DeCrescenzo v Scientology - Evidentiary Objections to Robert Levine Declaration 18Oct2013

7/27/2019 DeCrescenzo v Scientology - Evidentiary Objections to Robert Levine Declaration 18Oct2013

1/78

KENDALLBRILL& KL IEGERLLPBertH.Deixler(70614)[email protected] (236155)ndaum@kbkfirm .com10100SantaM onica B lvd .,Suite1725LosAngeles,California9006 7Telephone :310.556.270 0Facsimile:310.556.2705RABINOWITZ,BOUDIN ,STANDARD,KRIN SKY & L IEBERMAN ,LLPERICM .LIEBERMAN(prohacvice)45Broadway,Suite1700NewYork,NY100 06Telephone :212.254.1111Facsimile:212 .674.4614AttorneysforDEFENDANTCHURCHOFSCIENTOLOGY INTERNATIONALJEFFER,MANGELS,BUTLER &MITCHELL ,LLPROBERTE.MANGELS(BarNo.48291)MATTHEW D .HINKS(BarNo.200750)190 0Avenueof theStars,7thFloorLosAngeles,CA90067Telephone :310.203 .8080Facsimile :310.203 .0567AttorneysforDEFENDANTRELIGIOUSTECHNOLOGY CENTER

8URcnftWOCT1

Depu ty

SUPERIOR COUR T OFTHESTATEOF CALIFORN IACOUNTYOFLOSANGELES,CENTRALDISTRICT

LAURA ANN DeCRESCENZO ,Plaintiff ,

v .

CHURCHOFSCIENTOLOGYINTERNATIONAL ,etal

Defendants.

CASENO .BC411018AssignedforAllPurposestotheHon.RonaldSohigian,Dept .41EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS TODECLARATIONOF ROBERT V .LEVINE ;DECLARATIONOFM ATTHEW D .HINK SINSUPPORT

Judge :Hon.RonaldSohigianDate :October23,2013T ime :8:30a.m .Dept.:41Action Filed:April 2 ,2009TrialDate :Not set

EvidentiaryObjectionstoDeclarationof RobertV .Levine


2/78

1

23456789

10111213141516171819202 122232425262728

I.INTRODUCT ION ANDFACTUAL SUM M ARYInconnectionwithheropposition totheMotionforSummaryJud gment filed by Defend ants

Churchof ScientologyInten ationalandReligiousTechno logyCenter(collectively,"Defendants"),PlaintiffhasofferedthedeclarationofRobertLevine,ProfessorEmeritusofPsychologyatCaliforniaStateUniversity,Fresno.Asdiscussedmorefully herein,ProfessorLevineisnostrangertoScientology.Inacasebroughtbytwoform erSeaOrgmembersrepresentedbytheMetzgerLawGroupallegingclaimssimilartothosebroughtbyPlaintiff herein,ProfessorLevineprovidedadeclarationsimilartotheoneatissuehereinexpressingvirtuallyidenticalopinions.TheFederalDistrictCourtfortheCentralDistrict of California~describingthedeclarationas"oneof themostworthless thecourthadseen"inareallylongtime ~struckitonthebasisthatitwasnotbaseduponreliableprinciplesormethods.TheNinthCircuitaffirmedthatorderaspartofapublishedopinionaffirmingtheDistrictCourt'sgrantofsummaryjudgment .Headleyv .ChurchofScientology,687F.3d1173,1181,n.1(2012).

Centraltothecourts'concernsintheHead leycasewasthefactthatProfessorLevine,sopinionswerebaseduponnothingmorethanhisreviewofthetranscriptsromtheplaintiffs 'depositions.Plaintiffhasnotcorrectedthatfundamentalerrorandhas,infact,compoundeditasProfessorLevinedidnotevenreview thetranscriptsrom Plaintiffsdepo sitionsessionsbutonly thedeclarationshehasprovidedinoppositiontoDefendants 'motion.Inaddition ,ProfessorLevine'scurriculum vitaerevealsnostudyof theScientologyreligion ,oritstenetsorprecepts.HedoesnotclaimtohavereadanyScientology-relatedbooksortohaveevenbeeninsideaScientologychurch.ProfessorLevinethereforeoffersnofoundationtoopineastotheScientologyreligiouspracticesanddoctrineshepu rportstowriteabout.

Undauntedbyhislackof expertiseinthesubjectmatter,ProfessorLevineopinesinhisdeclarationthat:

[P]laintiffwasmanipulatedandsocializedbyScientologytoapointwhereshelostherabilitytomakeclear,independentdecisionsaboutherrealityandwasincapableof objectively evaluatinganythingshewasthreatenedwithortold .Andthat: 2-videntiaryObjectionstoDeclarationof Robert V .Levine


3/78

Additionally,basedonthedurationandtotalityofthecoercioninthiscase,ano rm al person- definedinthiscaseasanaverageperson- would ,comparedtoplaintiff :(1)HavehadnolessdifficultywalkingawayfromScientology;and(2)Hadhadnolessdifficultyescapingthementalgripof ScientologyaterexitingtheSeaOrg.

[SeePlaintiffsOppo sition Brief at10:8-14.]AsPlaintiff hasframedtheopinions,theyplainlymissthemarkastheydonot addressthesinglecontention presentedbyDefendantsintheirmotion:thattheuncontrovertedfactsshowthatfollowingPlaintiffsdeparturefromherstaffpositionwiththeChurch,Defendantsmadenothreats,didnotharassPlaintiff ,andengagedinnootherimproperorinequitableconductthatcausedPlaintifftodelayfilingthisactioninatimelymannerandthat,accordingly,Defendantsarenotequitablyestoppedfromrelyinguponastatuteoflimitationsdefense .

But-evenapartfrom thatincongruityaswellasthenumerousevidentiaryflawsdescribedbelowintheobjectionstothedeclaration - thereisafundamentallegalreasonwhythedeclarationof ProfessorLevinemustbestricken-infact,thesamereason thatledtheNinthCircuit toaffirmtheCentralDistrict'sorderstrikingProfessorLevine'spreviousdeclaration.ProfessorLevineisnotamentalhealthcarepractitionerandhas,apparently,neverevenseenorspokentoPlaintiff .Hisopinionsarebasedsolelyuponhisreviewof asingledocument :theself-servingdeclarationPlaintiff hassubm ittedinconnectionwithheroppositionbrief hopingtoavoidsummary judgment .ProfessorLevineoffersnofoundationthatpsycholog istsroutinelyorreasonablyreplyuponsuchlimitedandbiasedsourcesof informationwhenopiningastothementalstateof a persontheyhaveneverevenseenorspokento.Intheend ,ProfessorLevine'sdeclarationoffersaseriesofconclusionsregardingtheScientologyreligion-asubjectoverwhichhehasnoexpertise-andmattersthatcourtsacrossthecountryhavedeterm inedtheymaynotpermissiblyinquireinto.Inshort,thedeclarationfailstosatisfytheessentialfoundationalrequirementof CaliforniaEvidenceCode801(b)andshould bestrickeninitsentirety.////

////

////

EvidentiaryObjectionstoDeclarationof RobertV .Levine


4/78

1

2345678910111213141516171819202 122232425262728

II.PROFESSORLEYINE,STESTIMONYISINADMISSIBLEANDSHOULDBESTRICKENAnexpert'sopinionmustbebaseduponreliablematter.Thu s,underEvidenceCode

801(b),anexpert'sopinionmaybebaseduponmatters perceivedbyorpersonallyknowntothewitnessormadeknowntohimatorbeforethehearing,whetherornot admissible,thatisof atypethatreasonab lymayberelied upon byanexpertin form inganopinionuponthesubjecttowhichhistestimonyrelates... EvidenceCode801(b)(emphasissupplied).AstheCaliforniaSupremeCourtrecentlyexplainedinSargonEnters.,Inc .v .Universityof SouthernCal ifornia ,55Cal .4th747 ,771-72(2012),underEvidenceCode801(b)and802 , thetrialcourtactsasagatekeepertoexcludeexperttestimonythatis(1)basedonmatterof atypeonwhichanexpert maynot reasonablyrely,(2)basedonreasonsunsupportedbythematerialonwhichtheexpertrelies,or(3)speculative.

Thatgatekeeperroleisproperlyexercisedtoexcludethetestimonyof expertswhorelyfortheiropinionsuponmat tersandsourcesofinformationthatarenotandcannotbereasonablyrelieduponbyothersintheexpert

,

sfieldof expertise.AsthecourtinPac ificGas&Elec.Cov .Zuckerman ,189Cal .App.3d1113(1987),explained , [t]hevalueof opinionevidencerestsno tintheconclusionreachedbutinthefactorsconsideredandthereasoningemployed. Thus, [w]hereanexpertbaseshisconclusionuponassumptionswhicharenotsupportedbytherecord ,uponmatterswhicharenotreasonablyrelieduponbyotherexperts,oruponfactorswhicharespeculative,remoteorconjectural,then hisconclusion hasnoevidentiary value. Id ."Likeahousebuiltonsand ,theexpert'sopinionisnobetterthanthefactsonwhichitisbased."Peoplev.Gardeley,14Cal .4th605 ,618(1996).

Theseprinciplesdictatethattheentiredeclarationof ProfessorLevineshouldbestricken.ProfessorLevineindicatesinhisdeclarationthathereliedforhisopinionssole lyuponthedeclarationsubmittedbyPlaintiffwithheroppositiontoDefendants,summaryjudgmentmotion .[LevineDecl.,2:19-23 .]Inotherwords ,ProfessorLevinedidnotmeetwith ,speaktoorexamine -_4-videntiaryObjectionstoDeclarationof Robert V .Levine


5/78

Plaintiff.Moreover,althoughPlaintiff testifiedforseveraldaysandwassubjecttorigorouscrossexamination ,ProfessorLevineeither cho se nottoreviewthetranscriptsand/orthevideotapesfromthedepositionsess ionsorhewassimplynotprovidedwiththem.ProfessorLevinehimself offersnotestimony ,factsoranalysissuggestingortendingtoestablishthatpsychologistsnormallyopineon aperson 'smentalstatewithoutinterviewingtheperson ,conductingtests,orotherwise examiningthemfacetoface.NorhasProfessorLevineofferedevidencethatitisreasonablefora psychologisttorelyexclusivelyuponaself-servingdeclarationofaplaintiffofferedforthesolepurposeofdefeatingasummary judgmentmotion.Thefailuretoprovidetho se foundationalfactsrenderstheentiredeclarationfatallydeficientandworthlessfromanevidentiaryperspective.SeeInreLockheedLitigationCases,115Cal .App .4th558,564(2004)(EvidenceCode801(b)requiresthatthematterreliedonmustprovideareasonablebasisfortheparticularopinionoffered ,[thus]anexpertopinionbasedonspeculationorconjectureisinadm iss ible.");seealsoPeoplev.Dodd ,133Cal .App.4th1564,1568-71(2005)(opinionbasedonunreliablehearsayinaparolereport);Garibay v.Hemmat,161Cal .App.4th735,741-743(2008)(adoctor'smedicalopinionbasedonrecordswhichwerenotadm ittedwasworth less);InreAsiaL.,107Cal .App.4th49 8,512(2003)(thesocialworkersconclusionaloneisinsufficienttosupportafindingofadoptability");Atiyav .DBartolo ,63Cal .App.3d121,126(1976)(opinionwithoutafactualbasisdidnotconstitutesubstantialevidence) .

Inalmosttheexactsamecircumstances ,thefederalcourtshaveconsideredandrejectedexpertopiniontestimonyofthesortprofferedbyProfessorLevine .InUnitedStatesv.Fishman ,743F.Supp.713 ,722(N.D .Cal .1990),theNorthern DistrictofCaliforniafoundthattheFederalRulesof Evidencebarredasociologyprofessorromopiningontheeffectof theChurchofScientology'spurportedcoercivepersuasionupondefendant .There,thedefendantattemptedtoinvoketheinsanitydefensetoraudchargesandsought topresentevidencethatinfluencetechniques,orbrainwashingpracticeduponhimbytheChurchofScientology...wasacauseofhisstateof m indat thetimeof thechargedoffenses. Seeid .at713 .Insupport,defendantsoughttocalltwoexpertwitnessestotestify regardingthoughtreformtheories,particularlywithrespecttoreligiouscults"andthatthesupposedlycoercivepersuasiontechniquespracticedbytheChurch _5-videntiaryObjectionstoDeclarationof Robert V .Levine


6/78

123456789

10111213141516171819202 122232425262728

ofScientologyaffecteddefendant'sstateof mind.Id .at716 .Thecourt,however,rejectedthistestimonybased ,inpart,onitsfindingsthatneithertheAmericanPsychologicalAssociationno rtheAmericanSociolog icalAssociationhadendorsedtheexperts ,viewoncoercivepersuasionandconcludedthatdefendanthadfailedtoshowthattheexperts"theorieswere"generallyacceptedw ithintheirfields. Id .at717-18,719-20 .FishmanreliedinpartonKropinskyv.WorldPlanExecutiveCouncil-US,853F.2d948 ,957(D.C .C ir .1988),wherethecou rtfoundnoevidencethatthecoercivepersuasiontheory"hasasignificantfollow inginthescientificcommunity,letalonegeneralacceptance. Subsequently,othercourtshavefollowedFishmaninrejectingtheadm iss ibilityof suchtestimony.SeeSingerv.Am .PsychologicalAss 'n,1993WL307782,at*5(S.D.N.Y .Aug .9,1993)(citingcases);Peoplev.Rivera ,333111 .App.3d1092 ,111N.E.2d360(20 02) .

