Defendants, M&J Management Company, LLC, d/b/a The Sexton Companies own and operate multiple multi-family housing units in Indianapolis and St. Joseph County, Indiana. Defendants have an occupancy standard of two occupants per bedroom that applies to all floor plans, regardless of the age of the occupants. Plaintiff, Fair Housing Center of Indiana alleged that Defendants’ occupancy standard violates the Fair Housing Act and Indiana Fair Housing Act because it discriminates based on familial status.
Plaintiff proffered James Colbert as its expert to analyze whether Defendants’ occupancy standards have a disproportionate effect on households with minor children. While Defendants argued that Colbert’s findings were based on flawed logic and incomplete analysis, they waited until July 30, 2024, to move to preclude Colbert’s Rule 26 expert report and to exclude his testimony in this case.
Data Analysis Expert Witness
James Colbert has a master’s degree and has worked within the professional field of data analysis, including in-depth analysis of census data, for over 20 years.
He works as a data manager at The Polis Center at Indiana University Purdue University Indianapolis.
Discussion by the Court
Defendants challenged Colbert’s expert report and testimony, arguing his opinion consisted primarily of unsupported factual and legal conclusions.
While Defendants filed their motion to preclude Colbert’s testimony too late to address his qualifications at summary judgment, the Court will address Defendants’ concerns now, before trial. Given that the summary judgment standard is no longer at play, the Court is not bound by its summary judgment findings and instead takes a fresh look at Colbert’s report.
Colbert is not qualified to give expert opinions on the issue of fair housing
The Court held that Colbert possessed sufficient academic and practical expertise to qualify as an expert in the fields in which he seeks to testify—data analysis and statistical disparity.
Defendants argued that Colbert is not qualified to give expert opinions on the issue of fair housing. Defendants claimed that Colbert has no experience, training, or education regarding the ownership and management of apartment complexes, the psychology behind tenants choosing where to live, and fair housing laws, and his background as a data analyst cannot support his opinions regarding apartments’ occupancy rules.
However, the Court observed that Colbert does not offer opinions on topics or rely on any data that would require more extensive knowledge of apartment management, housing choice, or fair housing laws. Rather, Plaintiff acknowledged that it retained Colbert for the sole purpose of “crunching numbers and calculating relative impacts between various demographic groups.” Both sides agreed that Colbert’s background is in data analysis. Colbert’s CV indicates that he has a master’s degree and has worked within the professional field of data analysis, including in-depth analysis of census data, for over 20 years.
Colbert’s opinion will not assist the trier of fact
Defendants claimed that Colbert’s report is not helpful and is simply a layman’s opinion, speculative, and based on little more than broad census data.
Relatedly, Defendants also argued that Colbert will mislead and confuse the jury in this case. However, this matter is set for a bench trial, not jury trial. “In a bench trial, once the Court has fulfilled its gatekeeping function, it becomes a trier of fact that needs to assess the evidence itself—not just the methodology underlying that evidence.” The Court held that whether Colbert will assist the Court, as a trier of fact, is not a concern at this stage.
Colbert failed to incorporate extraneous factors in his analysis, and he did not consider alternative reasons why a household may decide not to live in Defendants’ apartment complexes
A closer question, however, is whether Colbert’s methodology is scientifically reliable. Defendants argued that Colbert failed to conduct the testing necessary to determine whether Defendants’ occupancy standard caused a disproportionate exclusion of families with minor children from accessing housing.
In addition, Colbert failed to incorporate extraneous factors in his analysis, and he did not consider alternative reasons why a household may decide not to live in Defendants’ apartment complexes. Instead, Colbert relied heavily on the opinion that all households in the relevant geographical groups that desired to live at Defendants’ apartment complexes were unable to do so because of Defendants’ occupancy standard.
Plaintiff argued that the existence of other potential causes or explanations for the low number of households with children at Defendants’ complexes is irrelevant to Colbert’s analysis, because his analysis focused on the predictable effect of the occupancy cap on the rental household population of Indiana, Marion County, and St. Joseph County.
