Plaintiff Matthew Alan Hearn brought certain claims against the Defendants City of Bakersfield, police detective Christian Walter Hernandez V, police sergeant Nathan A. Anderberg, and probation officer S. Jauch, collectively “City Defendants,” and County of Kern, collectively “County Defendants”. He based these claims on their actions during a law enforcement encounter on September 27, 2020, in Bakersfield. He alleged six causes of action: (1) Battery; (2) Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress; (3) Negligence; (4) Violations of California Civil Code Section 52.1 (Bane Act)-Civil Rights Violations; (5) Excessive Force; and (6) Unreasonable Search and Seizure.
Plaintiff retained psychology expert witness, Daniel S. Rubiaco to conduct a psychological assessment and behavior analysis of him during the incident. Defendants filed a motion to preclude Daniel S. Rubiaco from testifying under Rule 702.
Psychology Expert Witness
Daniel S. Rubiaco, Psy.D., LCSW, is a licensed psychologist practicing in a private setting in Bakersfield, CA. He graduated from The Chicago School of Professional Psychology – Los Angeles Campus in September 2017, earning a Doctor of Psychology in Applied Clinical Psychology. Additionally, he obtained a master’s degree in Social Work from California State University, Bakersfield, in 2007. Earlier, he completed two undergraduate degrees in Sociology and Communications at the University of California, Davis, in 2003.
His practice focuses on supporting adolescents, young adults, and professionals dealing with stress, anxiety, depression, posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), and major conflict. He has significant experience working with victims of violent crimes, guiding them through the complexities of the criminal court process.
Discussion by the Court
A. Defendant’s Arguments
Defendants argued that Rubiaco’s proposed testimony would not assist the jury in understanding the evidence or determining any key facts. They noted that he did not examine or interview Plaintiff, nor did he review his deposition. Instead, his testimony focused on Plaintiff’s behaviors, suggesting they “made logical and reasonable sense.”
Defendants referenced Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and relevant case law regarding the burden of proving admissibility. They emphasized the district court’s role as the “gatekeeper” for expert testimony, highlighting the necessity of “good grounds” for expert opinions.
Furthermore, Defendants contended that the jury needed to decide whether they conducted an unlawful search and seizure of Plaintiff’s vehicle and whether they used unreasonable force during the arrest. They maintained that these matters did not require the opinion of a psychologist like Rubiaco.
B. Plaintiff’s Argument
Plaintiff agreed with some of the case authorities cited by the Defendants but disagreed with their conclusions. He contended that Rubiaco would help the jury understand Plaintiff’s behavior during the arrest and detention, which he argued was abnormal. Plaintiff stated that Defendants could cross-examine Rubiaco on this matter.
C. Defendant’s Reply
In their reply, Defendants claimed that Plaintiff’s opposition failed to show how Rubiaco’s review of his alleged personality was relevant to the jury’s consideration. They cited case law and Federal Rules of Evidence 401, 402, 403, and 404, which address relevance, weighing of equities, and the inadmissibility of character trait evidence and its exceptions.
Ultimately, Defendants argued that Rubiaco’s opinions were neither relevant nor admissible, asserting that no exceptions applied to his testimony.
D. Analysis
Defendants sought to exclude Rubiaco’s testimony, focusing on the relevancy aspect. They did not argue that his testimony failed the reliability standard. The Court needed to independently assess whether Plaintiff met his burden regarding both prongs.
Rubiaco acknowledged in his report that he could not perform a clinical diagnosis of Plaintiff. He did not interview or assess Plaintiff directly. Additionally, he had not reviewed Plaintiff’s deposition before finalizing his report due to the absence of a transcript. He planned to amend the report after reviewing the transcript, indicating its importance.
His opinions were based on a limited review of discovery materials, including law enforcement reports, body-worn camera footage, medical records, and two recorded calls. He applied “the Generic Cognitive Model” to assess the Plaintiff’s cognitive structures and beliefs.
The Generic Cognitive Model (GCM) is a psychological framework used to understand how individuals process information and react to experiences. It posits that people have cognitive structures—mental frameworks and schemas—that shape their perceptions, thoughts, and behaviors in response to various situations.
For example, he opined that Plaintiff was “pro-law enforcement” based on two comments made during the incident. He argued that when Plaintiff experienced an activating event, automatic responses categorized information in a way that activated a maladaptive schema. Consequently, he claimed that Plaintiff’s emotional state led to defensive behavior.
Ultimately, the Court found that Rubiaco’s proposed testimony failed both the reliability and relevancy standards under Daubert. Plaintiff did not demonstrate that the Generic Cognitive Model applied reliably, given the lack of direct assessment or comprehensive review of Plaintiff’s history.
Moreover, Rubiaco’s main opinion lacked relevance. Although Plaintiff argued that this testimony would aid jurors, he did not clarify how it would assist in deciding the case. Thus, if admitted, Rubiaco’s testimony would distract jurors and risk confusion, further supporting its exclusion.
Held
The Court granted the Defendant’s motion to exclude the Plaintiff’s psychology expert witness, Daniel Rubiaco.
Key Takeaway:
The Court highlighted that Rubiaco did not directly assess the Plaintiff, failed to submit a comprehensive review of his background, and relied on a limited selection of materials. Additionally, the Court found that Rubiaco’s analysis did not clearly assist the jury in understanding key issues related to the case. Ultimately, the lack of direct engagement with the Plaintiff and insufficient clarity on how his insights would aid the jury led to the exclusion of his testimony.
Case Details:
| Case caption: | Hearn v. City of Bakersfield |
| Docket Number: | 1:22cv668 |
| Court: | United States District Court for the Eastern District of California |
| Dated: | October 24, 2024 |
Leave a Reply