safety. Bates also testified that other nightclubs place security guards at their exits. See, e.g., id. at 2115, 2118. He specifically named four D.C. nightclubs that follow the practice, id. at 2146, and he relied on testimony by the Zei Club’s former general manager, who was unable to name a single professionally run nightclub in the District that does not position security personnel outside, id. at 2146, 2177. This factual basis for the expert’s asserted standard of care was comparatively thin, see Butera v. Dist. of Columbia, 235 F.3d 637, 659-60 (D.C.Cir.2001) (cataloguing D.C. cases in this area of the law), but it was sufficient to establish that the standard Bates articulated was in effect at comparable facilities, see Dist. of Columbia v. Peters, 527 A.2d 1269, 1273 (D.C.1987) (<HOLDING>). B The club further contends that the district
holding the evidence supported the police officers failure to follow the directives in the montgomery county police departments field operations manual holding that fire departments are analogous to police departments in this respect holding that police officers criticism of his departments handling of a sniper incident was protected speech because the officer spoke in his capacity as police union president holding that an expert established a national standard of care for police officer training by testifying that police departments throughout the country commonly trained officers to deal with mentally distuibed persons and by naming several departments that offered such training holding officers 60 hours of training at two different police departments that he had read a book on the subject and that the methods used in interpretation of bloodstains were of the type relied upon by experts in the field was sufficient