TheultimateproblemwithtestimonysuchasDr.Levine,sisthatitasksacourttomakedeterm inationsonthebasisofprotectedreligiousbeliefandpractice,thu inv it ingth cour ttouestiontheauthenticityandforceof achurch'sreligiousteachings.Thus,factorsLevinepositsinisupportof hisanalysislargelyincludemattersof belief,association ,andpracticeprotectedbytheFirstAmendment .Forexample,Levinepu tsgreatemphasisonthefact that plaintiff wasbornintoScientology,wasraisedasacommittedScientologist,andwassocializedintothenormsandbeliefsof thereligion .ToavoidpotentialliabilityunderLevine'sanalysis,theChurchpresumablywouldhavetodiscourageitsfollowersfromraisingtheirchildrenasScientologistsor joiningtheSeaOrg .Fundamentalconstitutional doctrinerejectssuchanintrusionintoreligiousliberty.Tothecontrary,thevaluesof parentaldirectionof thereligiousupbringingandeducationof theirchildrenintheirearlyandformativeyearshaveahigh placeinoursociety. Wisconsinv .Yod er,406U.S .205 ,213-14(1969);seealsoPiercev .Societyof Sisters,26 8U.S.510(1925);Meyerv.Nebraska,262U.S .390(1923).

InYoder ,theCourtreviewedacrim inalconvictionof Amishparentsforrefusingtoperm ittheirchildrentoattendpublicschoo lsbeyondtheeighthgrade .TheStatearguedthatitscompulsoryattendancelawswerenecessarytoexposeAmishchildrentobroaderideasandknowledge,andtoprotecttho sewhointhefuturem ightdecidetoleavetheircommunities.The _6_-videntiaryObjectionstoDeclarationof RobertV .Levine


7/78

*1

23456789

10111213141516171819202 122232425262728

CourtagreedthatlifeintheAm ishcommunitywasinstarkcontrasttothatofmodernsecularsociety :

Theirwayof lifeinachurch-orientedcommunity,separatedfrom theoutsideworldand'worldly 'influences,theirattachment tonatureandthesoil ,isawayinherentlysimpleanduncomplicated ,albeitdifficulttoprese rveagainstthepressuretoconform.Theirrejectionoftelephones,automobiles,radios,andtelevision,theirmodeof dress,of speech ,theirhabitsof manua lworkdoindeedset themapartfrommuchof contemporarysociety;thesecustomsarebothsymbo licandpractical.406U.S.at217 .TheCourtheldthattheFirstAmendmentprotectstherightof Am ishfam iliestoraisetheirchildrenaccordingtothestrictdictatesoftheirreligion ,inlargepartinisolationfromsecularsociety,andtheresulting"worldview"of thechildrenissimplyaconsequenceofthatprotecteddecision.

AnotherkeyfactorinLevine 'sanalysisisthecentra lreligiouspracticeofaud itingitself,whichheattacksas Orwellian ,"because,likeconfess ioninotherreligions ,thepersonbeingauditedisencouragedtorevealhis"trueinnerthoughts."That,accordingtoScientologydoctrine,thatpracticeisthetrueroadtosalvation ,againanalogoustootherreligions,doesnotmattertoLevine.If hisanalysisweretobeaccepted ,theScientologyreligionwouldhavetoabandonitscentra lreligiouspracticeof auditingandrenounceitsbeliefineterna lspiritua lexistencetoavoidpotentiallega lsanctions.ThefreeexerciseandestablishmentclausesinsulateScientologyandotherreligionsfromhavingtomakesuchchoicesabout religiousdoctrine.

OtherfactorssingledoutbyLevineincludeimpositionof ru lesanddisciplineupon membersof theSeaOrgreligiousorder,limitedcommunicationwiththeoutsideworld ,andcon trolof newsandinformation .WhilemanyoftheseallegedcharacterizationsofPlaintiffsexperiencesareexaggerated ,theyaretypicalof thelifeofreligiousordersinotherfaiths.UndertheFirstAmendment,suchlifestyleconstraintsinareligiouscontext,particularlythatof areligiousorderandrelatingtom inistersofthereligion ,arebeyondthescrutinyof thecourts.AsimilarclaimofmindcontrolallegedlyrenderingreligiousbelieversincompetenttomaketheirowndecisionswasrejectedonFirstAmendmentground sinKatzv.SuperiorCourt,73Cal .App.3d952(1973).Inthatcase,parentsoffiveyoungadult membersof theUnificationChurchhadobtainedordersfromtheSuperiorCourtappointingthemtemporaryconservatorsof thepersonsoftheirchildren.The 7_-videntiaryObjection stoDeclarationof RobertV .Levine


8/78

parentscontendedtheirchildrenhadbeensubjectedto coercivepersuasion throughmethodssuchas fooddeprivation ;sleepdeprivation ;isolation ;theuseof feartactics;theuseofguiltfeelings;andindoctrination. Id .at972 .Theparentspresentedthetestimonyofapsychiatristandapsycho log ist,similar tothatof Levine,seekingtoestablishthattheUnificationChurchengagedincoercivepersuasion or"brainwashing"togaintheallegianceofrecruits.TheKatzcourtwasunw illingtoeveninquireintothemeritsof these assertions,reasoningthat

[w]henthecourtisaskedtodeterminewhetherthatchangewasinducedbyfaithorbycoercivepersuasionisitnotinturninvestigatingandquestioningthevalidityofthatfaith?Atthesametimethetrier-of-factisaskedtoadjudgethegoodfaithandbonafidenessofthebeliefsof theconse rvatees[']preceptors.Ifitbeassumedthatcertainleaderswereusingpsycholog icalmethodstoproselytyze[57c]andholdtheallegianceof recruitstothechurchorcult,callitwhatwewill,canitbesaidtheiractionswerenotdictatedbyfaithmerelybecauseotherswhoengagedinsuchpracticeshaverecanted?

Id .at987-88(footno teomitted).Asim ilardecisionwasrenderedbytheNewYorkAppellateDivisioninatortaction

broughtbytheestateof aformermemberoftheUnificationChurchwhocommittedsuicide .Meroniv .HolySpiritAssociation ,506N.Y.S.2d174(A .D.2d1986).Itisworthrecitingtheallegationsatsomelength ,asdescribedbythecourt :

[PJlaintiff allegesthatthedefendantUnificationChurchsubjectedthedecedenttohighlyprogrammedbehavioralcontroltechniquesinacontrolledenvironmenttherebynarrowinghisattentionandcausinghimtogointoatrance .Hewassubjectedtoanintense fastingfromfoodsandbeverages,aprogramof chantingandrelatedactivities.Theplaintiff furtherallegesthatthedefend antchurch soughtandsucceededinexercisinga formofhypnoticcontrol ,sometimescalled'brainwashing, .Theplaintiffclaimsthatasadirectresultofthis intensiveprog ram,the deedentsufferedan emotional breakdown... .Theformof informationcontrolexercisedoverthedecedentconsistedof isolatingthedecedent from allinform ationabout himselforotherswhichwouldcausehim toquestiontheactivitiesoftheUnificationChu rch.Thiswouldinclud eaccesstoprinted ,auralandvisualmedia,accesstoanyareaorpeopleoutsidethetrainingcamp,andlimitedormonitoredaccesstofriend sandfamilythroughtelephonecalls.Theplaintiffsbillofparticularsalsomakesreferencetoconfessions,lectures,and highlystructuredworkandstudyschedules.

506N .Y.S .2dat176 -77 .TheCourtheldthattheplaintiff sclaim mustbedismissed:

8-EvidentiaryObjectionstoDeclarationof Robert V .Levine


9/78

1

23456789

10111213141516171819202 122232425262728

Theconduct ...whichtheplaintiff seekstoclassifyastortious,constitutescommonandacceptedreligiousproselytizingpractices,e.g.,fasting,chanting ,physicalexercises,cloisteredliving ,confessions,lectures,andahighlystructuredworkandstudyschedule .Totheextentthattheplaintiffallegesthatthedecedentwasbrainwashed"asaresultof thechurch'sprogram,thisclaim must beviewedinthecontextof thesituationasawhole,i.e. ,asametho dof religiousindoctrination that isneitherextremenoroutrageouswhenitisconsideredthatthesubjectsof theso-called brainwashing"arevoluntarilyparticipatingintheprogram,andthevariousactivitiesmentionedabove,whichallegedlyinducedthe m indcontrol,arenotconsideredbyoursocietytobebeyondallpossiblebound sof decency... .Whatis systematicmanipu lation"of socialinfluencestosomemaybetheonlytrueoutlook toothers.

Id .at177-78 ;accordLew isv.HolySpiritAssn .fortheUn ificationof WorldChristianity,589F.Supp.10,12(D .Mass.1982)(Indoctrinationandinitiationproceduresandconditionsofmembershipina religiousorganization aregenerallynot subjecttojudicialreview).

Finally,asimilarresultwasreachedinHeadley ,acaseremarkablysimilartothisoneallegingsimilarclaimsandbroughtbythesamelawyersthati ledthiscase .AsJudgeFischernotedin hersummary j udgmentruling:

[Plaintiff]arguesthatsheisavictimunderthe[TrafficVictimsProtectionAct]because :(1)Defendantscoercedherintohavingtwoabortions;(2)DefendantsplacedrestrictionsonSeaOrgmembers'abilitytoleave;(3)DefendantspursueSeaOrgmemberswholeavewithout routingout andattempttodissuadethem fromtheirdecision;(4)DefendantsdisciplineSeaOrgmemberswhoevenexpressadesiretoleave ;(5)DefendantscensorSeaOrgmembers'communications;(6)Defendants"disciplineof SeaOrgmembersincludessleepandeatingdeprivationandheavymanuallabor;and(7)DefendantsattemptedtoforcePlaintiff todivorceherhusband.

[Declarationof MatthewD .Hinks("HinksDecl.)Exh.Batp.7.]Thecourtrejectedplaintiffsargument thatthechallengedconductwasnotdoctrinallymotivated. [Id.]"DeterminingwhetherScientology'spracticesof routingout,censorship,orheavymanuallaborasaform of discipline,forexample,constituteinvoluntaryservitudewithinthemeaningof theTVPAispreciselythetypeofentanglementthattheReligion Clausesprohibit. [Id .atp.8 .]TheNinthC ircuitaffirmedJud geFischer'srulinginitsentiretyonstatutorygroundswithout addressingtheconstitutionalissues .SeegenerallyHeadleyv .Churchof Scientology,687F.3d1173(2012) .

Accordingly,Dr .Levine,sopinionsareandmustbetreatedasjustthatandnothingmore:9-

EvidentiaryObjectionstoDeclarationof Robert V .Levine


10/78

1hispersonalopinions.2Indeed ,profferedexpertopiniontestimonyfromProfessorLevineof theexact typeoffered3herewasrejectedintheharshestoftermsintheHeadleycase.TheHeadleys,likePlaintiff ,were4representedbytheMetzgerLawGroup,and,alsolikePlaintiff ,submittedadeclarationfrom5ProfessorLevineinoppositiontoasummaryjudgmentmotion ,theopinionsandconclusionsof6whichweresubstantiallysimilartotheonepresentedhere.Alsolikehere,ProfessorLevinedidnot7exam inetheplaintiffsinthatcaseandinsteadreliedforhisopinionsuponthedepositionsof the8plaintiffs.JudgeFischerstruckthedeclaration ,notingindoingsothat,itwas"oneofthemost9worthlessdeclarations[shehad]seeninareallylongtime.Really,really. [SeeHinksDecl.,Exh .10A.]Onappeal,theNinthCircuit affirmedJudgeFischer'sorderstrikingthedeclaration ,holding:11Onsummary judgment,thedistrictcourtstruck,asnotbaseduponreliableprinciplesormethods,thedeclarationofDr.RobertLevine,anexp ertinthepsychologyofpersuasionandmindcontrol .Dr.Levineofferedapurportedexpertopinionaboutj thepsycho logicalcoercionthatthe[plaintiffs]allegedlyenduredwhilewiththeChurchandtheCenter .[Plaintiffs]contendthatthisrulingwasanabu seof14discretion.Wedisagree.Dr.Levinebasedhisopiniononhisreview of [plaintiffs ']depositiontranscriptsandrelatedexhibits.Heneverspokew ith[plaintiffs]in15form inghisopinion.[Plaintiffs]citenoauthoritythatreadingonlydepositiontranscriptsisconsideredareliablemethodinthefieldofthepsychologyof

persuasionandmindcontrol .Thedistrictcourthaddiscretiontostriketheyjdeclaration.SeeFed.R.Evid.702 (c).Headley ,687F.3dat1181,n.1.1819Nothinghaschanged,andPlaintiffscounselhavenot learnedtheirlesson .ProfessorLevine20hasofferedwhatisineffectthesame worthless declarationofferingthesamerejectedtheories2iaterreviewingonlyasingle ,self-servingdeclaration.Thedeclarationdoesnotmeetthebasic22standardof EvidenceCode801(b)andshouldthereforeberejected .

