Colombo v. Palo Alto Unified School District

Background

Peter Colombo alleges that three Palo Alto Unified School District officials violated his due process rights and that the District retaliated against him after a false allegation in January 2022 that he raped a middle school student. The defendants moved to exclude expert testimony from Saundra K. Schuster, Ken Whittemore, Mark Alifano, Dr. Jessica Chaudhary, and Dr. Barry Ben-Zion.

The remaining claims include a civil-rights claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Don Austin, Lisa Hickey, and Trent Bahadursingh; a stigma-plus due process claim against Austin and Hickey; and retaliation claims against the District under Title VII, the California Fair Employment and Housing Act, and Title IX. The court stated that separate summary-judgment motions would be addressed in another order.

Legal standard

Under Federal Rules of Evidence 401 and 402, only relevant evidence may be admitted. Rule 403 permits exclusion of relevant evidence when its usefulness is substantially outweighed by dangers such as unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the jury, or wasting time.

Federal Rule of Evidence 702 governs expert testimony. The person offering the testimony must show, more likely than not, that the expert’s specialized knowledge will help the jury, that the testimony is based on sufficient facts or data, that reliable methods were used, and that those methods were reliably applied to the case. The court’s role is to evaluate the reliability of the expert’s methods and foundation, rather than decide whether the expert’s conclusions are correct.

Expert-by-expert rulings

Saundra K. Schuster

Schuster has more than 25 years of experience in college administration and teaching, including experience as an associate dean of students. She also reported extensive experience consulting and training on Title IX issues and prior expert-witness work. Her opinions concerned the District’s Title IX policies and response to the allegations against Colombo.

The court found that Colombo showed that Schuster’s testimony was relevant, helpful to the jury, based on sufficient data, and the product of reliable methods reliably applied to the case. The court therefore denied the defendants’ motion to exclude Schuster’s testimony.

Ken Whittemore

Whittemore was retained as an expert on human-resources practices and procedures in educational settings. He has more than two decades of experience in school administration and human resources and opined that the District’s actions, together with an alleged lack of proper investigation, appeared to be retaliation.

The court found that Colombo satisfied the requirements for admitting Whittemore’s testimony and therefore denied the defendants’ motion to exclude it. The court noted a concern that Whittemore’s testimony might duplicate Schuster’s testimony, but said it would address that concern through trial time limits and further objections at trial.

Mark Alifano

Alifano is a retired law-enforcement officer with 22 years of experience. He was retained to offer opinions about the investigative handling of the claims against Colombo. The court found that Colombo did not show that Alifano’s opinions met the requirements for reliable and relevant expert testimony. The court therefore granted the defendants’ motion to exclude Alifano’s testimony.

Dr. Jessica Chaudhary

Dr. Chaudhary, a board-certified psychiatrist, interviewed Colombo remotely for two to two and a half hours and prepared an eight-page report. Her report repeated Colombo’s allegations of emotional distress, recommended therapy and psychiatric medication, and recommended that the District return Colombo to his Fletcher Middle School assignment and issue him a formal apology.

The court found that the testimony was not based on sufficient data or reliable principles. It cited the short remote interview, the failure to assess alternative causes, the treatment recommendations, and the absence of a mental-health diagnosis. The court also found that Dr. Chaudhary exceeded her expertise by recommending a particular job placement and an apology. The court therefore granted the defendants’ motion to exclude her testimony.

Dr. Barry Ben-Zion

Dr. Ben-Zion is a consulting economist retained to offer opinions about Colombo’s economic loss. His analysis assumed that Colombo would be constructively terminated on January 26, 2026, the first day of trial. The court found that his testimony was relevant and helpful to the jury, based on sufficient data, and the product of reliable methods reliably applied to the facts.

The court found that the constructive-termination assumption did not undermine the reliability of the data or analysis. The defendants may challenge that assumption through cross-examination. The court therefore denied the defendants’ motion to exclude Dr. Ben-Zion’s testimony.

Disposition

The court granted in part the defendants’ motion to exclude and excluded the expert testimony of Mark Alifano and Dr. Jessica Chaudhary. It denied in part the motion as to Saundra K. Schuster, Ken Whittemore, and Dr. Barry Ben-Zion, who may testify within the limits of their disclosed opinions.