Hayer v. Liverant

Background

The court summarized rulings on the parties’ motions in limine, which are requests to exclude or limit evidence before trial. The court noted that such rulings may be revised during trial.

Liverant’s Motions

1. Elba Romo’s testimony — granted in part and denied in part. Romo may testify about the general standard of care for building managers handling accommodation requests and whether hypothetical facts would satisfy that standard. She may not testify that, based on her own review of the evidence, Liverant breached his duty of care, because that would be a legal conclusion and would intrude on the jury’s role. The court also rejected Liverant’s argument that a negligence claim could not be based on a failure to accommodate.

2. References to an emotional support animal — denied. The court found that Hayer’s request for an emotional support animal as a reasonable accommodation was undisputed. It rejected Liverant’s argument that Hayer’s later request for a psychiatric service dog replaced or superseded the earlier request.

3. Hayer’s testimony about statements from organizations — denied. Hayer may testify that every organization she contacted told her she had met her obligations in the interactive process. The court ruled that the testimony was not hearsay because it was offered to show its effect on Hayer, not to prove that she actually satisfied those obligations. Liverant may request a limiting instruction.

4. Evidence not disclosed under the federal discovery rules — granted subject to exceptions. As a general matter, evidence or testimony that was not properly disclosed is inadmissible. But the court denied Liverant’s request to exclude testimony from Eloise Reid and Hilary Acer. Although Hayer’s disclosures were likely deficient, the court found that exclusion was a harsh sanction because the witnesses had been made known through text messages and interrogatory responses. Liverant may depose each witness before trial.

5. Dr. Hoy-Gerlach’s testimony — granted in part and denied in part. Dr. Hoy-Gerlach may testify about the general biopsychosocial benefits of human-animal interactions, including interactions with emotional support animals. The court excluded her opinion about the specific benefits of Hayer’s dog Kona to Hayer’s mental health because the opinion was not shown to be reliable and was only marginally relevant to whether Liverant reasonably responded to Hayer’s accommodation request.

Hayer’s Motions

1. Dr. Fielder’s testimony — granted. The court excluded both of Dr. Fielder’s opinions about whether Hayer’s treating psychologists complied with professional ethics rules. The court found the first opinion unreliable because Hayer had signed a consent form, and the second unreliable because Dr. Fielder cited a section of the ethics code that does not exist and misstated whether Hayer’s disability had been identified.

2. Dr. Fielder’s rebuttal testimony — granted. Dr. Fielder could not rebut Dr. Hoy-Gerlach’s opinions about human-animal interactions because he did not explain how his forensic-psychology training qualified him as an expert on that subject. Any rebuttal to Dr. Hoy-Gerlach’s excluded second opinion was moot.

3. Evidence about alternative ways to manage Hayer’s disability — denied as moot. Liverant confirmed that he would not argue that Hayer had to try other methods before requesting an emotional support animal. The court stated that he could still argue that Hayer failed to limit her emotional-distress damages and could introduce evidence about her reported sleeping difficulties, if otherwise admissible.

4. Therapy notes referring to “legal strategy” — granted. The court excluded portions of Dr. Rosenberg’s June 2023 therapy notes. It found that the notes had, at most, minimal relevance to Liverant’s theories about liability and emotional-distress damages, while the risk of unfair prejudice, distraction, and jury confusion substantially outweighed their value. The court noted that the evidence could become admissible if something at trial made it more relevant, such as Hayer claiming that the accommodation denial caused her relationship with her therapists to deteriorate.

Disposition

The order ruled on the specified motions in limine but did not decide the ultimate merits of Hayer’s claims. Judge Vince Chhabria stated that some rulings could be revisited during trial.