M H23

K

K .

h.

24HI.OBJECTIONS TO THE DECLARATION OFROBERT LEVINE25Further,inaddition totheabove ,Defendantsinterposethefollowingspecificobjectionsto26thedeclarationof ProfessorLevine:U27

, 28OBJECTION NO .110-

EvidentiaryObjection stoDeclaration of RobertV .Levine


11/78

ObjectionableM aterial Groundsfor ObjectionM ycommentsarebaseduponareviewof the'DeclarationofLauraAnnD ieckman(Decrescenzo)inSupportofPlaintiffsOppositiontoDefendants 'JointMotionforSummaryJudgmentontheGroundthattheStatutesofLimitationsBartheAction ,andtheaccompanyingexhibits."(Declarationof RobertV .Levine,Ph .D.(LevineDecl.),2:20 -23.)

OpinionNotBasedUponReliableMatter(EvidenceCode801(b))

Statement ofReasonsfor ObjectionOpinionNotBasedUponReliableMatter(EvidenceCode801(b)).Anexpert's

opinionmustbebaseduponreliablematter.Thus ,anexpertsopinionmaybebaseduponmattersperceivedbyorpersonallyknowntothew itnessormadeknowntohimatorbeforethehea ring,whetherornotadm issible,thatisof atypethat reasonab lymayberelieduponbyanexpertinform inganopinionuponthesubjecttowhichhistestimonyrelates..."EvidenceCode801(b)(emphasissupplied).Here,ProfessorLevineadm itsthathisopinionsarebasedentirelyuponPlaintiffsdeclarationsubm ittedinsupportof heroppositiontothesummaryjudgmentmotionbuthasofferednotestimony,factsoranalysissuggestingortendingtoestablishthatpsychologistsnormallyopineonaperson smentalstatewithoutinterviewingtheperson ,conductingtests,orotherwiseexaminingthemfacetoface.NorhasProfessorLevineofferedevidencethatitisreasonableforapsychologisttorelyexclusivelyuponaself-servingdeclarationofaplaintiffofferedforthesolepurposeofdefeatingasummaryjudgmentmotion .Indeed,Plaintiffwasdeposedoverseveraldaysinthismatterandsubjectedtorigorouscross-exam inationyetProfessorLevineelectednotreviewthetranscriptsorthevideotapesofthedeposition .BecausePlaintiffsdeclarationistheentirebasisforProfessorLevinestestimony,theCourtshouldexcludeit .SeeInreLockheedLitigation Cases,115Cal .App .4th558,564(2004)(EvidenceCode801(b)requiresthatthematterreliedonmustprovideareasonablebasisfortheparticularopinionoffered,[thu s]anexpertopinionbasedonspeculationorconjectureisinadm iss ible.");seealsoPeoplev.Dodd ,133Cal .App .4th1564,1568-71(2005)(opinionbasedonunreliablehearsayinaparolereport);Garibay v.Hemmat,161Cal .App.4th735,741-743(2008)(adoctor'smedicalopinionbasedon

11-EvidentiaryObjection stoDeclarationof Ro bert V .Levine


12/78

123456789

iQ11

1213141516171819202 122232425262728

recordswhichwerenotadm ittedwasworth less);InreAsiaL.,107Cal.App.4th498,512(2003)(thesocialworker 'sconc lusionaloneisinsufficienttosupportafindingof adoptability);Atiyav .DBartolo ,63Cal .App.3d121 ,126(1976)(opinionwithoutafactualbasisdidnotconstitutesubstantial evidence) .

OBJE CTIONNO .2

ObjectionableM aterial ' Ground sfor ObjectionInthisdeclaration,Iwil laddressthephysical,socialandpsycholog icalpressuresexperiencedby LauraDeCrescenzobothduringherresidenceintheChurchof ScientologyandduringtheperiodsubsequenttoherleavingtheSeaOrg.Iwil ltrytodescribeandassessthedegreetowhichthesepressuresaffectedherabilitytothinkclearlyandexerciseherownfreewillinmakingdecisionsof significanceduringtheseperiodsof time. (LevineDecl.,2:26-3:2.)

Improperexpert opinionon ultimatelegalandfactualissue(EvidenceCode312(a),720)

C-j

M

fv

StatementofReasonsfor Objection

ImproperExpertOpiniononUltimateLegalandFactualIssue(EvidenceCode312(a),720).ProfessorLevineseekstoofferexpertopinionontheultimatequestionatissueinthismotion:namely,whetheritwasreasonableforPlaintiff torefrainfromfilingalawsuit untilsheultimatelydidsoand ,therefore,whetherthedoctrineof equitableestoppelprecludestheDefendantsfrom asse rtingastatuteof lim itationsdefense.ProfessorLevinestestimonyisimproperbecausehepurportstoopineonlegalmattersandusurptheroleof trieroffact .SeeSummersv.A .L.G ilbertCo.,69Cal .App.4th1155 ,1178-81(1999)("[t]herearelim itstoexperttestimony,nottheleast ofwhichistheprohibitionagainst admission of anexpert'sopiniononaquestionof law).

OBJECTION NO .3ObjectionableM aterial G roundsfor Objection

ThequestionIwilladdressinthisdeclarationiswhethera Improperexpertopinion on ultimate12-

Evidentiary Objection stoDeclarationof Rob ert V .Levine


13/78

123456789101112131415.16171819202 122

2324

KM25

26[,,.JO27m28

normalperson-whichIdefineinthiscaseasanaveragepersonw ithoutclearpsychologicalpathologies-shouldbeheldpersonallyresponsibleforherdecisionsgiventhephysical ,socia landpsychologicalenvironmentcreatedbyScientology.ShouldweexpectDeCrescenzotomakereasonable,independentdecisionsundertheseconditions?(LevineDecl.,3:3-7.)

legalandfactualissue(EvidenceCode312(a),720);LacksFoundation(EvidenceCod e403 ,720)


ImproperExpertOpiniononUltimateLegalandFactualIssue(EvidenceCode312(a),720).ProfessorLevineseekstoofferexpertopinionontheultimatequestionatissueinthismotion:namely,whetheritwasreasonableforPlaintiff torefrainromfilingalawsuituntilsheultimatelydidsoand ,therefore,whetherthedoctrineof equitableestoppelprecludestheDefendantsromassertingastatuteof limitationsdefense.ProfessorLevine'stestimonyisimproperbecausehepurportstoopineonlegalmattersandusurptheroleof trierof fact .SeeSummersv .A.L .G ilbertCo.,69Cal .App.4th1155 ,1178-8 1(1999)("[t]herearelim itstoexperttestimony,nottheleastofwhichistheprohibitionagainst admiss ionof anexpert'sopiniononaquestionof law).

LacksFoundation (EvidenceCode403 ,720).ProfessorLevinefailstodefinethetermpsychological patho logies".Moreover,ProfessorLevinefailstoarticulateabasisforhisapparentconclusionthatPlaintiffdoesnotsufferfrom psychologica lpathologies."Deev.PCSProper tyManagement,Inc.,174Cal .App.4th390 ,404(2009)("expert'sopinionbasedonassumptionsoffactw ithoutevidentiarysupport...hasnoevidentiaryvalue...andmaybeexcludedfromevidence);Bushlingv.FremontMedicalCenter,117Cal .App .4th493,510(2004)("'expert'sop inionthatsomethingcouldbetrueifcertainassumedfactsaretrue,withoutanyfound ationforconcludingthoseassumedfactsexist'...hasnoevidentiaryvalue";summaryjudgment granted).

OBJECTION NO .4

Objectionab leM aterial Groundsfor ObjectionTotalisticcommitments,suchasthecaseofDeCrescenzo,areotendescribedastheresultofbrainwashing ."(Levine LacksFoundation(EvidenceCod e403,720)

13-EvidentiaryObjectionstoDeclarationof RobertV .Levine


14/78

Decl.,3:9-10.)


LacksFoundation (EvidenceCode403,720).ProfessorLevinefailstoarticulatewhatismeantbytheuseofthephrase, totalisticcommitment".Likewise,ProfessorLevinefailstoarticulateabasisordescribethemethodologybywhichhecometotheconclusionthatPlaintiff wassubjecttoa totalisticcommitment" .SeePa c ificGas&E lec.Cov.Zuckerman ,189Cal .App.3d1113 ,(1987)("Thevalueof opinionevidencerestsnotintheconclusionreachedbu tinthefactorsconsideredandthereasoningemployed...Whereanexpert baseshisconclusionuponassumptionswhicharenotsupportedbytherecord ,uponmatterswhicharenotreasonablyreliedupon by otherexperts,oruponfactorswhicharespeculative,remoteorconjectural,thenhisconclusionhasnoevidentiary value.) .

OBJECTION NO .5

Objectionab le M aterial' G round sfor ObjectionAsDeCrescenzodescribesinherdeclaration,themoresignificantpressuressheexperiencedwerelessovertlyominousthantho seweassociatewithbrainwashing .ThecontrolexertedbyScientologywasmorepsychologicallysophisticatedand ,becauseofthis,lessobvioustotargetslikeher .Scientologyexertedapersistentandpotentprogramofpsycholog icalandsocialmanipulationthateffectivelycontrolledDeCrescenzo ,sthinking,behavior,emotions,anddecisions.Thesepressures,thoughmoresubtlethanwhatwethinkof asbrainwashing,effectivelycontrolledDeCrescenzo 'ssenseofreality .Asaresult,DeCrescenzobecameincapableofobjectivelyevaluatingany thingshewastoldorthreatenedwith. (LevineDecl.,3:16-23.)

LacksFoundation(EvidenceCod e403,720)

Statement ofReasonsfor ObjectionLacksFoundation(EvidenceCode403 ,720)."[A]nexpert'sopinionrenderedwithout

areasonedexplanationofwhytheunderlyingfactsleadtotheultimateconclusionhasno J4_-videntiaryObjection stoDeclarationof Robert V .Levine


15/78

1

23456789

10111213141516171819202 122

23 24k?tv25

26fvO27H*u s28

evidentiaryvaluebecauseanexpert opinionisworthnomorethan thereasonsandfactsonwhichitisbased. Bushlingv .Fremon tMedicalCenter ,117 Cal .App.4th493,510(2004);seealsoAtiyav.DBartolo ,63Cal .App.3d121 ,126(1976)(opinionwithoutafactualbasisdidnotconstitutesubstantialevidence);Gr iffithv .Countyof LosAngeles,267Cal .App.2d837,847(1968)("Anexpert'sopinionisnobetterthanthereasonsgivenforit .Ifhisopinionisnotbaseduponfactsotherwiseproved.. .itcannotrisetothedignityof substantialevidence."').Inviolationof thiscardinalprincipleofexpertopiniontestimony,ProfessorLevineoffersaseriesofconclusionswithoutanydescriptionof thesupposedfactualsupportfortheconclusionsrendered .NordoesProfessorLevinedescribetheanalyticpathtraveledfrom theevidencetotheconclusions.ProfessorLevinedoesnot,forexamp le,statewhat"significantpressures Plaintiffsupposedlyfacedordescribeorcorroboratethepersistentandpotentprogramofpsychologicalandsocialmanipulation thatDefendantsallegedlyengagedin .Rather,ProfessorLevineleapsfromunsupportedassumptionstonakedconclusionswithoutfactualoranalyticsupport.Thetestimonyisthereforeinadm issible.

OBJECTION NO .6

ObjectionableM aterial G roundsfor ObjectionTobegin with,DeCrescenzoknew virtuallynootherwayofthinkingotherthanthatpresentedbyScientology. (LevineDecl.,4:14-15 .)

