Benjamin Torres is a Captain with the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department. He claimed that he was retaliated against by the Department for having a station tattoo. Specifically, he alleged that he had been passed over for promotion because of a Department “policy” that prevents individuals with station tattoos from being promoted to Commander.
Defendants sought to exclude Plaintiff’s expert, David Reynoso, on the basis that he is unqualified to testify on First Amendment issues and Department policies, which are the subjects of the opinions disclosed in his Rule 26(a)(2)(B) report.
Law Enforcement Expert Witness
David R. Reynoso has more than 35 years of policing experience (beginning in 1990), including experience in gang and gang subculture investigations since 1992, with an “awareness and understanding” of tattoos in subcultures.
Discussion by the Court
Reynoso disclosed seven topics he plans to opine on in his Rule 26(a)(2)(B) report. Opinions one, two, three, four, and five in his report deal with First Amendment issues and other issues of law.
Plaintiff has not proven that Reynoso is qualified to testify on such matters, as required by FRE 702. It is unclear how Reynoso is qualified to speak on such constitutional issues. Reynoso is not a lawyer, nor did his resume or report list experience related to First Amendment issues.
Furthermore, at Reynoso’s deposition, Reynoso failed to identify any relevant First Amendment experience. Because Reynoso has not identified any knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education that would qualify him to speak on such First Amendment and constitutional issues, the Court deemed him unqualified to speak on opinions one, two, three, four, five, and six.
Regarding opinion seven, which is Reynoso’s opinion that Plaintiff possesses the necessary qualifications to be promoted to Commander, the Court finds him unqualified to testify as to that opinion as well. Reynoso never worked for the Department and has not been involved with the Department’s policies and procedures.
Plaintiff argued that Reynoso should instead be allowed to testify on topics such as tattoo appearance policy standards in policing, the operational reality of “policy” vs “practice,” promotion process norms, and law-enforcement subculture context. Yet, these opinions were not disclosed in Reynoso’s Rule 26(a) Report. Although Rule 37(c)(1) allows the party bearing the sanctions to use information not properly disclosed if the party’s failure was substantially justified or harmless, Plaintiff made no attempt to justify why Reynoso’s additional opinions are substantially justified or harmless. As a result, the Court prohibited Reynoso from testifying on these opinions at trial.
Held
The Court granted the Defendants’ motion to exclude the testimony of Plaintiff’s expert David Reynoso.
Key Takeaway
It is unclear to the Court how Reynoso could competently opine on necessary qualifications for promotion in the Department since he has no experience related to the Department’s promotion procedures nor has he worked in the Department.
Case Details:
| Case Caption: | Benjamin Torres V. County Of Los Angeles |
| Docket Number: | 2:25cv4155 |
| Court Name: | United States District Court, California Central |
| Order Date: | February 03, 2026 |
Leave a Reply