Dave Neil Speedie (Father) filed a petition under the International Child Abduction Remedies Act (ICARA), the statute that implements the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction (the Convention).
Father sought the return of his minor children, L.S. and I.S., from Washington, where they are presently in the custody of Alexi Dawn Speedie (Mother).
Mother served her expert witness disclosures and identified Dr. Jeffrey L. Edleson as a proposed witness. She stated: “This expert witness will not produce a report. He will testify at trial.” Mother also stated in the disclosure that Edleson will explain how research on children’s exposure to domestic violence, including coercive control, presents a grave risk of psychological and physical harm as well as an intolerable situation for the two children who are the subject to this Hague petition.
Father filed a motion to exclude Edleson, contending that Mother’s failure to include a report violates Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26 and 37.
Domestic Violence Expert Witness
Dr. Jeffrey L. Edleson is a Distinguished Professor of the Graduate School and the Harry & Riva Specht Chair Emeritus in Publicly Supported Social Services at the University of California, Berkeley, School of Social Welfare.
He is ranked as one of the top scholars in the world studying domestic violence, being a leading authority on children exposed to domestic violence.
Discussion by the Court
Mother contended that Edleson will not “present evidence under FRE 702, 703, or 705,” but will testify as a “court educator on the topic of children’s exposure to domestic violence.” Thus, Mother argued, Edleson need not provide an expert report.
It is clear to the Court that Mother intended to offer Edleson for expert testimony. In the witness disclosure, Mother said that Edleson would “explain how research on children’s exposure to domestic violence, including coercive control, presents a grave risk of psychological and physical harm as well an intolerable situation for the two children who are the subject to this Hague petition.” Mother also referred to Edleson as an “expert witness.”
Mother’s invocation of the concept of “court educator” as opposed to expert witness is unavailing, since they strike the Court as the same thing.
Because Edleson’s proposed testimony is that of an expert, Mother’s disclosure of his identity should have been “accompanied by a written report.” And because Mother has not shown that this failure was substantially justified or is harmless to Father, the Court excluded his testimony.
Held
The Court granted Father’s motion in limine to exclude the testimony of Jeffrey L. Edleson, Ph.D.
Key Takeaway
Under Rule 26, a party must disclose to the other parties the identity of any witness it may use at trial to present evidence under Federal Rule of Evidence 702, 703, or 705. And this disclosure must be accompanied by a written report-prepared and signed by the witness-if the witness is one retained or specially employed to provide expert testimony in the case.
Case Details:
| Case Caption: | Speedie V. Speedie |
| Docket Number: | 2:26cv345 |
| Court Name: | United States District Court, Washington Western |
| Order Date: | June 01, 2026 |
Leave a Reply