LacksFound ation(EvidenceCode403 ,720)

StatementofReasonsfor ObjectionLacksFoundation(EvidenceCode403,720).ProfessorLevineprovidesno

evidentiaryoranalyticsupport forhisbareconclusionthatPlaintiff"knew virtuallynootherwayofthinkingotherthanthatpresentedbyScientology."SeePac ificGas&Elec .Cov.Zuckerman ,189Cal .App.3d1113,(1987)("Thevalueof opinionevidencerestsnotintheconclusionreachedbutinthefactorsconsideredandthereasoningemployed ...Whereanexpertbaseshisconclusionuponassumptionswhicharenotsupportedbytherecord ,uponmatterswhicharenotreasonably

-15EvidentiaryObjectionstoDeclarationof RobertV .Levine


16/78

1

23456789

10111213141516171819202 122

023N24MU25M26327

28

relieduponbyotherexperts,oruponfactorswhicharespeculative,remoteorconjectural ,thenhisconclusionhasnoevidentiaryvalue.).

OBJECTIONNO .7ObjectionableM ater ial Groundsfor Objection

Evenwhenaspectsof herexperiencemayhaveappearedtoher-andtooutsiders-tohavelinkstotheoutsideworld,virtuallyallof herinteractions,informationandeducationwas,infact,beingshapedbyScientology. (LevineDecl.,4:26 -28)

LacksFoundation(EvidenceCode403 ,720)


evidentiaryoranalyticsupportforhisbareconclusionthatallofPlaintiffs interactions,informationandeducationwas ,infact,beingshapedbyScientology. SeePac iicGas&E lec.Cov.Zuckerman ,189Cal .App.3d1113 ,(1987)("Thevalueof opinionevidencerestsnotintheconclusionreachedbutinthefactorsconsideredandthereasoningemployed ...Whereanexpertbaseshisconclusionuponassumptionswhicharenotsupportedbytherecord ,uponmatterswhicharenotreasonablyrelieduponbyotherexperts,oruponfactorswhicharespeculative,remoteorconjectural ,then hisconclusion hasnoevidentiaryvalue .) .

Moreover,con trarytoProfessorLevine'sclaim that Plaintiff waseffectivelycutoff fromtheoutsideworld ,Plaintiffacknow ledgedthatshe wouldliterallygooffbasewhenever[she]hadachance andonotheroccasionstraveledtoAlbuquerquewhereherfam ilylived ,Portlandwherehernon-ScientologistgrandmotherresidedandletwithherhusbandtocelebrateChristmaswithhisfam ily.[SSUF71,78 ,79.]

OBJECTION NO .8

ObjectionableM aterial Groundsfor Ob jectionInthecaseofDeCrescenzo,shewasbornintoScientologyLacksFoundation(EvidenceCode



17/78

1

23456789

10111213141516171819202 122

H'G23W24M25W2627U >28

meaningtheencapsulationprocessbeganwiththeinitialstepalreadytotallyachieved. (LevineDecl.,5:12-14) 403 ,720)


LacksFoundation(EvidenceCode403,720).ProfessorLevineoffersnoexplanationastowhatitmeantbythephrase, encapsulation process andnofactualoranalyticsupportfortheconclusionthatbeing bornintoScientology necessarilymeansthatthe"initialstep ofthatprocesshasbeen totallyachieved. SeePac ificGas&Elec .Cov .Zuckerman ,189Cal .App.3d1113,(1987)("Thevalueof opinionevidencerestsnotintheconclusion reachedbutinthefactorsconsideredandthereasoningemployed...Whereanexpert baseshisconclusionuponassumptionswhicharenotsupportedbytherecord ,upon matterswhicharenotreasonablyreliedupon byotherexperts,oruponfactorswhicharespeculative,remoteorconjectural,thenhisconclusionhasnoevidentiary value.) .

OBJECTION NO .9

ObjectionableM aterial Ground sfor Ob jectionM uchofhersocializationwaslikelynotevendirectlytaught .Rather,likemostofwhatachildcomestointernalizeasnormalandcorrectbehavior ,itcomesthroughobse rvationof modelswhoshetrustedandrespected .Thismodeof learningdoesnotrequireexplicitteaching ;itissomethingachildissimplyprogrammedtodo. (LevineDecl.,5:15-25).


StatementofReasonsforObject ion

LacksFoundation(EvidenceCode403 ,720)."[E]venwhenthewitnessqualifiesasanexpert,heorshedoesnotpo ssessacarteblanchetoexpressanyopinionwithintheareaofexpertise. Jenningsv .PalomarPomeradoHealthSystems,Inc.,114Cal .App.4th1108,1117(2003) .Expertopinionbaseduponmerespeculationhasnoevidentiaryvalue .Seeid ;seealsoHowardv.OmniHotelsManagementCorp.,203Cal .App.4th403,427(2012)("expertsopinions _17-videntiaryObjectionstoDelarationof Robert V .Levine


18/78

1

23456789

10111213141516171819202 122232425

Object ionab leM aterial Ground sfor Ob jectionInDeCrescenzo,scase,however,shebecameincreasinglyenmeshedwiththethinkingofScientologyastimewenton.Itappearsfrom thedocuments,infact,thatshelearnedtoassumethatanyactionevenremotelycriticalofScientologywasmorallywrongandwouldleadtoseveredisciplinaryaction(seebelow). (LevineDecl.,6:8-11).


andconclusionsmusthavereasonablebasesandreflectmorethanspeculationorconjecture);MHCFinancingLtd .P 'shipTwov .C ityof San tee,182Cal .App.4th1169 ,1181n.11(2010)(speculativetestimonylacksprobativevalue);Peoplev .Fielder,114Cal .App.4th1221,1234(2004)("speculationisnotevidence").Nevertheless,ProfessorLevinehereoffersnothingbu tsheerspeculation ,whichheeffectivelyacknowledgesthroughtheuseof theword likely"andhisfailuretosupporttheconclusionwithcorroborativefacts.Theconclusionthereforehasnoevidentiaryvalueandshouldbeexcluded .

OBJECTION NO .10

Statement ofReasonsfor ObjectionLacksFoundation(EvidenceCode403,720).ProfessorLevineprovidesno

evidentiaryoranalyticsupportforhisbareconclusionthatPlaintiff"learnedtoassumethatanyactionevenremotelycriticalofScientologywasmorallywrong.SeePac ificGas&Elec .Cov .Zuckerman ,189Cal .App.3d1113 ,(1987)("Thevalueofopinionevidencerestsnotintheconclusionreachedbu tinthefactorsconsideredandthereasoningemployed...Whereanexpertbaseshisconclusionuponassumptionswhicharenotsupportedbytherecord ,uponmatterswhicharenotreasonablyrelieduponbyotherexperts,oruponfactorswhicharespecu lative,remoteorconjectural,thenhisconclusionhasnoevidentiaryvalue.) .Theconclusionthereforelacksfoundationandshouldbeexcluded .

NJ 26 ////0 27 // //(,lj: 28 ////



19/78

1234

.5678910111213141516171819202 122

O23%

24MM25M26Q27

28

ObjectionableM aterial Groun dsfor Ob jectionTheentiremindse tofScientology-itsbeliefs ,values,habits,rules,andevenitsloadedlanguage~wasvirtuallytheonlyrealityDeCrescenzowasexposedtoand ,certainly,theonlymindsetScientologyallowedhertoacceptforthefirst 2 5yearsofherli fe.DeCrescenzohadalmostnochoicebuttobelievethatScientologywasnormalcy. (LevineDecl.,6:12-15).

LacksFoundation(EvidenceCode403,720)

OBJECTIONNO .11

Statement ofReasonsfor Ob jection

LacksFoundation(EvidenceCode403,720)."[A]nexpert'sopinionrenderedwithoutareasonedexplanationofwhytheunderlyingfactsleadtotheultimateconclusionhasnoevidentiaryvaluebecauseanexpertopinionisworthnomorethanthereasonsandfactsonwhichitisbased. Bushlingv.Fremon tMedicalCenter ,117Cal .App.4th493 ,510(2004);seealsoAtiyav.D Bartolo ,63Cal .App.3d121,126(1976)(opinionwithoutafactualbasisdidnotconstitutesubstantialevidence);Gr iffithv.Countyof LosAngeles,267Cal .App.2d837,847(1968)(Anexpert 'sopinionisnobetterthanthereasonsgivenforit.If hisopinionisnotbaseduponfactsotherwiseproved.. .itcannotrisetothedignityofsubstantialevidence.").Despitetheserules,ProfessorLevineoffersvariousconclusionsw ithoutevidentiarysupport.NordoesProfessorLevinedescribetheanalyticpathtraveledfromtheevidencetotheconclusions.Inparticular,ProfessorLevinefailstocorroboratehisconclusionthat"[t]heentirem ind setofScientology wasvirtuallytheonlyreality Plaintiffexperiencedandprovidesnoanalysis,factsorreason ingtosupporthisconclusionthatPlaintiffhad"almostnochoicebu ttobelievethatScientologywasnormalcy.Thetestimonyisthereforeinadmissible .

OBJECTION NO .12

ObjectionableM ater ial Groundsfor Ob jectionThis"no rmalcy createsapowerfulfoundationfor LacksFoundation(EvidenceCode403 ,



20/78

1

23456789

10111213141516171819202 122232425262728

theorganizationtoexercisecontroloveritsmembers,especiallyyoungmemberslikeDeCrescenzo.(LevineDecl.,6:18-19).

720);LacksProbativeValueand UndulyPrejudicial(EvidenceCode352)

Statement ofReasonsfor Objection

LacksFoundation(EvidenceCode403,720).ProfessorLevineprovidesnomethodologyforhisapparentrandomanduncorroborateddeterm inationthatDefendantssoughttoexercisecontrol overanyofitsmembers,letalonePlaintiff .According ly,hisconclusionisinadmiss iblegiventhefailuretoprovide areasonedexplanationof whytheunderlyingfactsleadtotheultimateconclusion".Bushlingv .FremontMedicalCenter,117Cal .App.4th493 ,510(2004).

LacksProbativeValueandUndulyPrejudicial(EvidenceCode352).Inaddition ,ProfessorLevinerevealshisanimositytoDefendantsandtheScientologyreligionthroughchargedlanguageandconclusionsbasedonassumptionsandspeculationthathavenobasisinfact.Here,thatbiasismanifestedinProfessorLevine'sunsupportedcontentionthatDefendantssoughttoexercisecontrol overitsmembers,includingPlaintiff .

OBJECTION NO .13

ObjectionableM aterial Groundsfor ObjectionScientologysawtoitthatshewasrarelyexposedtoanyotherwaysofthinkingand ,whenshewas,thatsheunderstoodthatthiswaswrongfulthinkingthatnoneof herpeerssupported.Inherexperience,itseemedthatvirtuallyeveryonebelievedinScientologyand,thus,thismustberight. (LevineDecl.,7"4-6).

