Plaintiff was raped in September 2018, when she was a student at Louisiana Tech University. Her attacker—known to her only as “Daniel”—was also a Tech student, having recently transferred from University of Louisiana Lafayette (“UL Lafayette ). At the time, Plaintiff did not know that “Daniel” was a sexual predator who had been reported for rape and other sexual misconduct on five prior occasions.
However, the Board of Supervisors of Louisiana State University and Agricultural and Mechanical College (“LSU”) allegedly knew “Daniel’s” identity—Victor Daniel Silva—and his past.
Despite five alleged assaults, a rape arrest, and banishment from LSU, Plaintiff contended that Silva was not suspended, expelled, criminally prosecuted, or even meaningfully investigated. Instead, in the face of new allegations, Silva was allowed to transfer repeatedly among LSU, UL Lafayette, and Louisiana Tech. Even after Plaintiff reported her rape to Louisiana Tech—Silva’s sixth alleged assault—Silva transferred back to UL Lafayette and graduated with a clean academic record.
The Board of Supervisors of the University of Louisiana System (“ULS”)-
which supervises both UL Lafayette and Louisiana Tech—allegedly knew of Silva because he transferred repeatedly between UL Lafayette and Tech, and was placed on academic probation after he was arrested for rape.
Plaintiff filed her complaint on May 25, 2022, asserting claims of deliberate indifference under Title IX and negligence under Louisiana state law against ULS.
Defendant Board of Supervisors of the University of Louisiana System filed a motion in limine and Daubert motion to exclude or limit the testimony of Plaintiff’s expert witness Julie Medlin.
Psychology Expert Witness
Julie Medlin is the Director of Medlin Treatment Center. She is a licensed psychologist and trauma expert who has over 29 years of clinical experience in evaluating and treating children, adolescents, and adults. She obtained her bachelor’s degree in psychology from Harvard University, and her master’s and doctoral degrees in Clinical Psychology from the University of Florida. Dr. Medlin specializes in assessments and conducts psychological, sexual trauma, psychosexual, and forensic evaluations. She served as the forensic evaluator for the Wilbanks Child Endangerment and Sexual Exploitation (CEASE) Clinic at the University of Georgia School of Law. She has expertise in the fields of trauma, sexual abuse, and sexual deviancy.
Discussion by the Court
Federal law requires publicly-funded universities to immediately and effectively investigate reports of sexual assault to eliminate the threat and prevent its reoccurrence. Louisiana law requires coordinated intervention among public universities and local law enforcement to identify and remove sexual offenders from college campuses.
ULS asked the Court to prevent Medlin from testifying, because Plaintiff failed to comply with her disclosure requirements under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26. ULS’ motion additionally invoked Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and Daubert V. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, 506 U.S. 579, 590 (1993).
Rule 26
To merit exclusion of Medlin’s testimony on account of Plaintiff’s failure to timely disclose a list of matters in which Medlin had previously testified as an expert witness would be an overly punitive sanction for an error the Court considered relatively mundane. Exclusion of testimony for a violation to Rule 26 may be justified by four factors: “(1) the importance of the evidence; (2) the prejudice to the opposing party of including the evidence; (3) the possibility of curing such prejudice by granting a continuance; and (4) the explanation for the party’s failure to disclose.”
The Court held that the offered evidence is important to Plaintiff’s case, as Medlin is her sole psychological expert, and the prejudice to ULS is negligible given that Medlin was otherwise timely and properly designated as an expert and given that the requested list of matters was provided a full year before the scheduled trial date. Lastly, this negligible prejudice can be cured by allowing Medlin’s deposition to be reopened on a limited basis upon ULS’s motion.
Sex Offenders
ULS requested that the Court bar Medlin from testifying to the topic of sex offenders and/or whether Silva should have been convicted of a sexual offense. Plaintiff did not contest this exclusion, and stated that Medlin would not be offered to testify to these issues. ULS’ Motion on these grounds was therefore denied for present purposes as unnecessary. Should Medlin seek to testify to matters outside of her expertise at trial, the Court will limit her testimony accordingly.
Suicidal Ideation
ULS also requested that the Court exclude Medlin’s statement in her expert report that following Plaintiff’s deposition, her suicidal thoughts returned. The gravamen of ULS’ argument is that Medlin did not write this statement down in these words in the notes she contemporaneously took during her evaluation of Plaintiff.
Medlin explained that because she took her notes contemporaneously, she did not record Plaintiff’s statements verbatim.
A review of Medlin’s notes from her evaluation of Plaintiff shows that contrary to ULS’ position, Medlin did make a notation indicating that Plaintiff’s suicidal ideation—which she had reportedly not experienced for a long time—was caused by the deposition. Moreover, in her sworn testimony Medlin averred that Plaintiff explicitly stated that she experienced suicidal ideation because, in Plaintiff’s opinion, she was asked victim-blaming questions by ULS’s counsel. Medlin was able to recall the flavor of some of these questions, which were, according to Plaintiff, questions that essentially asked why she did not resist if she was assaulted. Given that Medlin has sworn that she was directly told by Plaintiff that her deposition caused her suicidal ideation to return, the Court held that Medlin’s inclusion of the statement in her expert report is the antithesis of “fundamentally unsupported.”
Moreover, Medlin directly opined that the clinical significance of Plaintiff’s statements was not that uncouth actions on behalf of ULS’s counsel were the cause of her feelings—Medlin could not opine to the veracity of this—but that Plaintiff’s feelings from and processing of the deposition were “really reflective of her emotional state and how fragile she is.” The Court held that this opinion appeared to be squarely within Medlin’s expertise and will not be excluded at this time.
Held
The Court denied Defendant Board of Supervisors of the University of Louisiana System’s motion in limine and Daubert motion to exclude or limit the testimony of Plaintiff’s expert witness Julie Medlin.
Key Takeaway:
Medlin made a notation indicating that Plaintiff’s suicidal ideation—which she had reportedly not experienced for a long time—was caused by the deposition. Plaintiff was asked victim-blaming questions by ULS’ counsel. Medlin was able to recall the flavor of some of these questions, which were, according to Plaintiff, questions that essentially asked why she did not resist if she was assaulted.
Medlin concluded that Plaintiff’s feelings from and processing of the deposition were “really reflective of her emotional state and how fragile she is.” The Court held that this opinion appeared to be squarely within Medlin’s expertise.
Case Details:
| Case Caption: | Doe V. Board Of Supervisors Of The University Of Louisiana System Et Al |
| Docket Number: | 3:22cv338 |
| Court: | United States District Court, Louisiana Middle |
| Order Date: | January 30, 2025 |
Leave a Reply