T.B. v. Independent School District 112

Background

The court considered three motions to exclude expert testimony under Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence. Rule 702 allows qualified experts to testify when their specialized knowledge will help the jury, their opinions are based on sufficient information, and their methods and application of those methods are reliable. The court explained that it acts as a gatekeeper to determine whether expert testimony is relevant and reliable.

The defendant, Independent School District 112, also known as Eastern Carver County Schools (ECCS), moved to exclude testimony from Mia Smith-Bynum and Naomi Khalil. The plaintiffs moved to exclude testimony from David Wolowitz.

Mia Smith-Bynum

Smith-Bynum is a professor of family science, a trained therapist, and a researcher whose work includes the effects of racism on mental health. She interviewed T.B. and J.F.R. and reviewed their medical and school records. She offered opinions that their experiences with racial harassment and bullying were linked to mental-health struggles and other harm.

ECCS argued that Smith-Bynum relied on insufficient information, was not qualified to diagnose the plaintiffs, failed to use a method that considered other possible causes, and used an unreliable method to connect racial harassment to medical conditions. The plaintiffs responded that she was not offering medical diagnoses, but opinions based on research about racism and mental health.

The court found that Smith-Bynum’s testimony was relevant and would help the jury. It found her qualified to offer the opinions in her report and held that challenges to the factual basis of those opinions concerned the weight of her testimony, rather than whether it could be admitted. The court therefore denied ECCS’s motion to exclude Smith-Bynum’s testimony.

Naomi Khalil

Khalil is an educational consultant with extensive experience in education and equity issues. She offered opinions about whether ECCS’s policies, practices, training, and responses addressed racial bullying and harassment. She concluded that ECCS did not meaningfully address or enforce its policies and that this failure contributed to the harm alleged by the plaintiffs.

ECCS argued that Khalil used an incorrect legal standard and lacked a reliable method. The court agreed that the applicable question involved deliberate indifference, not whether ECCS violated an “educational duty.” Because references to a legal duty could confuse the jury, the court barred Khalil from testifying about a legal duty owed by ECCS to students.

The court rejected ECCS’s other challenges. It held that Khalil’s references to “best practices” and “perfection” went to the weight of her testimony, not its admissibility. It also found that her education, training, more than twenty years of experience, and references to scholarly research provided enough support for her opinions. The court therefore granted in part and denied in part ECCS’s motion to exclude Khalil’s testimony.

David Wolowitz

Wolowitz is a lawyer who has advised schools on bullying, harassment, discrimination, student safeguarding, policies, and investigations. ECCS retained him to evaluate its policies and practices and its responses to the allegations involving T.B. and J.F.R. He concluded that ECCS’s policies, training, and responses were reasonable and that ECCS did not act with deliberate indifference.

The plaintiffs argued that Wolowitz’s opinions would not help the jury, contained analytical gaps, lacked a relevant foundation, and improperly gave a legal conclusion. The court agreed that using the phrase “deliberate indifference” created too great a risk of confusing the jury and barred Wolowitz from using that phrase at trial.

The court rejected the remaining challenges. It found Wolowitz qualified to offer opinions about whether ECCS acted reasonably in responding to known acts of discrimination. The court held that he was offering an opinion about the factual reasonableness of ECCS’s policies and responses, rather than an opinion about the meaning of the law. The court therefore granted in part and denied in part the plaintiffs’ motion to exclude Wolowitz’s testimony.

Disposition

Judge Michael J. Davis ordered that: (1) ECCS’s motion to exclude Smith-Bynum’s testimony was DENIED; (2) ECCS’s motion to exclude Khalil’s testimony was GRANTED to the extent she was barred from testifying about a legal duty owed by ECCS to students and DENIED in all other respects; and (3) the plaintiffs’ motion to exclude Wolowitz’s testimony was GRANTED to the extent he was barred from using the phrase “deliberate indifference” at trial and DENIED in all other respects.

This order addressed the admissibility and permitted scope of expert testimony; it did not decide the underlying claims about the school district’s conduct.