LacksFoundation (EvidenceCode403 ,720)


LacksFoundation(EvidenceCode403 ,720)."[A]nexpert,sopinionrenderedwithout

20-EvidentiaryObjection stoDeclarationof Robert V .Levine


21/78

1

23456789

10111213141516171819202 122

23V24NJ

M25[J2627fw.< ,.s28

areasonedexplanationof whytheunderlyingfactsleadtotheultimateconclusionhasnoevidentiaryvaluebecausean expertopinionisworthnomorethanthereasonsandfactson whichitisbased. Bushlingv .FremontMedicalCenter,117Cal .App.4th493 ,510(2004);seealso Atiyav.DBartolo ,63Cal .App.3d121,126(1976)(opinion withoutafactualbasisdidno t constitutesubstantia levidence);Gr iffithv.CountyofLos Angeles,267Cal.App.2d837,847(1968)(Anexpert'sopinionisnobetterthan thereasonsgivenforit.If hisopinion isnotbaseduponfactsotherwise proved...itcannot rise tothedignityof substantial evidence.') .Here,ProfessorLevinehasviolatedthese principlesbyfailingtoarticulateanyunderlyingfacts,evidenceortestimonycorroboratinghisconclusions,whicharethereforeinadmissible .OB JCTON NO bjectionableM aterial Groundsfor ObjectionInthecaseof DeCrescenzo,thesecod esof behavioro tenconflictedwiththoseofthesurroundingworld .BecauseofherexperienceinScientology,however,itwouldhavebeenextremelyun likelyforDeCrescenzotounderstandthis.Thebeliefsthatmayhavebeenconsiderednormal,correctbehaviorinanoutsidecontextwereunderstoodtobedeviantfromthenormwithinthecultureofScientology .Tonotsuccumbtothenormwasnotonlyunderstoodtocreateproblemsforoneself ,andherparents,but wasunderstoodtobebothwrongfulthinkingandasociallydisapprovedact.(LevineDecl.,7:15-21) LacksFoundation(EvidenceCode403,720)

StatementofReasonsfor Object ion

LacksFoundation(EvidenceCode403,720)."[A]nexpert,sopinionrenderedwithou tareasonedexplanationofwhytheunderlyingfactsleadtotheultimateconclusionhasnoevidentiaryvaluebecauseanexpertopinionisworthnomorethanthereasonsandfactsonwhichitisbased. Bushlingv.Fremon tMedicalCenter ,117Cal .App.4th493 ,510(2004);seealsoAtiyav.DBartolo,63Cal .App.3d121,126(1976)(opinionwithoutafactualbasisdidnotconstitutesubstantialevidence);Gr iffithv .Countyof LosAngeles,267Cal .App.2d837 ,847(1968)("An

2}_-videntiaryObjection stoDeclarationof RobertV .Levine


22/78

i234567891011

1213141516171819202 122

*w " 23%\ .

fO 24K) 25

26 27CO 28

expert'sopinionisnobetterthanthereasonsgivenforit.Ifhisopinionisnotbaseduponfactsotherwise proved.. .it cannot rise tothedignityof substantialevidence.,) .Moreover,conclusionsofferedwithoutarticulatingtheanalyticrouteforreachingthemareinadm issible.SeePac ificGa s&Elec.Cov.Zuckerman ,189Cal .App.3d1113 ,(1987)("Thevalueof opinionevidencerestsnotintheconclusion reachedbutinthefactorsconsideredandthereasoningemployed...Whereanexpertbaseshisconclusionuponassumptionswhicharenotsupportedbytherecord ,uponmatterswhichareno treasonablyrelieduponbyotherexperts,oruponfactorswhicharespeculative,remoteorconjectural ,then hisconclusion hasnoevidentiaryvalue.).Finally,expertopinionbaseduponmerespeculationhasnoevidentiaryvalue .Seeid.;seealsoHowardv .OmniHotelsManagementCorp.,203Cal .App.4th403 ,427(2012)("expert'sopinionsandconclusionsmusthavereasonablebasesandreflectmorethanspeculationorconjecture");MHCFinancingLtd.P 'sh ipTwov.Cityof Santee,182Cal .App.4th1169 ,1181n .11(2010)(speculativetestimonylacksprobativevalue);Peoplev.Fielder ,114Cal .App.4th1221,1234(2004)("speculationisnotevidence).

ProfessorLevinesconclusionshereviolateeachoftheseprinciples.Hefailstoarticulatewhathemeansby thesecodesof behavior andhoworwhattheyconflictwith.Indeed ,giventhecontextof thestatement,itisambiguousandvirtuallyundecipherable .NordoesProfessorLevinearticulatethebasisforhisconclusionthatPlaintiff couldnotunderstandthereferenced conflict,whichistheproductofsheerguesswork.Finally,thetestimonyprovidesaseriesofconclusionswithout identifiedfactualoranalyticsupport andmustthereforebeexcluded .

OBJECTIONNO .15

Ob jectionableM aterial Ground sfor ObiectionItwou ldbehighlyunlikeforapersonwhounderwenttheconditionsexperiencedbyDeCrescenzotobecapableofrisingabovethesenormativepressures.Acceptanceof thenormalcyofScientology'sdictateswasvirtuallypredetermined. (LevineDecl.,7:22-24) .




23/78


LacksFoundation(EvidenceCode403 ,720)."[A]nexpert'sopinionrenderedwithou tareasonedexplanationofwhytheunderlyingfactsleadtotheultimateconclusionhasnoevidentiaryvaluebecauseanexpertopinionisworthnomorethanthereasonsandfactsonwhichitisbased."Bushlingv.Fremon tMedicalCenter ,117 Cal .App.4th493 ,510(2004);seealsoAtiyav.DBartolo,63Cal .App.3d121,126(1976)(opinionwithoutafactualbasisdidnotconstitutesubstantialevidence);Gr iffithv.Countyof LosAngeles,267Cal .App.2d837 ,847(1968)(A nexpert'sopinionisnobetterthanthereasonsgivenforit .Ifhisopinionisnotbaseduponfactsotherwise proved.. .itcannot risetothedignityof substantialevidence.,).Here,ProfessorLevinehasviolatedtheseprinciplesbyfailingtoarticulateanyunderlyingfacts,evidenceortestimonycorroboratinghisconclusions,whicharethereforeinadmissible .

OBJECTION NO .16

Objectionab leM aterial Groundsfor ObjectionThismindsetletDeCrescenzoextremelyvulnerabletomanipulationbyScientologyandScientologyusedthispowertoestablishvirtuallytotalisticcontroloverher.(LevineDecl.,7:27-28) .

LacksFoundation(EvidenceCode403 ,720);LacksProbativeValueandUndu lyPrejudicial(EvidenceCod e352)

StatementofReasonsfor ObjectionLacksFoundation(EvidenceCode403 ,720).ProfessorLevineprovidesno

methodologyforhisapparentrandomanduncorroborateddeterm inationthatDefendantssoughttomanipu latePlaintiffandexercise totalisticcontrol overher .According ly,hisconclusionisinadm issiblegiventhefailuretoprovide"areasonedexplanationof whytheunderlyingfactsleadtotheultimateconclusion".Bushlingv.Fremon tMedicalCenter,117Cal .App.4th493,510(2004) .

Similarly,ProfessorLevinefailstosubstantiatehiscontentionthatPlaintiff was"extremelyvulnerabletomanipu lation.Atiyav .DBartolo ,63Cal .App.3d121,126(1976)(opinionwithout -_23_-videntiaryObjectionstoDeclarationof Robert V .Levine


24/78

1

23456789

10111213141516171819202 122

Q2324W

M25K)26027.o28

a factualbasisdidno t constitutesubstantialevidence) .LacksProbativeValueandUndulyPrejudicial(EvidenceCode352).Inadd ition,

ProfessorLevinerevealshisanimositytoDefendantsandtheScientologyreligionthroughchargedlanguageandconclusionsbasedonassumptionsandspeculationthathavenobasisinfact .Here,thatbiasismanifestedinProfessorLevine'sunsupportedcontentionthatDefendantssoughttomanipulate Plaintiffandexercise"totali sticcontrol"overher .

OBJECTION NO .17

Ob iectionableM aterial Groundsfor ObjectionThedocumentsofferextensiveevidencethatScientologysystematicallymanipu latedDeCrescenzoonthreedimensions :behaviorcontrol,informationcontro landthoughtcontrol .Thesethreetypesof control,taken togetherwiththeiremotionalcomponents,encompasswhatispopularlyreferredtoastotalisticmindcontrol .(Hassan ,Steven(2000) .ReleasingtheBonds.Somerville,MA :Freedom of MindPress.) (LevineDecl.,8:1-5).


StatementofReasonsfor ObjectionLacksFoundation(EvidenceCode403 ,720)."[A]nexpert'sopinion renderedwithou t

areasonedexplanationofwhytheunderlyingfactsleadtotheultimateconclusionhasnoevidentiaryvaluebecauseanexpertopinionisworthnomorethanthereasonsandfactsonwhichitisbased. Bushlingv .Fremon tMedicalCenter ,117Cal .App.4th493 ,510(2004);seealsoAtiyav.DBartolo ,63Cal .App.3d121,126(1976)(opinionwithoutafactualbasisdidnotconstitutesubstantialevidence);Gr ifithv .Coun tyof LosAngeles,267Cal .App.2d837 ,847(1968)(A nexpert'sopinionisnobetterthanthereasonsgivenforit .Ifhisopinionisnotbaseduponfactsotherwise proved...itcannotrise tothedignityof substantialevidence.",) .Here,ProfessorLevinehasviolatedtheseprinciplesbyfailingtoarticulateanyunderlyingfacts,evidenceortestimonycorroboratinghisconclusions.Whilehemakesreferencetocertain"documents",hefailstoidentifywhichsuchdocumentssuppo sedlyoffer extensiveevidence of"totalisticm indcontrol."

-24EvidentiaryObjection stoDeclarationof Robert V .Levine


25/78

. .OBJECTION NO .18

ObjectionableM aterial Groundsfor ObjectionA saresult,shehadlittlewithwhich tocompareherexperiences,resultingin theassumption thatthelevelofcontrolexertedon herbehaviorwasnormal. (Levine,Decl.,8:11-13).

LacksFound ation(EvidenceCode403,720)

StatementofReasonsfor ObjectionLacksFoundation(EvidenceCode403 ,720)."[A]nexpert'sopinion renderedwithout

areasonedexplanationofwhytheunderlyingfactsleadtotheultimateconclusionhasnoevidentiaryvaluebecausean expertopinionisworthnomorethan thereasonsandfactsonwhichitisbased."Bushlingv.Fremont MedicalCenter,117 Cal .App .4th493 ,510(2004);seealsoAtiyav.DBarto lo,63Cal .App.3d121,126(1976)(opinionwithoutafactualbasisdidnotconstitutesubstantialevidence);Gr iffithv.Countyof LosAngeles,267Cal .App.2d837 ,847(1968)("Anexpert'sopinionisnobetterthanthereasonsgivenforit .Ifhisopinionisnotbaseduponfactsotherw iseproved...itcannotrisetothedignityof substantialevidence.").Here,ProfessorLevinehasviolatedtheseprinciplesbyfailingtoarticulateanyunderlyingfacts,evidenceortestimonycorroboratinghisconclusions,whicharethereforeinadmissible .

OBJECTION NO .19ObjectionableM aterial Groundsfor Objection

ScientologycontrolledwhereDeCrescenzolivedandwithwhomsheassociatedw ith. (Levine,Decl.,8:14-15).



LacksFoundation (EvidenceCode403 ,720).ProfessorLevinefailstosubstantiatehisclaimthat Defendants controlledwhere[Plaintiff]livedandwithwhom sheassociatedwith[sic].

25-videntiaryObjectionstoDeclarationof RobertV .Levine


26/78

12345678910111213141516171819202 122

H *023

24Miv25

y .2627H-w28

Ob ject ionab leM ater ial Groundsfor ObjectionBehaviorswereotenmicromangaged .(Levine,Decl .8:18). LacksFoundation(EvidenceCode40 3,720)

Theconclusionmustthereforebedisregardedbecause, [a]nexpert,sopinionrenderedwithoutareasonedexplanationof whytheunderlyingfactsleadtotheultimateconclusionhasnoevidentiaryvalue[and]becauseanexpertopinionisworthnomorethanthereasonsandfactsonwhichitisbased . Bushlingv .Fremon tMedicalCenter ,117Cal .App.4th493 ,510(2004);seealsoAtiyav.DBarto lo,63Cal .App.3d121,126(1976)(op inionwithoutafactualbasisdidnotconstitutesubstantialevidence);Gr iffithv.Countyof LosAngeles,267Cal .App.2d837 ,847(1968)("Anexpert,sopinionisnobetterthanthereasonsgivenforit.Ifhisopinionisnotbaseduponfactsotherwiseproved...it cannotrisetothedignity of substantialevidence.,") .

OBJECTION NO .20


LacksFoundation(EvidenceCode403 ,720).ProfessorLevinefailstosubstantiatehisclaimthatDefendants micromanaged behaviors.Theconclusionmustthereforebedisregardedbecause,"[a]nexpert'sopinionrenderedwithouta reasonedexplanationof whytheunderlyingfactsleadtotheultimateconclusionhasnoevidentiaryvalue[and]becauseanexpert opinionisworthnomorethanthereasonsandfactsonwhichitisbased."Bushlingv.Fremont MedicalCenter ,117Cal .App.4th493 ,510(2004);seealsoAtiyav.DBartolo,63Cal .App.3d121,126(1976)(opinionwithou tafactualbasisdidnotconstitutesubstantialevidence);Gr iffithv.Countyof LosAngeles,267Cal .App.2d837 ,847(1968)("Anexpert,sopinionisnobetterthan thereasonsgivenforit .If hisopinionisnotbaseduponfactsotherwiseproved.. .itcannotrisetothedignityofsubstantial evidence.').////llll

26EvidentiaryObjectionstoDeclarationof RobertV .Levine


27/78

12.3456789

10111213141516171819202 122232425262728

OBJECTIONNO.21

ObjectionableM aterial Ground sfor ObjectionMostprofoundly,Scientologydecidedthematterofherfuturemotherhood~asDeCrescenzopainfullylearnedwhenshewasforced tohaveanabortion.(Levine,Decl.,9:7-9).