It was noted that Colbert’s report does not consider potentially key additional relevant factors that might have explained the lack of families with children choosing to live at Defendants’ complexes, such as the fact that these apartments had less square footage, small appliances, no backyard, and limiting parking.
Defendants’ concerns regarding Colbert’s report are well founded. The fact that Colbert never addresses any potential extraneous factors certainly casts doubt on the reliability of his opinion. However, ultimately, the Court agrees with Plaintiff that these concerns do not completely exclude Colbert from testifying at trial.
At trial, Defendants—and the Court—will press Colbert on why he failed to consider any alternative explanation or major variable and can test the reliability of his testimony.
Colbert’s report also does not define “rental household”
Colbert’s report stated that the percentage of children living at Defendants’ complexes is lower than other rental households in the counties in which the complexes are located, but he does not explicitly define “rental household.”
It appeared that rental household included all rental dwellings in the respective counties, including rental houses, rental townhomes, rental duplexes, rental lofts, and other rental multi-family apartment complexes with larger square footage, elevated appliances, and more parking options. Nevertheless, the Court held that Colbert’s report did not take into consideration the idea that households with more occupants, which tend to include households with children, may prefer to live in homes with larger square footage than the options available at Defendants’ complexes.
Court cannot conclusively say Colbert’s calculations are speculative simply because they are grounded in PUMS data and Defendants’ own data about their residents
First, Defendants did not dispute the existence of their two-per-bedroom occupancy policy. Second, Colbert primarily relied on American Community Survey Public Use Microdata Sample (PUMS) data obtained from the United States Census. Defendants have not offered any argument that using census or PUMS data was improper. Likewise, the Court cannot conclusively say Colbert’s calculations are speculative simply because they are grounded in PUMS data and Defendants’ own data about their residents. Defendants’ concerns, while valid, can be addressed through cross examination at trial, and further inquiry, if needed, from the Court.
Also, Plaintiff seems to believe it can introduce Colbert’s report as evidence at the upcoming bench trial. While the Court has concluded that Colbert may testify at trial, Plaintiff will cannot introduce the report itself at trial. It is inadmissible hearsay.
Colbert can testify about the opinions in his report, and Defendants may use Colbert’s report to cross examine him and attempt to impeach him. However, Plaintiff cannot introduce Colbert’s report as evidence.
Held
The Court recognized Defendants’ concerns and agreed that the value of James Colbert’s testimony is uncertain. Nevertheless, the Court denied the Defendants’ motion to preclude Colbert’s testimony. This case remains set for a final pretrial conference at 1:30 pm on October 29, 2024, and for a bench trial on November 12, 2024.
Key Takeaway:
Colbert is adept at locating census data and applying statistical methods. However, Defendants’ concerns regarding Colbert’s report are well founded. Colbert’s report does not consider potentially key additional relevant factors that might have explained the lack of families with children choosing to live at Defendants’ complexes, such as the fact that these apartments had less square footage, small appliances, no backyard, and limiting parking.
Ultimately, the Court agreed with Plaintiff that these concerns do not completely exclude Colbert from testifying at trial. At trial, the Court will be able to weed through the parties’ arguments regarding whether Colbert’s testimony and report demonstrate causation, a predictable effect, or something else.
Similarly, Colbert’s report also does not define “rental household.” Colbert’s report states that the percentage of children living at Defendants’ complexes is lower than other rental households in the counties in which the complexes are located, but he does not explicitly define “rental household.”
Case Details:
| Case Caption: | Fair Housing Center Of Central Indiana, Inc. V. M&J Management Company, Llc, d/b/a The Sexton Companies Et Al |
| Docket Number: | 1:22cv612 |
| Court Name: | United States District Court, Indiana Southern |
| Order Date: | October 10, 2024 |
Leave a Reply