This case arises out of Plaintiff Jane Doe’s claims for child sexual abuse against a well-known, Rhode Island-based boarding school, Portsmouth Abbey School, the institution that hired and retained Plaintiff’s abuser, Michael Bowen Smith (“Smith”). Plaintiff attended Portsmouth Abbey from September 2010 to May 2014. In December 2020, Plaintiff filed a complaint against Portsmouth Abbey in the United States District Court for the District of Rhode Island, alleging that the school administrators failed to report and prevent the abuse despite receiving warnings.
The District of Rhode Island ruled that Plaintiff’s claims against the school were procedurally barred by the statute of limitations. In December 2020, Plaintiff also filed this action for professional negligence, breach of contract, and breach of fiduciary duty against Defendant Lewis Roca, based on legal services Lewis Roca provided to Plaintiff in connection with her petition for an order of protection against Smith.
Plaintiff alleges that Lewis Roca attorneys knew or should have known Plaintiff had potential claims against Portsmouth Abbey arising from the abuse but never advised Plaintiff of these claims or the relevant statute of limitations. Plaintiff also alleges that Lewis Roca never disclosed that the law firm often defended the Catholic Church in claims brought by abuse survivors or explained that this presented a potential conflict of interest.
Defendant filed Daubert motions to exclude the opinions of Charol S. Shakeshaft and Laurie Fortin, LCSW.
Sexual Abuse Expert Witnesses
Dr. Charol Smith Shakeshaft is a professor in the Department of Educational Leadership at Virginia Commonwealth University. She has a Ph.D. in educational administration and has served as a professor in that capacity for over 45 years. Shakeshaft began “studying sexual abuse of students in schools in the 1980s,” has received three grants by the U.S. Department of Education, and has authored a Congressionally mandated report on educator sexual misconduct in the United States, published in 2004.
Laurie Fortin is a licensed clinical social worker who has over 30 years of experience conducting, supervising, and providing training for forensic interviews in the context of child abuse.
Discussion by the Court
I. Defendant’s Motion to Exclude Charol Shakeshaft
Shakeshaft is expected to testify that Portsmouth Abbey failed to provide clear guidelines or training on how to respond to reports of inappropriate conduct; that Portsmouth Abbey did not have appropriate policies or adequate training to prevent Plaintiff from being sexually abused; that the policies that were in place were not communicated, followed, or enforced; and that the response to reports of abuse was insufficient.
a. Shakeshaft’s Qualifications
Defendant objected to Shakeshaft’s qualifications as “lacking on-the-ground knowledge and experience implementing and enforcing policies and procedures in a boarding school setting within a relevant time period.” Defendant also argued that she “conducted little to no investigation into the Portsmouth Abbey environment more specifically, including the size of the student body, its leadership, and/or the layout of the campus and locations where Plaintiff and Smith were purportedly seen to interact.”
Shakeshaft is offering opinions on a “systemic failure” in Portsmouth Abbey’s policies, training, and response to reports of sexual abuse, not testifying as a legal expert. The reference to “state and federal entities requiring that school employees are responsible for keeping children safe” is not disputed and did not, as Defendant suggested, form a predicate for Shakeshaft’s opinions.
In addition to her academic credentials and extensive research experience, she has been qualified to provide expert testimony on similar subject matter in other cases in this and other districts.
b. Reliability and Relevance of Shakeshaft’s Opinions
Shakeshaft’s opinions on school policies, grooming, and “conflicts of interest” lacked reliable methodology
First, Defendant challenged Shakeshaft’s opinions on school policies, grooming, and “conflicts of interest” as lacking reliable methodology.
The Court considered Shakeshaft’s significant experience and research in the field of educator sexual misconduct and her review of an extensive compilation of relevant school documents.
To the extent that Defendant objected to the use of the term “grooming” in Shakeshaft’s report, Plaintiff is not offering Shakeshaft as an expert on grooming. Moreover, Shakeshaft clarified in her deposition that she was “not looking for grooming” and that references to “grooming” reflected her notes on the records she reviewed.