LacksFoundation(EvidenceCode403 ,720).ProfessorLevinefailstosubstantiatehisclaimthatDefendants"forced Plaintifftohaveanabortion .Theconclusionmustthereforebedisregardedbecause,"[a]nexpert'sopinionrenderedwithoutareasonedexplanationof whytheunderlyingfactsleadtotheultimateconclusionhasnoevidentiaryvalue[and ]becauseanexpertopinionisworthnomorethanthereasonsandfactsonwhichitisbased."Bushlingv.FremontMedicalCenter ,117Cal .App.4th493 ,510(2004);seealsoAtiyav .DBarto lo,63Cal .App.3d121,126(1976)(opinionwithoutafactualbasisdidnotconstitutesubstantialevidence);Gr iffithv.Countyof LosAngeles,267Cal .App.2d837 ,847(1968)("Anexpert,sopinionisnobetterthanthereasonsgivenforit .If hisopinionisnotbaseduponfactsotherwiseproved.. .it cannotrisetothedignityof substantialevidence. ").

Moreover,thestatementmustbeexcludedfortheadditionalreasonthatitisentirelyinconsistentwithPlaintiffssworndepositiontestimonyinwhichsheacknowledgedthat"[n]oonephysicallyforcedmetohaveanabortion andthatsheultimatelywas"convinced"tohaveanabortion ,becauseitwas thegreatestgoodforthegreatestnumberofdynam ics andbecauseshewantedtostaywithherhusband ,whohadmadeclearthathewouldnotleavetheSeaOrg .[SMF58-63 .]


10:7-9


28/78

1

2345678910111213141516171819202 122232425262728

OBJECTION NO .22

ObjectionableMater ial GroundsforObjectionThisinformationwasbothselectiveanddistorted .AnyinformationcontrarytothewishesofScientologywaseithermodifiedorw ithheld. (Levine,Decl.,10:11-12) .



LacksFoundation (EvidenceCode403 ,720)."[A]nexpertsopinionrenderedwithoutareasonedexplanationofwhytheunderlyingfactsleadtotheultimateconclusionhasnoevidentiaryvaluebecauseanexpertop inion isworthnomorethanthereasonsandfactsonwhich itisbased. Bushlingv.FremontMedicalCenter,117Cal .App.4th493 ,510(2004);seealsoAtiyav.DBartolo ,63Cal .App.3d121,126(1976)(opinionwithoutafactualbasisdidnotconstitutesubstantialevidence);Gr iffithv .Countyof LosAngeles,267Cal .App.2d837 ,847(1968)("Anexpert 'sopinionisnobetterthanthereasonsgivenforit .Ifhisopinionisnotbaseduponfactsotherwise proved...itcannotrise tothedignityof substantialevidence.'").Here,ProfessorLevinehasviolatedtheseprinciplesbyfailingtoarticulateanyund erlyingfacts,evidenceortestimonycorroboratinghisconclusions,whicharethereforeinadmissible .

OBJECTION NO .23Ob jectionableM aterial Groundsfor Objection

Insiderswereprohibitedromcontactwithformermembers.Thiswasespeciallysignificantfortworeasons.First,itcutmembersoffromthepeoplewhowereespeciallylikelytoprovidethemwithinformationandideasthatwerechallengedScientology.Second ,itwasunderstoodthatapersonwhodisobeyedtheedictsofScientologywouldbedeclaredasuppressivepersonthemselves.Thismeantthat you ,too ,wouldneveragainbeabletohavecontactwithanyoneinsideScientology.(Levine,Decl.,12:1-6).




29/78

1

2

345678910111213141516171819202 122232425262728

Statement ofReasonsfor Objection

LacksFoundation (EvidenceCode403 ,720)."[A]nexpert'sopinionrenderedwithou tareasonedexplanationofwhytheunderlyingfactsleadtotheultimateconclusionhasnoevidentiaryvaluebecausean expertopinion isworthnomorethanthereasonsandfactson whichitisbased. Bushlingv .FremontMedicalCenter ,117 Cal .App.4th493 ,510(2004);seealsoAtiyav.DBartolo ,63Cal .App.3d121,126(1976)(opinionwithoutafactualbasisdidnotconstitutesubstantialevidence);Gr iffithv.Coun tyof LosAngeles,267Cal .App.2d837 ,847(1968)(Anexpert'sopinionisnobetterthanthereasonsgivenforit .Ifhisopinionisnotbaseduponfactsotherwiseproved...itcannotrisetothedignityof substantialevidence.') .Here,ProfessorLevinehasviolatedtheseprinciplesbyfailingtoarticulateanyunderlyingfacts,evidenceortestimonycorroboratinghisconclusions,whicharethereforeinadmissible .

OBJECTION NO .24

Ob jectionableM aterial Groun dsfor ObjectionItwaswellunderstoo dthat,evenif onehadinformationchallengingScientology,thatthereweresevereconsequencesforverbalizingthisinformation.It wouldriskdisciplineforbothoneselfandthepersononespoketo-who ,inturn ,understoodthattheywereobligatedtoreportyou rbehaviortotheauthorities.Asaresult ,evenifamemberpo ssessedinformationthatwasnotsanctionedbyScientology,itwasunlikelytobecommunicatedtoanyoneelse. (Levine,Decl.,12:7-12).

Opinion NotBasedUponReliableMatter(EvidenceCode801(b));LacksFoundation(EvidenceCod e403,720)

StatementofReasonsfor ObjectionOpinionNotBasedUponReliableMatter(EvidenceCode801(b)).ProfessorLevine

purportstoarticulateaconclusionaboutasupposedfactbeing"wellunderstood" .He,however,doesnotarticulatewho,infact,"understood suchfacttobetrue .Moreover,totheextentProfessorLevinereliesuponthedeclarationof Plaintiff toofferanopinionastothem indse tof thirdparties,hisopinionviolatesEvidenceCode801(b).

LacksFoundation(EvidenceCode403 ,720).Moreover, [a]nexpert,sopinion 29-videntiaryObjectionstoDeclarationof Ro bert V .Levine


30/78

renderedwithoutareasonedexplanationof whytheunderlyingfactsleadtotheultimateconclusionhasnoevidentiaryvaluebecause anexpertopinionisworthnomorethanthereasonsandfactsonwhichitisbased. Bushlingv.FremontMedicalCenter ,117Cal .App.4th493 ,510(2004);seealsoAtiyav.DBartolo,63Cal .App.3d121 ,126(1976)(opinionwithoutafactualbasisdidnotconstitutesubstantialevidence);Giffithv.Countyof LosAngeles,267Cal .App .2d837 ,847(1968)("Anexpert,sopinionisnobetterthanthereasonsgivenforit.If hisopinionisnotbaseduponfactsotherwiseproved.. .itcannotrisetothedignityofsub stantialevidence.,").Here,ProfessorLevinehasviolatedtheseprinciplesbyfailingtoarticulateany underlyingfacts,evidenceortestimonycorroboratinghisconclusions,whicharethereforeinadmissible .

OBJECTION NO .25

ObjectionableM aterial Groundsfor ObjectionInsummary,asaresultoftheseandothercontrols,DeCrescenzoreceivedalmostallherinputfromScientology.ShehadvirtuallynoaccesstooutsideinformationthatwouldhaveenabledhertocriticalevaluatewhatScientologypresentedtobetrueandnormal."(Levine,Decl.,12:13-15) .

LacksFoundation(EvidenceCod e403 ,720)


LacksFoundation(EvidenceCode403,720).ProfessorLevineprovidesnoevidentiaryoranalyticsupportforhisbareconclusionthatPlaintiff"hadvirtuallynoaccesstooutsideinformationthatwouldhaveenabledhertocriticalevaluatewhatScientologypresentedtobetrueandnormal".Infact,ProfessorLevinefailstoevenarticulatewhatDefendantsallegedlyrepresentedtoPlaintiffasbeing trueandnorm al. Hisopinionthereforehasnoevidentiary value .SeePac ificGas&Elec .Cov .Zuckerman,189Cal .App.3d1113,(1987)("Thevalueof opinionevidencerestsno tintheconclusionreachedbu tinthefactorsconsideredandthereasoningemployed ...Whereanexpertbaseshisconclusionuponassumptionswhicharenotsupportedbytherecord ,uponmatterswhicharenotreasonablyrelieduponbyotherexperts,oruponfactors 30-videntiaryObjectionstoDeclarationof Robert V .Levine


31/78

whicharespeculative,remoteorconjectural,thenhisconclusionhasnoevidentiaryvalue.").Theconclusionthereforelacksfoundationandshouldbeexcluded .

OBJECTIONNO .26Ob jectionableM aterial Ground sforObjection

Scientologythenusedanumberof techniquestocontrolDeCrescenzo'sthoughtsthataretypicalofmanipu lativegroups. (Levine,Decl.,12:17-19).

LacksFoundation(EvidenceCode403 ,720);LacksProbativeValueandUndulyPrejud icial(EvidenceCod e352)


methodologyforhisapparentrandomanduncorroborateddeterm inationthatDefendantssoughttomanipulateorinfactutilizedtechniquestocontrolPlaintiffsthoughtsormanipulateher .Accordingly,hisconclusionisinadm issiblegiventhefailuretoprovide areasonedexplanationofwhytheunderlyingfactsleadtotheultimateconclusion".Bushlingv.FremontMedicalCenter ,117Cal .App.4th493 ,510(2004).

LacksProbativeValueandUndulyPrejudicial(EvidenceCode352).Inaddition,ProfessorLevinerevealshisanimositytoDefendantsandtheScientologyreligionthroughchargedlanguageandconclusionsbasedonassumptionsandspeculationthathavenobasisinfact.Here,thatbiasismanifestedinProfessorLevine 'sunsupportedcontentionthatDefendantssoughttocontrol[Plaintiffs']thoughts"andmanipulateher.

OBJECTIONNO .27

ObjectionableM aterial Groun dsfor ObjectionDeCrescenzowasencouragedtothinkinsimplisticblackandwhiteterms.Scientologywasgood ;allelsewasevil .ThetenetsofScientologywere right"andanychallenges


3 1-EvidentiaryObjectionstoDeclarationof RobertV .Levine


32/78

12345

6789

10111213141516171819202 122

O2324

k?rv25

26rvQ27r-J 'm28

were wrong . (Levine,Decl .12:21-23) .

StatementofReasonsfor Ob jectionLacksFoundation(EvidenceCode403 ,720)."[A]nexpert'sopinion renderedwithout

areasonedexplanationofwhytheunderlyingfactsleadtotheultimateconclusionhasnoevidentiaryvaluebecauseanexpertopinionisworthnomorethanthereasonsandfactsonwhichitisbased."Bushlingv.FremontMedicalCenter,117 Cal .App .4th493 ,510(2004);seealsoAtiyav.DBartolo ,63Cal .App.3d121 ,126(1976)(opinionwithoutafactualbasisdidnotconstitutesubstantialevidence);Gr ii thv.Countyof LosAngeles,26 7Cal .App.2d837 ,847(1968)("Anexpert sopinionisnobetterthantherea sonsgivenforit.Ifhisopinionisnotbaseduponfactsotherwiseproved...itcannot rise tothedignityof substantialevidence.") .Here,ProfessorLevinehasviolatedtheseprinciplesbyfailingtoarticulateanyunderlyingfacts,evidenceortestimonycorroboratinghisconclusions,whicharethereforeinadm issible .

OBJECTIONNO .28

Objectionab leM ater ial Groundsfor ObjectionWhetherornotScientologydidoffersolutionsisbeyondthescopeof myreport .On thepsycholog icallevel,however,itseemsclearthat thiswayofthinkingsuccessfullycreateddependencyonthegroup .MemberswereactivelyencouragedtolabelanythingoutsideofScientologyasbad .Therewerenogreyzoneswhenitcametomattersofrightandwrong .If oneleftScientologyitwouldmeanperm anentseparationromnotonlyeverythingthatonewasfam iliarwithbutwiththegroupthatstoodforgoodness.(Levine,2003,2003a,ibid.)."(Levine,Decl .12:25-13:3).

