Psychology Expert’s Opinion on Social-Media-Facilitated Sex Trafficking Admitted
Posted on October 28, 2025 by Expert Witness Profiler
This case arises under the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act (TVPRA), which provides victims of sex trafficking a civil remedy against the perpetrators and beneficiaries of their trafficking.
Plaintiff Doe (C.L.F.) filed this action to recover for alleged harm she experienced from being trafficked at a Motel 6 in Wichita, Kansas, that she claims was owned and operated by the Defendants.
Defendant Kisan, Inc. filed a motion to exclude the testimony of Dr. Katy Fowler Sutton, one of C.L.F.’s designated expert witnesses.
Psychology Expert Witness
Kathryn Fowler Sutton graduated with a Master of Science in Clinical Psychology and in 2004 received her Doctor of Clinical Psychology (PsyD). She has been a Licensed Specialist in School Psychology (Texas) since 2005 and a Licensed Clinical Psychologist (Texas) since 2006. In her twenty years of clinical practice, approximately 15% of her patients have been survivors of sex trafficking. As part of her annual license renewal requirements, she has to complete mandatory training in human trafficking.
She also has fourteen years of experience being an expert witness and has never before been struck. In addition to being an expert witness, she also currently continues to see patients, some of whom are sex trafficking survivors.
Discussion by the Court
Kisan and the G6 Defendants sought to exclude Sutton’s opinions that
(1) C.L.F. meets the criteria of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) and other specified trauma-and-stressor-related disorders; and
(2) C.L.F.’s PTSD is caused by her having been sex-trafficked rather than any other previous traumatic experiences.
Defendants claimed that these opinions should be excluded because they are both irrelevant and unreliable.
A. Relevance
Defendants argued that the testimony of Sutton is inadmissible because it is irrelevant.
According to Defendants, the fatal flaw in Sutton’s report is that “the word ‘motel’ does not appear.” Worse yet, the report stated that C.L.F.’s alleged trafficking was “facilitated by social media platforms.” In this case, the alleged trafficking occurred only at motels owned and operated by Defendants, and C.L.F. “met her trafficker at a gas station,” not on social media. This might be problematic as expert testimony must be connected to “the facts of the case.”
While a report based on social-media-facilitated sex trafficking at no specific locations may not be tied to the facts of this case, Sutton’s report is. Sutton interviewed C.L.F. for 5 hours and 12 minutes. During that time, Sutton and C.L.F. discussed C.L.F.’s early life in detail, C.L.F.’s experiences during the alleged trafficking, and C.L.F.’s recovery in recent years. They specifically talked about her “thoughts and feelings” associated with the alleged trafficking, and Sutton collected enough information to provide diagnoses of and recommended treatments to C.L.F.
Further, in her deposition Sutton explicitly confirmed that she tied her interview with C.L.F. to the facts of this case. Sutton used the complaint during the interview to “refer specifically to the incident[s] in question” at the motels in issue. When asked if they discussed the relevant motels “where [C.L.F.] had a traumatic experience,” Sutton responded: “Yes.” During the interview, Sutton ensured to “very specifically explain to C.L.F. what events [she was] referring to.” In the Court’s view, Sutton’s methodology was “sufficiently tied to the facts of the case.”
The Court held that her testimony was relevant under Rule 702.
B. Reliability
Defendants asserted that the two opinions they want stricken should be excluded because they are unreliable. To Defendants, Sutton’s opinions are not the product of a reliable methodology and do not reflect a reliable application of psychology to the facts of the case.
1. Sutton’s Diagnosis of C.L.F.’s PTSD and Other Trauma Disorders
Defendants objected to Sutton’s opinion that C.L.F. met the criteria for PTSD and other specified trauma-and-stressor-related disorders.
First, Defendants argued that Sutton’s diagnosis is unreliable because she “did not follow accepted medical practice in selecting or administering tests” for PTSD in her interview of C.L.F.
