Professor to testify that women on corporate boards make no difference

A Los Angeles County judge said Friday she will allow, during an upcoming challenge to California's corporate board diversity law, testimony from a professor who contends that more women on boards would not improve a company's performance.

A challenge to Senate Bill 826, which requires public companies to have at least one woman on the board of directors, was filed two years ago by the conservative group Judicial Watch on behalf of taxpayers who sought a court declaration that the law is unconstitutional. Judicial Watch also argues that using tax dollars to enforce the law is illegal.

Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Maureen Duffy-Lewis will conduct a bench trial in the case starting Dec. 1. Duffy-Lewis last month denied motions filed by the state and Judicial Watch for summary judgment. Robin Crest et al v. Padilla, 19STCV27561 (L.A. Super. Ct., filed Aug. 16, 2019).

On Friday, Duffy-Lewis struck down the state's motion to exclude testimony of Judicial Watch's expert, Jonathan Klick, a law and economics professor at the University of Pennsylvania, who contends that appointing more women to boards has no systematic effect on a company's outcomes or value.

"There seems to be insufficient basis to exclude Dr. Klick's testimony," Duffy-Lewis said. His testimony may be generic, but also specific enough as to the issues involving Senate Bill 826, the judge said. Duffy-Lewis said she would allow an admissibility hearing during the trial if Klick's testimony goes beyond the scope of his expertise.

Deputy attorneys general Lara Haddad and Anthony V. Seferian tried to exclude Klick's testimony because they said he plans to rebut testimony of the state's four experts in a variety of fields in which he does not have expertise.

Judicial Watch's counsel, Robert Sticht, contended that he gets to pick what topics Klick is designated to speak on, and that he could serve as a rebuttal witness.

"We're allowed to designate our own expert on whatever topic we think is relevant to our case, and that's what we've done, and he's absolutely served the job so far," Sticht argued.