Rapp v. Fowler
- Lewis Kaplan
- 1:20-cv-09586
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Rapp v. Fowler, Judge Kaplan denied reconsideration of one evidence ruling and required advance notice before certain third-party-accusation inquiries.
Anthony Rapp, Kevin Spacey Fowler, their counsel, and the expert witness whose underlying data may be explored on cross-examination.
What happened
In Rapp v. Fowler, Kevin Spacey Fowler asked Judge Lewis A. Kaplan to reconsider or clarify parts of earlier rulings about evidence.
The court denied reconsideration of the rulings concerning the Tyrell and masseuse incidents. It held that Fowler could question Anthony Rapp’s expert about data the expert had regarding those incidents to help the jury evaluate her opinion, subject to the evidence rules. The court declined to issue an abstract ruling about questioning witnesses concerning other third-party accusations against Fowler.
Judge Kaplan ordered Rapp’s counsel to disclose any intended inquiry about those accusations to Fowler’s counsel first and, if Fowler objected, obtain a ruling from the court before making the inquiry. The court ordered the clerk to terminate the motion docket entry.
The detailed version
- Rapp v. Fowler · No. 1:20-cv-09586
- Lewis Kaplan
- Oct. 9, 2022
Background
Kevin Spacey Fowler moved for reconsideration or clarification of parts of the court’s earlier rulings on his motions in limine, which are requests for advance decisions about the admission or use of evidence. The motion addressed Motion No. 2 and Motion No. 4.
Motion No. 2
The court denied Fowler’s request for reconsideration of rulings concerning whether certain alleged incidents were admissible over an objection under Federal Rule of Evidence 412(a). The court stated that Fowler had not shown that it had overlooked a material fact or legal authority.
The court separately addressed Fowler’s argument that he should be allowed to cross-examine Rapp’s expert about what Rapp told the expert concerning the Tyrell and masseuse incidents, as well as other data the expert had about those incidents. The court explained that the information would not be used for its truth, so it would not be hearsay for that purpose. Under Rules 703 and 705, an expert may be questioned about the facts and data underlying the expert’s opinion, subject to Rule 403, which addresses unfair prejudice and related concerns.
The court ruled that Fowler may cross-examine the expert about the data she had concerning the Tyrell and masseuse incidents. The ruling did not decide any later issue concerning whether data provided to the expert by a witness was accurate or complete.
Motion No. 4
Fowler sought clarification that Rapp could not question Fowler or another witness about third-party accusations against Fowler, other than an accusation by Mr. Holtzman, even when the accusers had been publicly identified. The court declined to decide that request in the abstract.
The court ordered that Rapp’s counsel must not make such an inquiry without first disclosing the intended inquiry and its nature to Fowler’s counsel. If Fowler’s counsel objected, Rapp’s counsel had to obtain a ruling from the court before proceeding.
Disposition
Judge Lewis A. Kaplan denied the reconsideration request concerning Motion No. 2, allowed the specified cross-examination of the expert, and declined to issue the requested abstract ruling concerning Motion No. 4 while imposing the advance-disclosure and court-ruling requirement. The clerk was directed to terminate Docket 285.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.