Shakeshaft lacked familiarity with the Rhode Island mandatory reporting law
Second, Defendant objected that Shakeshaft lacked familiarity with the Rhode Island mandatory reporting law and other requirements that would have applied to Portsmouth Abbey during the time period Plaintiff was a student. This appears to refer to a table Shakeshaft created of “items that should be, but were not, included in a specific policy prohibiting and preventing educator sexual misconduct.”
To the extent that Defendant objected that this list of policies was not mandated by Rhode Island or federal law, the Court did not find that Shakeshaft is testifying that the absence of these policies violated state or federal law between 2010 and 2014.
Shakeshaft’s criticism of the external investigation of Portsmouth Abbey was speculative
Defendant also challenged Shakeshaft’s criticism of the external investigation of Portsmouth Abbey as “speculative,” where Shakeshaft’s own report and deposition testimony stated that she “speculates” that Plaintiff was not included in the investigation report as that likely would have been harmful to the school’s standing and reputation. These and similar objections either go to the weight of the testimony, which Defendant is free to address on cross examination, or attack conclusions that Shakeshaft did not offer.
Shakeshaft is a “school person” and should not be allowed to testify to the standard of care for non-school personnel
Lastly, Defendant asserted that Shakeshaft is a “school person” and should not be allowed to testify to the standard of care for non-school personnel. The Court agreed that Shakeshaft is not the appropriate witness to testify, for example, to the standard of care for Lewis Roca attorneys. However, by Defendant’s own account, Plaintiff stipulated that Shakeshaft is “not going to offer any opinions about anything having to do with Lewis Roca.”
II. Defendant’s Motion to Exclude Laurie Fortin
Fortin offered the following opinions in her report: (1) Smith’s behaviors were highly consistent with grooming techniques and strategies utilized by known child sexual offenders; (2) Smith’s behavior became increasingly characteristic of domestic violence perpetrators; (3) Smith endorsed and utilized cognitive distortions commonly used by known offenders; (4) the manipulative nature of Smith’s grooming process significantly contributed to silencing Plaintiff and delaying her disclosure; and (5) the Portsmouth Abbey school environment and culture facilitated Smith’s ability to use and abuse his power and authority as a staff member to groom and sexually abuse and exploit Plaintiff.
a. Fortin’s Qualifications
Defendant did not challenge Fortin’s qualifications to testify on grooming generally but argued that Fortin is not qualified to offer expert testimony regarding school rules, policies, or the boarding school environment.
However, the Court found that Fortin is qualified to testify regarding environmental or cultural factors that facilitate grooming as disclosed in her report. The record before the Court did not reflect that Fortin is opining on the adequacy of school policies or the standard of care applicable to schools like Portsmouth Abbey.
b. Reliability and Relevance of Fortin’s Opinions
Defendant next argued that Fortin did not possess sufficient facts to support her opinions, which must be excluded as speculative.
Again, the Court did not find that Fortin offered any opinions regarding the adequacy of school policies or the boarding school environment generally. And, as Fortin explained in her deposition, her understanding that Smith violated Portsmouth Abbey rules was based on deposition testimony from Portsmouth Abbey staff. Defendant did not point to any evidence contradicting Fortin’s understanding, but to the extent Defendant wished to show Fortin’s understanding relies on disputed facts, Defendant is free to do so on cross examination.
Finally, the Court rejected Defendant’s argument that Fortin’s opinions are irrelevant because Smith is not a party to this case. As Plaintiff pointed out, the relationship between Plaintiff and Smith is a key factor in damages. Because the average juror is not familiar with grooming behaviors or their impact on minor victims, the Court found that Fortin’s expertise will aid the jury in understanding the dynamics of that relationship.
Held
- The Court denied Defendant’s Daubert motion to exclude the testimony of Charol Shakeshaft.
- The Court denied Defendant’s Daubert motion to exclude the testimony of Laurie Fortin.
Key Takeaway
When ruling on motions to exclude or otherwise limit expert testimony, the Court is mindful that its role as gatekeeper is not intended to serve as a replacement for the adversary system. Ultimately, the rejection of expert testimony is the exception rather than the rule.
Case Details:
| Case Caption: | Doe V. Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP |
| Docket Number: | 1:20cv1365 |
| Court Name: | United States District Court, New Mexico |
| Order Date: | March 31, 2026 |
Leave a Reply