USA v. Spayd

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
vs.
JESSICA JOYCE SPAYD,
Defendant.
Case No. 3:19-cr-00111-JMK
ORDER RE
MOTION IN LIMINE
Before the Court at Docket 183 is the United States’ Motion in Limine to
Exclude the Defendant’s Proffered Expert Witnesses Under Daubert and Rule 16 (the
“Motion”). Defendant Jessica Spayd did not file a response.
The 	Government 	requests 	that 	this 	Court 	exclude 	the 	testimony 	of
Ms. Spayd’s proposed expert witnesses, Dr. Todd H. Broad, Dr. James W. Fulcher,
Dr. Lawrence W. Masten, and Ms. Karen Rawlins, A.N.P., alleging that the disclosures
provided by Ms. Spayd “fail to meet the threshold of expert testimony set forth in Federal
Rules of Evidence 702–704 and Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, 509 U.S. 579,
589, 597 (1993), and fail to satisfy the notice requirements of Rule 16.”1 In the alternative,
the Government requests that the Court:
1 Docket 183 at 1.
Case 3:19-cr-00111-MAH-MMS Document 204 Filed 09/12/22 Page 1 of 5

United States v. Spayd 	Case No. 3:19-cr-00111-JMK
Order Re Motion in Limine 	Page 2
(1) order the defense to amend their expert disclosures to
conform with the requirements of Rule 16 and Daubert, and
(2) hold a Daubert hearing prior to the start of trial [] and
outside the presence of the jury to allow the government to
question the defense experts and the court to weigh their
opinions, bases, methodology, and reasoning to determine
what testimony, if any, is admissible.2
The Government argues that Ms. Spayd’s proffered expert testimony is not relevant
because it is not based on any facts relevant to this case, is not reliable because it is not
based on a discernable methodology, has little probative value, and is misleading.3 Further,
it argues that Dr. Broad and Ms. Rawlins are not qualified to render opinions on the issues
in this case.4
On April 20, 2022, Magistrate Judge Scoble ordered Ms. Spayd to disclose
to the Government: “1) written summaries of any expert testimony the defendant intends
to use at trial; 2) the bases and reasons for those opinions; and 3) the curricula vitae of any
expert witness” by September 1, 2022.5 Judge Scoble’s ruling was not based on the plain
meaning of Rule 16; rather, it was made pursuant to the District Court’s inherent powers
to regulate pretrial case management.6 On September 1, 2022, Ms. Spayd produced a letter
to the Government which included a short summary of each of its four proposed witnesses’
qualifications and a brief overview of their testimony.
2 Id. at 2.
3 Id. at 10–21.
4 Id. at 22–24.
5 Docket 170 at 1–2.
6 Id. 	This is because reciprocal disclosure of expert testimony under Rule 16 is
conditioned on the defendant first requesting such testimony from the Government. See Fed. R.
Crim. P. 16(a)(1)(G). Here, Ms. Spayd has not requested discovery of the Government’s expert
witness testimony and therefore is not strictly bound by the mandate contained in Rule 16(b)(1)(C).
See Docket 133 at 3.
Case 3:19-cr-00111-MAH-MMS Document 204 Filed 09/12/22 Page 2 of 5

United States v. Spayd 	Case No. 3:19-cr-00111-JMK
Order Re Motion in Limine 	Page 3
As a preliminary matter, the Court finds that Ms. Spayd has complied with
Judge Scoble’s Order. 	The Government notes that Ms. Spayd failed to produce a
curriculum vitae (“CV”) for Ms. Rawlins.7 However, Ms. Spayd’s counsel specified that
he did not have access to her CV.8 To resolve this issue, the Government may inquire as
to Ms. Rawlins’ past employment history at the Daubert hearing. 	Accordingly, to the
extent the Government’s Motion in Limine requests that the defense produce an amended
expert disclosure report, the Motion is DENIED.
“Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence tasks a district court judge with
‘ensuring that an expert’s testimony both rests on a reliable foundation and is relevant to
the task at hand.’”9 In Daubert, the Supreme Court “addressed the standard for admitting
expert scientific testimony in a federal trial,” and found that the “Federal Rules of Evidence
impose a gatekeeping duty on the district court, requiring the court to screen the proffered
evidence to ensure that any and all scientific testimony or evidence admitted is not only
relevant, but reliable.”10 	The Court GRANTS the Government’s Motion to the extent it
requests a Daubert hearing. 	The Court orders that all four of Ms. Spayd’s experts,
including Ms. Rawlins, who is a hybrid witness, to appear for the Daubert hearing. In line
with its limited gatekeeping role, the Court cautions that its inquiry will be cabined to
ensuring the expert’s testimony “rests on a reliable foundation and is relevant to the task at
7 Docket 183 at 23.
8 Docket 192-9 at 3.
9 Elosu v. Middlefork Ranch Inc., 26 F.4th 1017, 1023 (9th Cir. 2022) (quoting Daubert
v. Merrell Dow Pharms, Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 597 (1993)).
10 United States v. Alatorre, 222 F.3d 1098, 1100–01 (9th Cir. 2000) (internal citations
and quotations omitted).
Case 3:19-cr-00111-MAH-MMS Document 204 Filed 09/12/22 Page 3 of 5

United States v. Spayd 	Case No. 3:19-cr-00111-JMK
Order Re Motion in Limine 	Page 4
hand.”11 	The Court will not engage in an analysis of the correctness of the experts’
conclusions or the weight such testimony should be given.12 Further, at this time, the Court
will not order Ms. Spayd to disclose the materials her experts reviewed or any additional
materials underlying their opinions. 	The information gleaned from the Government’s
interviews with the defense experts,13 as well as that elicited during questioning at the
Daubert 	hearing, 	will 	provide 	a 	sufficient 	record 	for 	the 	Court 	to 	determine 	the
admissibility of the Defendant’s experts’ testimony. 	Should the Court need additional
information to discharge its gatekeeping function after the Daubert hearing, it will issue an
order to that effect.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Government’s request for a Daubert hearing
in the Motion at Docket 183 is GRANTED. 	The hearing will be held on September 14,
2022, at 11:30 a.m. in Courtroom 3. 	The hearing will be set for two hours. 	The parties
shall file a notice informing the Court whether the experts need to appear telephonically.
The Motion is DENIED to the extent the Government requests this Court
exclude the testimony of the four named expert witnesses or order Ms. Spayd to amend her
expert testimony disclosures. 	The Court will issue written findings as to the permissible
extent of such expert witnesses’ testimony at the conclusion of the Daubert hearing.
11 Id. at 1024.
12 Id.
13 See Docket 202 at 2; Docket 192-10. On September 12, 2022, the Court ruled that the
Government’s contacts with Defendant’s expert witnesses were permissible. The Court directed
the Government to continue its practice of providing Defendant with a summary of any
conversations between a defense expert and a representative of the Government.
Case 3:19-cr-00111-MAH-MMS Document 204 Filed 09/12/22 Page 4 of 5

United States v. Spayd 	Case No. 3:19-cr-00111-JMK
Order Re Motion in Limine 	Page 5
IT IS SO ORDERED this 12th day of September, 2022, at Anchorage,
Alaska.
/s/ Joshua M. Kindred
JOSHUA M. KINDRED
United States District Judge
Case 3:19-cr-00111-MAH-MMS Document 204 Filed 09/12/22 Page 5 of 5