OpinionNot BasedUponReliableMatter(EvidenceCode801(b));LacksFoundation(EvidenceCode403 ,720)

StatementofReasonsfor Ob jectionOpinionNot BasedUponReliableMatter(EvidenceCode801(b)).ProfessorLevine

purportstoarticulateaconclusionaboutasuppo sed"wayof thinking andthem ind setofthirdparties.TotheextentProfessorLevinereliesupon thedeclarationof Plaintiff toofferanopinionas -_32_-videntiaryObjectionstoDeclarationof Robert V .Levine


33/78

12345678910111213141516171819202 122

n2324

K)iv 2526M

Q 27h -i.28

tothem indse tof thirdparties,hisopinionviolatesEvidenceCode801(b).LacksFoundation (EvidenceCode403 ,720).Moreover,theconclusionsofferedhere

arenoth ingbut nakedcontentionswithoutfactualcorroboration.Theymustthereforebeexcluded.[A]nexpert'sopinionrenderedwithoutareasonedexp lanationof whytheunderlyingfactsleadtotheultimateconclusionhasnoevidentiaryvaluebecauseanexpertopinionisworthnomorethanthereasonsandfactsonwhichitisbased."Bushling v.FremontMedicalCenter,117Cal .App.4th493,510(2004);seealsoAtiyav.D Bartolo,63Cal .App.3d121 ,126(1976)(opinionwithou tafactualbasisdidnotconstitutesubstantialevidence);Gr iithv.Countyof LosAngeles,267Cal .App .2d837,847(1968)(Anexpertsopinionisnobetterthanthereasonsgivenforit.Ifhisopinionisnotbaseduponfactsotherw iseproved.. .itcannotrisetothedignityofsubstantialevidence.').Here,ProfessorLevinehasviolatedtheseprinciplesbyfailingtoarticulateanyunderlyingfacts,evidenceortestimonycorroboratinghisconclusions,whicharethereforeinadmiss ible.

OBJECTION NO .29Objectionab leM aterial Groun dsfor Ob jection

Asinmanycults,memberslearnedsimplified,insiderlabelstoevaluatepeoplesthoughtsabout anythingrelatedtotheorganization. (Levine,Decl.,13:4-5).LacksFoundation(EvidenceCode403 ,720);LacksProbativeValueandUndulyPrejudicial(EvidenceCode352)

StatementofReasonsfor ObjectionLacksFoundation(EvidenceCode403 ,720)."[A]nexpert,sopinionrenderedwithout

areasonedexplanationofwhytheunderlyingfactsleadtotheultimateconclusionhasnoevidentiaryvaluebecauseanexpertopinionisworthnomorethanthereasonsandfactsonwhichitisbased."Bushlingv .FremontMedicalCenter,117 Cal .App.4th493 ,510(2004);seealsoAtiyav.D Bartolo ,63Cal .App.3d121,126(1976)(opinionw ithou tafactualbasisdidnotconstitutesubstantialevidence);Gr ifithv.Coun tyof LosAngeles,267Cal .App.2d837 ,847(1968)("Anexpert'sopinionisnobetterthanthereasonsgivenforit.Ifhisopinionisnotbaseduponfacts -_33_-videntiaryObjection stoDeclarationof RobertV .Levine


34/78

1

23

45678910111213141516171819202 122

23X24MNJ25M2627,i28

ObjectionableM aterial Ground sfor ObjectionScientology toldDeCrescenzowhattothink. (Levine,Decl.,13:25 .) LacksFoundation(EvidenceCode403,720)

otherwise proved...itcannotrisetothedignityof substantialevidence.'").Here,ProfessorLevinehasviolatedtheseprinciplesbyfailingtoarticulateanyunderlyingfacts,evidenceortestimonycorroboratinghisconclusions,whicharethereforeinadmissible .

cksProbativeValueandUndulyPrejudicial(EvidenceCode352).Inadd ition,ProfessorLevine'sanimositytowardtheScientologyisondisplaythroughhisuse ofaloadedandoffensiveterm.Hisconclusionisthereforeinadmiss ibleon thegroundsthat it lacksprobativevalueandisunduly prejud icial .

OBJECTION NO .30

StatementofReasonsfor ObjectionLacksFoundation(EvidenceCode403 ,720).ProfessorLevineoffersnofactual

supportforthisstatement,whichmustthereforebeexcluded ."[A]nexpert'sopinionrenderedwithoutareasonedexplanationof whytheunderlyingfactsleadtotheultimateconclusionhasnoevidentiaryvaluebecauseanexpertopinionisworthnomorethan thereasonsandfactsonwhichitisbased. Bushlingv .Fremon tMedicalCenter ,117Cal .App.4th493 ,510(2004);seealsoAtiyav.DBartolo ,63Cal .App.3d121 ,126(1976)(opinionwithoutafactualbasisdidnotconstitutesubstantialevidence);Gr iffithv .Countyof LosAngeles,267Cal .App.2d837 ,847(1968)("Anexpert'sopinionisnobetterthanthereasonsgivenforit.Ifhisopinionisnotbaseduponfactsotherwise proved...itcannotrisetothedignityof substantialevidence.'") .

OBJECTION NO .31

Ob jectionableM aterial G round sfor ObjectionThepressuresofthoughtcontrolse rvedtomanipulateDeCrescenzossenseof realityand ,consequently,toobstruct LacksFoundation(EvidenceCode403,720)

34-Evidentiary ObjectionstoDeclarationof Robert V .Levine

13:24


35/78

herabilitytomakeindependentdecisions."(Levine,Decl.,13:27-28) .


LacksFoundation (EvidenceCode403 ,720)."[A]nexpert,sopinionrenderedwithoutareasonedexplanationofwhytheunderlyingfactsleadtotheultimateconclusionhasnoevidentiaryvaluebecauseanexpertopinionisworthnomorethanthereasonsandfactsonwhichitisbased. Bushlingv .FremontMedicalCenter ,117 Cal .App.4th493 ,510(2004);seealsoAtiyav.DBartolo ,63Cal .App.3d121,126(1976)(opinionwithoutafactualbasisdidnotconstitutesubstantialevidence);Gr iffithv.Countyof LosAngeles,267Cal .App.2d837 ,847(1968)("Anexpert 'sopinionisnobetterthanthereasonsgivenforit .Ifhisopinionisnotbaseduponfactsotherwiseproved...it cannotrisetothedignityof substantialevidence.'") .Here,ProfessorLevinehasviolatedtheseprinciplesbyfailingtoarticulateanyunderlyingfacts,evidenceortestimonycorroboratinghisconclusions,whicharethereforeinadmissible .

OBJECTION NO .32

Ob jectionableM aterial Groundsfor ObjectionDeCrescenzowasbothavictim of controlandwasdeprivedof beingabletorecognizetheextenttowhichshewasbeingcontrolled. (Levine,Decl.,14:2-3).

LacksFoundation(EvidenceCode403,720 )

StatementofReasonsfor ObjectionLacksFoundation (EvidenceCode403,720)."[A]nexpert'sopinion rend eredwithou t

areasonedexplanationofwhytheunderlyingfactsleadtotheultimateconclusionhasnoevidentiaryvaluebecauseanexpertopinionisworthnomorethanthereasonsandfactsonwhichitisbased. Bushlingv .Fremon t MedicalCenter ,117Cal .App.4th493,510(2004);seealsoAtiyav.DBartolo ,63Cal .App.3d121 ,126(1976)(opinionwithoutafactualbasisdidnotconstitutesubstantialevidence);Gr iffithv.Coun tyof LosAngeles,267Cal .App.2d837 ,847(1968)("An

35EvidentiaryObjectionstoDeclarationof RobertV .Levine


36/78

Objectionab leM aterial Groundsfor ObjectionInsummary,therewasvirtuallytotalisticcontroloverDeCrescenzo'sbehavior,inform ationandthoughts.Scientologyencounteredlittleresistanceinadministeringthiscontrolasaresultof herbeingraised ,andthustotallysocialized,in theorganization. (Levine,Decl.,14:4-6).


expert'sopinionisnobetterthanthereasonsgivenforit .Ifhisopinionisnotbaseduponfactsotherwiseproved...itcannotrise tothedignityof substantialevidence."') .Here,ProfessorLevinehasviolatedtheseprinciplesbyfailingtoarticulateanyunderlyingfacts,evidenceortestimonycorroboratinghisconclusions,whicharethereforeinadmissible .

OBJECTION NO .33


LacksFoundation(EvidenceCode403,720)."[A]nexpert'sopinionrenderedwithoutareasonedexplanationofwhytheunderlyingfactsleadtotheultimateconclusionhasnoevidentiaryvaluebecauseanexpertopinionisworthnomorethanthereasonsandfactsonwhichitisbased."Bushlingv.FremontMedicalCenter,117 Cal .App.4th493 ,510(2004);seealsoAtiyav.DBartolo ,63Cal .App.3d121 ,126(1976)(opinionwithoutafactualbasisdidnotconstitutesubstantialevidence);Gr iffithv.Coun tyof LosAngeles,267Cal .App.2d837 ,847(1968)(Anexpert'sopinionisnobetterthanthereasonsgivenforit .Ifhisopinionisnotbaseduponfactsotherwise proved...itcannotrisetothedignityof substantialevidence.") .Here,ProfessorLevinehasviolatedtheseprinciplesbyfailingtoarticulateanyunderlyingfacts,evidenceortestimonycorroboratinghisconclusions,whicharethereforeinadmissible .

OBJECT ION NO .34

Objectionab leM aterial G roundsfor ObjectionThefactthatDeCrescenzosmostaggressiveactiontoleaveScientologywastoattemptsuicideisatelling LacksFoundation (EvidenceCod e403,720);LacksProbativeValue



37/78

12345678910111213141516171819202 122

H'e23M24fv25

26fvoHW28

27

reflectionofhowhopelessshehadcometoperceiveheravailableoptions.Thefactthatshejudged ,apparentlycorrectly,thatScientologyofferedthisasoneof thefewoptionsforescapingtheorganizationisevenmoretellingabouttheorganization.Ahealthyorganizationpromotesself-betterment;thesuccess fulemployeeisencouragedtomoveforwardwiththeirlives.Scientologytooktheoppositeapproach.ItwasonlywhenDeCrescenzoappearedtobesobrokenthatshewasaliabilitytotheorganizationthat shewasdiscarded ."(Levine,Decl.,15:16-22) .

andUndulyPrejudicial (EvidenceCode352)

StatementofReasonsforObjectionLacksFoundation(EvidenceCode403,720)."[A]nexpert,sopinionrenderedwithout

areasonedexplanationofwhytheunderlyingfactsleadtotheultimateconclusionhasnoevidentiaryvaluebecauseanexpertopinionisworthnomorethanthereasonsandfactsonwhichitisbased. Bushlingv.FremontMedicalCenter,117 Cal .App.4th493 ,510(2004);seealsoAtiyav.DBartolo ,63Cal .App.3d121,126(1976)(opinionwithoutafactualbasisdidnotconstitutesubstantia levidence);Gr iffithv.Countyof LosAngeles,267Cal .App.2d837 ,847(1968)(Anexpertsopinionisnobetterthanthereasonsgivenforit.Ifhisopinionisnotbaseduponfactsotherwiseproved.. .itcannotrisetothedignityofsubstantialevidence.'").Inviolationofthiscardinalprincipleofexpertopiniontestimony,ProfessorLevineoffersaseriesofconclusionswithoutanydescriptionofthesupposedfactua lsupportfortheconclusionsrendered .NordoesProfessorLevinedescribetheanalyticpathtraveledfrom theevidencetotheconclusions.

ProfessorLevinedoesnot ,forexample,substantiatehiscontentionthatDefendantsdidnotofferPlaintiff otheroptionsbesidetherouteshechose.NordoesProfessorLevinecorroboratehisconclusionsthatDefendantsdonot promoteself -betterment or"encouragetheirmemberstomoveforwardw iththeirlives"orthatDefendants tookanoppositeapproach. Noristhereev idencethatPlaintiff wasa"liability ordiscarded."Moreover,thetestimonyiscontradictedbytherecordandtheadmiss ionsofPlaintiff ,whotestifiedthatshetooktheactionsshedidbecauseshedidnotwantto routeout"of theSeaOrgthroughthetraditionalprocess,thatheractionswereexpedient .[SSUF80-82.] J 7_-videntiary Objection stoDec larationof Robert V.Levine


38/78

LacksProbativeValueandUndulyPrejudicial(EvidenceCode352).Moreover,ProfessorLev ine"contentions,whichlackanyevidentiarysupport,andarenotcorroboratedbyProfessorLevine,arelikelytoinflamepassions.Thetestimonythereforeisinadm iss ibleonthegroundsthatit lacksprobativevalueandisunduly prejudicial .

OBJECTION NO .35

Object ionableM ater ial Ground sfor ObjectionDeCrescenzolivedalmostentirelywithinthem indsetofScientologyfromthebeginn ingof herlifeuntilthemiddleof2008,morethanfouryearsaterdefectingfromtheSeaOrg(seebelowforfurtherdiscussion) .Duringthattime,virtuallyeverythingshed idandthoughtwasd ictatedbytherules,expectationsandotherdemandsofherScientologysuperiors.Theunifyingthemeof thesedemandsappearstohavebeentotalandunquestionedcomm itmenttotheorganization .TherulemakerswithinScientologyappear,however,tohavefearedthatfollowerslikeDeCrescenzoneeded tobefurthercontrollediftheiraimsweretosucceed.Theyneededtousesticksaswellascarrots.These stickswereadministered ina webofthreatsandpunishments."(Levine,Decl.,15:25-16:4).

