This matter concerns Claudia Arias’ removal from the University of Washington Tacoma Bachelor of Arts in Social Work (“BASW”) Program.
Defendants filed motions to exclude Plaintiff’s expert witnesses Allison Osborne and Merrill A. Cohen.
Social Work Expert Witness
Allison Osborne, MSW, LICSW, SUDP is a forensic social worker with almost a decade of experience working with clients that are justice involved. Since January 2022, Osborne has been employed as an owner, clinical social worker, and substance use disorder professional at Forensic Social Work Services in Mount Vernon, Washington.
Vocational Rehabilitation Expert Witness
Merrill Ann Cohen, MC, CRC, CLCP has spent over thirty years of experience as a vocational consultant. She has spent nearly twenty of those years as a vocational consultant and life care planner with Strategic Consulting Services, Inc. In her role with Strategic Consulting Services, Inc., Cohen provided vocational rehabilitation assessments and conducted earning capacity analyses.
Discussion by the Court
A. Osborne’s Opinions
Defendants sought to exclude Osborne’s opinions because “(1) she impermissibly offers legal opinions; (2) her opinions are not based on reliable principles or methodology; (3) she failed to disclose the required materials in violation of Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(c)(1); and (4) her opinions are irrelevant and would be substantially more prejudicial than probative.” The Court held that each of Osborne’s three conclusions—on the First Amendment, on Social Work Ethics and Standards, and on Trauma and Mental Health—is excludable.
Analysis
To begin with, Osborne’s opinion that “the Defendants in this case ultimately infringed upon Plaintiff’s freedom of speech by denying her ability to speak freely while in the process of learning through muting information that demonstrated Plaintiff was not being discriminatory,” amounts to an impermissible legal opinion.
Moreover, as to Osborne’s opinion that Defendants “did not adhere to social work ethical standards while interacting with” Plaintiff, such opinion is irrelevant as to Plaintiff’s remaining claims. Plaintiff’s First Amendment claim turns on whether Defendants ultimately removed Plaintiff from the BASW Program based on defined professional standards or based on personal disagreements.
As for Osborne’s opinion that Plaintiff suffered from adjustment disorder with mixed anxiety and depressed mood, Plaintiff failed to properly disclose all evidence relied upon and all documents supporting these opinions. The failure to fully disclose expert opinions as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a) results in exclusion “unless the failure was substantially justified or is harmless.”
Osborne did not produce her handwritten notes from her interview of Plaintiff and did not produce the empirical screening tool forms she completed in evaluating Plaintiff. Osborne also did not produce the notes she took while reviewing the depositions of various witnesses.
Notwithstanding, Plaintiff sought to excuse her failure to timely produce various documents by arguing she appropriately supplemented her expert disclosure under Rule 26(e)(2) on March 11, 2026. However, the supplemental disclosure did not obviate the harm caused by the delay as the disclosure occurred after Osborne’s deposition and after the discovery cutoff, which eliminated Defendants’ ability to engage in further discovery.
Finally, Osborne’s opinions also are not based on sufficient data or facts. Osborne incorrectly asserted that Plaintiff was removed from a certain course when she was in fact allowed to continue and passed the course.
B. Cohen’s Opinions
Defendants asserted that Cohen’s opinions should be excluded because “(1) she relied upon insufficient or incomplete data, (2) her opinions are purely speculative, and (3) her opinions are not based on reliable principles or methodology.”
Analysis
Cohen conducted a “vocational assessment and/or prepared a Life Care Plan” for Plaintiff. In preparing an assessment, Cohen normally requests discovery materials, employment history, medical records, earning records, and educational records for every client, although she noted that not all clients will have all these types of materials and not all materials will be relevant in every matter. Of these, Cohen reviewed only Plaintiff’s educational records.
The Court found that information about a person’s employment, earning history, and discovery materials are relevant to performing a vocational assessment. And although in certain instances such information may not be required, Cohen failed to identify why the information she requested, but did not receive or review, was unnecessary to formulate her opinions in this case.
In addition, Cohen’s opinions are unduly speculative because Cohen assumed what Plaintiff’s career path could have been had Plaintiff graduated from the BASW program. Cohen identified that upon graduation Plaintiff would (1) apply for and be accepted into a masters of social work program, (2) attend and complete that program, (3) take and pass the social worker licensing examination, (4) complete 3,000 to 4,000 hours of supervised social work, and (5) then apply for and obtain a full-time employment earning approximately $80,000 annually. First, it is impossible to determine with any reasonable degree of certainty that Plaintiff would follow Cohen’s assumed educational and employment path. And second, Plaintiff repeatedly emphasized that her damages were based on the loss of her bachelor’s level degree, which contradicted the educational and employment future Cohen assumed.
Finally, Cohen’s report is not based on a reliable application of principles or methods. While Cohen identified tests such as RAPEL and VADRE, she did not identify how those tests were applied in this case.
Held
The Court granted Defendants’ motions to exclude Allison Osborne and Merrill Cohen.
Key Takeaway
The Court will not permit supplemental expert disclosure when what is set forth in the supplemental disclosure is the information, reasoning, and opinions that Rule 26 requires be disclosed in the critical initial disclosure. The duty to supplement did not provide the opportunity to add information that should have been initially provided under Rule 26(a).
Case Details:
| Case Caption: | Arias V. University Of Washington Tacoma |
| Docket Number: | 3:25cv5079 |
| Court Name: | United States District Court, Washington Western |
| Order Date: | May 13, 2026 |
Leave a Reply