Opinion
Case No. 2:17-CV-14148
01-15-2019
LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF MICHIGAN, et al., Plaintiffs, v. JOCELYN BENSON, in her official capacity as Michigan Secretary of State, et al., Defendants.
Hon. Eric L. Clay
Hon. Denise Page Hood
ORDER DENYING SECRETARY'S MOTIONS IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE THE EXPERT REPORT OF DR. JOWEI CHEN (ECF No. 147) AND TO EXCLUDE TESTIMONY CONCERNING GERRYMANDERING METRICS (ECF No. 148)
Before the Court are Defendant Secretary of State Ruth Johnson's Motion in Limine to Exclude the Expert Report of Dr. Jowei Chen (ECF No. 147) and Motion in Limine to Exclude Testimony Concerning Various Proffered Gerrymandering Metrics (ECF No. 148). The Secretary argues that Dr. Chen's methodology and the evidence concerning five social science gerrymandering metrics fail to satisfy the standards of Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 113 S. Ct. 2786 (1993).
However, both motions in limine and Daubert challenges are inapplicable to bench trials. A motion in limine is a tool used to prevent evidence "that clearly ought not be presented to the jury" from reaching the jury. Jonasson v. Lutheran Child & Family Servs., 115 F.3d 436, 440 (7th Cir. 1997). Similarly, a Daubert challenge is used to "prevent the jury" from hearing unreliable scientific evidence. Daubert, 509 U.S. at 597, 113 S. Ct. at 2798. These two gatekeeping doctrines were "designed to protect juries and [are] largely irrelevant in the context of a bench trial." Deal v. Hamilton Cnty. Bd. of Educ., 392 F.3d 840, 852 (6th Cir. 2004). "The proper course of action for this Court, therefore, is to admit the evidence and then afford it whatever weight the Court deems appropriate." Michigan State A. Philip Randolph Inst. v. Johnson, No. 16-CV-11844, 2018 WL 1180886, at *2 (E.D. Mich. Mar. 7, 2018).
Therefore, Defendant Secretary of State Ruth Johnson's Motion in Limine to Exclude the Expert Report of Dr. Jowei Chen (ECF No. 147) is DENIED.
Defendant Secretary of State Ruth Johnson's Motion in Limine to Exclude Testimony Concerning Various Proffered Gerrymandering Metrics (ECF No. 148) is also DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: January 15, 2019
/s/ Gordon J. Quist
Signed for and on behalf of the panel:
HONORABLE GORDON J. QUIST
United States District Judge
HONORABLE ERIC L. CLAY
United States Circuit Judge
HONORABLE DENISE PAGE HOOD
United States District Judge