not testify as an expert on legal conflicts of interest or the standard of care applicable to Lewis Roca attorneys, but the record did not show that she would offer such testimony.
3. Fortin was qualified to testify regarding grooming and environmental or cultural factors that facilitate grooming, within the scope disclosed in her report. She was not qualified or offered to testify about the adequacy of school policies or the standard of care applicable to Portsmouth Abbey.
4. Fortin’s testimony was not excludable as speculative or irrelevant. Her understanding of Smith’s violations of Portsmouth Abbey rules was based on deposition testimony from school personnel, and testimony about grooming and its effects could assist the jury in understanding the relationship between Doe and Smith even though Smith was not a party.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Charol Shakeshaft was qualified under Federal Rule of Evidence 702 to testify about Portsmouth Abbey’s policies, training, and response to reports of educator sexual misconduct.
2. Whether Shakeshaft’s opinions were sufficiently reliable and relevant despite challenges concerning methodology, factual support, legal standards, and alleged speculation.
3. Whether Laurie Fortin was qualified under Rule 702 to testify about grooming and environmental or cultural factors that facilitate grooming.
4. Whether Fortin’s opinions were sufficiently supported and relevant, including whether testimony concerning Smith’s conduct was irrelevant because Smith was not a party.

Disposition

other