Judge Courtney D. (“CD”) Jones plays a variant on our old pal the percipient witness in Asia Zaheen, Petitioner and Kamran Ehsan, Intervenor, Docket No. 13863-22, filed 3/14/25 (Happy Pi Day!).

Intervenor Kam’s trusty attorney, whom I’ll call Louie, moved yesterday “to Compel Expert Testimony.” Motion involved psychological evaluation report and testimony concerning same. Taishoff says this is a wee bit rich, as trial is scheduled for Tuesday, and no Rule 143(g) moves had taken place.

Judge CD Jones had advised Louie in a conference call yesterday she wasn’t inclined to admit said report on Rule 143(g) grounds, or recognize the evaluator as an expert.

“Nevertheless, the Court acknowledges that Mr. S could testify (and be cross-examined) as a fact witness regarding his purported evaluation of intervenor and preparation of the report. Intervenor could then offer the report as a medical record. Accordingly, the Court will set the Motion to Compel for hearing at the commencement of the trial. If intervenor intends for Mr. S to testify at the hearing or at trial (or both), Mr. S must be present, in person.” Order, at p. 1. (Name omitted).

Note the witness is “Mr.,” not “Dr.,” although witness has a Ph.D. And if not qualified as an expert, isn’t his report weightless?

Oh, the backstory on percipient witnesses can be found in my blogpost “Percipient and Admissible,” 11/7/22.*

* https://taishofflaw.com/2022/11/07/percipient-and-admissible/