The Court understood Defendants’ stance, but ultimately their attacks are best left for “[v]igorous cross-examination.” To admit Sutton’s testimony, C.L.F. “need not prove to th[is court] that the expert’s testimony is correct;” she simply must “prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the testimony is reliable.” Even with its alleged flaws, Sutton’s opinion that C.L.F. met the criteria for PTSD is reliable by a preponderance of the evidence.
Defendants also found fault with Sutton’s administration of the CAPS-5, specifically her failure to use the Life Events Checklist (LEC-5) during CAPS-5 Step 1. They said that because Sutton did not use the LEC-5 for the Step 1 inquiry, her opinions are unreliable to the point of inadmissibility. But CAPS-5 allows the practitioner to administer the LEC-5 or some “other structured trauma screen” to begin. Sutton’s report, as noted, details information about C.L.F.’s history of trauma gleaned from the hours-long interview Sutton conducted of C.L.F., which in the Court’s view qualifies as a structured trauma screen.
Second, Defendants argued that Sutton’s diagnosis of C.L.F. with PTSD is unreliable because Sutton’s conclusion contains conflicting diagnoses. However, the Court did not accept that Sutton’s “conflicting diagnoses” are so unreliable that they defy the “methods and procedures of science.”
2. Sutton’s opinion that sex-trafficking, not other traumatic experiences, caused C.L.F.’s PTSD
Defendants took issue with Sutton’s opinion that C.L.F.’s “history of trafficking,” not any of her other previous traumatic experiences, caused her PTSD.
As Sutton noted in her report (and as Defendants state in their motion), the stressors with potential to cause PTSD for C.L.F. other than her trafficking experiences are the death of her grandmother, her placement in foster care, the incarceration of her first child’s father, her abusive relationship circa 2020, and apparent substance abuse. Defendants claimed that Sutton only ruled out C.L.F.’s grandmother’s death and her placement in foster care before declaring that C.L.F.’s trafficking experiences were the sole cause of her PTSD. Sutton certainly did rule those stressors out; she concluded “within a reasonable degree of scientific certainty” that C.L.F.’s PTSD responses are associated with her history of trafficking, not the “grief” she experienced from her grandmother’s death or foster care.
Now Sutton did not explicitly rule out all potential causes, but her report evidences that she was aware of these other stressors when opining on the cause of C.L.F.’s PTSD. While the Court felt that Sutton should improve her recordkeeping and notetaking as it pertains to conducting diagnoses for litigation, her extensive experience with evaluations, her five-hour interaction with C.L.F., her deposition testimony, and the conclusions in her report all favor reliability here.
C. Scope
Though Sutton can testify as to her opinion that C.L.F.’s PTSD was caused by the trafficking-related trauma discussed during the evaluation, the Defendants pointed out that Sutton may not characterize any incidents C.L.F. experienced as “sex trafficking.” Sutton’s report and testimony is rife with her calling the incidents C.L.F. discussed “sex-trafficking.” The Court agreed. Defendants are right to point out that Sutton is not permitted to opine on ultimate legal issues.
In other words, Sutton may provide her opinion that C.L.F. suffers from PTSD and other trauma disorders, and she may provide her opinion as to what caused C.L.F.’s PTSD. But in describing these causes, she must keep her descriptions within certain limitations.
Held
The Court denied in part the Defendant Kisan, Inc.’s motion to exclude the proposed testimony of Plaintiff’s expert Dr. Kathryn Sutton.
Key Takeaway:
Sutton is free to discuss the trauma-causing incidents concerning C.L.F., but only in permissible ways. The Court is aware that these incidents necessarily involve sex or even commercial sex, but the testimony is permissible so long as it does not characterize any experiences or incidents as sex trafficking or trafficking.
Case Details:
| Case Caption: | Doe C.L.F. V. G6 Hospitality, LLC |
| Docket Number: | 1:23cv303 |
| Court Name: | United States District Court, Texas Eastern |
| Order Date: | August 20, 2025 |