LacksFoundation (EvidenceCode403,720)


LacksFoundation (EvidenceCode403,720)."[A]nexpert'sopinionrenderedwithoutareasonedexplanationofwhytheunderlyingfactsleadtotheultimateconclusionhasnoevidentiaryvaluebecauseanexpertopinion isworthnomorethanthereasonsandfactsonwhichitisbased."Bushlingv.FremontMedicalCenter ,117Cal .App.4th493 ,510(2004);seealsoAtiyav.DBartolo ,63Cal .App.3d121,126(1976)(opinionwithoutafactualbasisdidnotconstitutesubstantia levidence);Gr iffithv.Countyof LosAngeles,267Cal .App.2d837 ,847(1968)(Anexpert'sopinionisnobetterthanthereasonsgivenforit.Ifhisopinionisnotbaseduponfactsotherwiseproved...it cannotrisetothedignityof substantialevidence. ).Moreover,conclusionsofferedwithoutarticulatingtheanalyticrouteforreachingthemareinadmissible.SeePac ificGas&Elec.Cov.Zuckerman ,189Cal .App.3d1113,(1987)("Thevalueof opinionevidencerestsnotintheconclusionreachedbutinthefactorsconsideredandthereasoningemp loyed ...Wherean

-_38_-videntiaryObjectionstoDeclarationof RobertV .Levine


39/78

123456789

1011

1213141516171819202 122232425262728

expertbaseshisconclusionuponassumptionswhicharenotsupportedbytherecord ,uponmatterswhichareno treasonablyrelieduponbyotherexperts,oruponfactorswhicharespeculative,remoteorconjectural ,thenhisconclusion hasnoevidentiaryvalue.) .Finally,expertopinionbaseduponmerespeculationhasnoevidentiaryvalue .Seeid. seealsoHow ardv .OmniHotelsManagementCorp.,203Cal .App.4th403 ,427(2012)("expert'sopinionsandconclusionsmusthavereasonablebasesandreflectmorethanspeculationorconjecture");MHCFinancingLtd .P 'sh ipTwov .C ityof San tee,182Cal .App.4th1169 ,1181n .11(2010)(speculativetestimonylacksprobativevalue);Peoplev.Fielder ,114Cal .App.4th1221,1234(2004)("speculationisnotevidence).

ProfessorLevine'stestimonyviolateseachof theseprinciples.First,thereisnobasisforthecontentionthatPlaintiff livedalmostentirelywithinthemindsetof Scientology until"themidd leof2008.Theconclusionisnotcorroborated ,theanalysisleadingtotheconclusionisnotexplainedandthestatementappearstobeborneof sheetspeculation.Theremainderofthecontentionslackanyfactual oranalyticsupport .Thereisparticularlynoevidenceastotheallegedfears"of Scientology rulemakers".Thestatementisnothingbut unsupportedconjecture .

OBJECTION NO .36

ObjectionableM aterial Ground sfor ObjectionScientologymusthavecertainlyknownthat nopersonwithevenamildlevelof criticalabilitycou ldhonestlyanswerthesequestionswithadefinitiveNo. Questionssuchasthesewereallpartofalargerpatterninquisitionthatencouraged ,andoftenrequired ,thatDeCrescenzoessentially,agreetoherownpunishmentshouldsheeverstrayromScientology.Thiswaspartof alargerpatternrequiringhertorevealunflatteringinformationabout herselfthatcouldbeusedagainstthematanytime."(Levine,Decl.,16:19-24 ).

LacksFoundation(EvidenceCode403,720 )


LacksFoundation (EvidenceCode403,720)."[A]nexpert'sopinionrenderedwithou t-_

39_

-videntiaryObjectionstoDeclarationof RobertV .Levine


40/78

12345678910111213141516171819202 122232425262728

areasonedexplanationofwhytheunderlyingfactsleadtotheultimateconclusionhasnoevidentiaryvaluebecauseanexpertopinion isworthnomorethanthereasonsandfactsonwhichitisbased. Bushlingv .FremontMedicalCenter,117Cal .App.4th493 ,510(2004);seealsoAtiyav.DBartolo ,63Cal .App.3d121,126(1976)(opinionwithoutafactualbasisdidnotconstitutesubstantialevidence);Gr ifithv .Coun tyof LosAngeles,267Cal .App.2d837 ,847(1968)(A nexpertsopinionisnobetterthanthereasonsgivenforit .If hisopinionisnotbaseduponfactsotherw iseproved...it cannot rise tothedignityof substantialevidence. ).Here,ProfessorLevinehasviolatedtheseprinciplesbyfailingtoarticulateanyunderlyingfacts,evidenceortestimonycorroboratinghisconclusions,which arethereforeinadmissible .

Inaddition ,thecontentionsmustalsobeexcludedbecausetheyarenothingbu tconjectureandspeculationaboutwhatcertainunnamedpersonssupposedlyknew andtheintentionsofotherunnamedpersonsintakingcertainpurportedactions. [E]venwhenthewitnessqu alifiesasanexpert,heorshedoesnotpossessacarteblanchetoexpressanyopinionw ithintheareaofexpertise. Jenningsv .PalomarPomeradoHealthSystems,Inc.,114Cal .App.4th1108,1117(2003).Expertopinionbaseduponmerespeculationhasnoevidentiaryvalue.Seeid.;seealsoHoward v .OmniHotelsManagementCorp.,203Cal .App.4th403 ,427(2012)("expertsopinionsandconclusionsmusthavereasonablebasesandreflectmorethanspeculationorconjecture");MHCFinancingLtd .P 'sh ipTwov.Cityof Santee,182Cal .App.4th1169 ,1181n.11(2010)(speculativetestimonylacksprobativevalue);Peoplev.Fielder ,114Cal .App.4th1221 ,1234(2004)("speculationisnotevidence") .

DeCrescenzowassometimesrequiredtomakeuntrueLacksFoundation(EvidenceCodeconfessionsofamoreseriousnature .Theseconfessionshad403 ,720)multipleconsequences.DeCrescenzounderstoodtheycouldbeusedtothreatenherwithfutureretributions.Scientologyalsousedthesethreatstocontinuetocontrolheraftershelet . (Levine,Decl.,16:25-28).

OBJECTION NO .37ObjectionableM aterial Groundsfor Obiection



41/78

1Statementof ReasonsforObjection2LacksFoundation(EvidenceCode403,720)."[A]nexpert,sopinionrenderedw ithout3area sonedexplanationofwhytheunderlyingfactsleadtotheultimateconclusionhasno4evidentiaryvaluebecauseanexpertopinionisworthnomorethanthereasonsandfactsonwhichit5isbased."Bushlingv .FremontMedical Center ,117 Cal .App.4th493 ,510(2004);seealsoAtiya6v.D Bartolo,63Cal .App.3d121 ,126(1976)(opinionwithoutafactualbasisdidnotconstitute7substantialevidence);Gr iffithv.Countyof LosAngeles,267Cal .App .2d837 ,847(1968)("An8expert'sopinionisnobetterthantherea sonsgivenforit.Ifhisopinionisnotbaseduponfacts9otherwise proved.. .itcannot risetothedignityof substantialevidence.') .Here,ProfessorLevine10hasviolatedtheseprinciplesbyfailingtoarticulateanyunderlyingfacts ,evidenceortestimony11corroboratinghisconclusions,whicharethereforeinadmissible .1213OBJECTION NO .38

ObjectionableMaer ial Groundsfor Objection14ScientologyalsousedthesethreatstocontinuetocontrolLacksFoundation(EvidenceCode

16heratersheleft. (Levine,Decl.,16:27-28).403,720)17jg StatementofReasonsfor Objection

LacksFoundation(EvidenceCode403,720).Thereiszeroevidentiarysupportforthe2qcontentionthatDefendantsused"threats tocontrolPlaintiffatershele t .Thisispurefabrication

andmustbeexcluded ."[A]nexpert"sopinionrenderedw ithoutareasonedexplanationof whythe22underlyingfactsleadtotheultimateconclusionhasnoevidentiaryvaluebecauseanexpertopinion22isworthnomorethanthereasonsandfactsonwhichitisbased. Bushlingv .Fremon tMedical24Center,117Cal .App.4th493 ,510(2004);seealsoAtiyav.D Bartolo ,63Cal .App.3d121,126

25(1976)(opinionwithout afactualbasisdidnotconstitutesubstantialevidence);Giffithv.Coun tyof2LosAngeles,267Cal .App.2d837 ,847(1968)(Anexp ert'sopinionisnobetterthanthereasons

027givenforit .Ifhisopinionisnotbaseduponfactsotherw iseproved.. .it cannotrise tothedignityr2gofsubstantia levidence.'").Here ,ProfessorLevinehasviolatedtheseprinciplesbyfailingto

r~

K

4 1-EvidentiaryObjection stoDeclarationof Robert V .Levine

Duplicate, included in the last objection.


42/78

articulateanyunderlyingfacts,evidenceortestimonycorroboratinghisconclusions ,whicharethereforeinadmiss ible .

OBJECTIONNO .39ObjectionableM ater ial Groundsfor Objection

M embersweremanipulatedtoactivelyparticipateinthisLacksFoundation(EvidenceCodesystemof threats. (Levine,Decl.,17:1).403,720)

StatementofReasonsfor ObjectionLacksFoundation(EvidenceCode403 ,720)."[A]nexpert'sopinionrenderedwithout

areasonedexplanationofwhytheunderlyingfactsleadtotheultimateconclusionhasnoevidentiaryvaluebecauseanexpertopinionisworthnomorethan thereasonsandfactsonwhichitisbased."Bushlingv.FremontMedicalCenter ,117Cal .App.4th493 ,510(2004);seealsoAtiyav.D Bartolo,63Cal .App.3d121,126(1976)(opinionw ithoutafactualbasisdidnotconstitutesubstantialevidence);Gr iffithv .Countyof LosAngeles,267Cal .App.2d837,847(1968)("Anexpert.sopinionisnobetterthanthereasonsgivenforit .Ifhisopinionisnotbaseduponfactsotherwiseproved...itcannotrise tothedignityof substantial evidence.'") .Here ,ProfessorLevinehasviolatedtheseprinciplesbyfailingtoarticulateanyunderlyingfacts ,evidenceortestimonycorroboratinghisconclusions,whicharethereforeinadmissible .

OBJECTION NO .40ObjectionableM ater ial Groundsfor Objection

EventhinkingbadthoughtsaboutScientologywasaLacksFoundation (EvidenceCodepunishableoffense.Perhapsthemostovertly403,720);LacksProbativeValueOrwellianofScientology'sthoughtcontrolandUndulyPrejudicial(Evidencemanipulationswastheauditingprocess.Inmo stcasesCode352)aud itingwaspresentedtothememberasanessentialstepinreachingtheirhighestreligiouspotential,i.e .go ing Clea r. Insomecases-whataredescribedassituationswheretheauditorwouldannounce"I 'mnotauditingyou waywardmemberswou ldbetoldit

42EvidentiaryObjectionstoDeclarationof Robert V .Levine


43/78

1

23456789

10111213141516171819202 122232425262728

wastocorrectmisdeedsorhelpimprovetheircontributionstotheorganization.Inbothcases,however,thesesupposedliedetectorswereassumedbytho sebeingtestedtobecapableof revealingtheirtrueinnerthoughts.Iwillnotaddressthewell-researchedlimitationsofliedetectors,evenwhenadministeredbytrainedexperts.(Adelson,R.(2004) .Detectingdeception:Thepolygraphindoubt .APAMonitor,35 ,p.71.)Whatisimportantisthatthemembersbelievedthesemachinescouldrevealtheirinnermostthoughts.InOrwellianterms ,thesewerethethought police."Giventheubiquityof thesetestsandtheimportanceplacedupon them,theauditingprocessbecamecapableofpressuringmembersnotonlytoovertlyagreewitheverythingpromotedbyScientologybu ttotrytostopthinkingaboutanythingnegative. (Levine,Decl.,18:4-17).

Statement ofReasonsfor ObjectionsLacksFoundation (EvidenceCode403 ,720)."[A]nexpert'sopinionrenderedwithout

areasonedexplanationofwhytheunderlyingfactsleadtotheultimateconclusionhasnoevidentiaryvaluebecauseanexpertopinionisworthnomorethanthereasonsandfactsonwhichitisbased. Bushlingv.FremontMedicalCenter,117 Cal .App.4th493 ,510(2004);seealsoAtiyav.DBartolo ,63Cal .App.3d121 ,126(1976)(opinionwithoutafactualbasisdidnotcon

Documents

DeCrescenzo v Scientology - Evidentiary Objections to Robert Levine Declaration 18Oct2013