Borges v. County of Mendocino
- Susan Illston
- 3:20-cv-04537
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Borges v. County of Mendocino, Judge Illston granted the County’s motion to exclude plaintiffs’ expert testimony, while allowing Diane Curry to testify as a fact witness.
The ruling affects plaintiffs Ann Marie Borges and the other plaintiffs’ proposed use of testimony from Borges, Peter White, and Diane Curry. Borges and White may not testify as proposed experts, while Curry may testify about her own understanding and implementation of the ordinance as a fact witness.
What happened
In Borges v. County of Mendocino, the County asked the court to exclude proposed expert testimony from Ann Marie Borges, real estate agent Peter White, and former Mendocino County Interim-Agricultural Commissioner Diane Curry. The plaintiffs did not oppose excluding Borges’s and White’s testimony as experts.
The plaintiffs had identified Curry as an expert on interpreting and carrying out the County’s cannabis-cultivation permit ordinance. Curry had reviewed the plaintiffs’ application and initially approved it before leaving County employment; her successor later denied the application.
Judge Susan Illston granted the County’s motion. Borges and White could not testify as experts, and Curry could not testify as an expert about the ordinance’s intent and implementation, but she could testify as a fact witness about her own understanding and implementation of the ordinance.
The detailed version
- Borges v. County of Mendocino · No. 3:20-cv-04537
- Susan Illston
- Mar. 21, 2022
Background
The County moved to exclude proposed expert testimony from plaintiff Ann Marie Borges, real estate agent Peter White, and former Mendocino County Interim-Agricultural Commissioner Diane Curry. The court vacated the scheduled hearing under Civil Local Rule 7-1(b) and decided the motion without oral argument.
The plaintiffs did not oppose the motion as to Borges and White. The court therefore granted the motion as to those two individuals.
The plaintiffs designated Curry as a non-retained expert concerning the interpretation and implementation of Ordinance No. 4381, Mendocino County Code of Ordinances, Chapter 10A. According to the opinion, Curry’s staff reviewed the plaintiffs’ cannabis-cultivation application, and Curry initially approved it. After Curry left County employment, her successor denied the application. The plaintiffs argued that Curry had firsthand knowledge and qualified as an expert based on her knowledge, skill, experience, training, and education.
Legal standard
The court explained that Federal Rule of Evidence 702 permits expert testimony only when the expert’s specialized knowledge will help the factfinder understand evidence or determine a disputed fact, the testimony is based on sufficient facts or data, the methods are reliable, and the expert reliably applied those methods to the case. The party offering the expert testimony bears the burden of showing that it is admissible. The court also described its role as a gatekeeper for the relevance and reliability of expert testimony.
Court’s ruling
The County argued that Curry could testify as a percipient, or fact, witness based on her work for the County, but could not testify as an expert about the intent and implementation of the County’s cannabis-cultivation permit ordinance. The court agreed. It ruled that Curry could testify about her understanding of the ordinance and how she implemented it while working for the County, but that this would be lay, or non-expert, testimony. The court granted the County’s motion to exclude the proposed expert testimony.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.