Hamm v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC

Background

Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC (MBUSA) sought permission to file a motion asking the court to reconsider an earlier order. That earlier order denied MBUSA’s request to strike the report of plaintiffs’ expert, Murat Okcuoglu, which plaintiffs had submitted in support of their original motion for class certification.

Okcuoglu’s report proposed a method for determining whether the 722.9 transmissions had an alleged common defect. MBUSA had argued that the expert had not reliably applied his method to the facts, as required by Federal Rule of Evidence 702(d). On April 2, 2021, the court rejected that argument, finding that Okcuoglu was not required to complete his methodology at the class-certification stage. The court said he only had to present a sufficient method for determining whether the alleged common defect existed, which the court found he had done.

MBUSA sought reconsideration based on two grounds: a 2023 amendment to Rule 702(d) and the addition of Steven Chan as a plaintiff.

Legal standard

The court applied Civil Local Rule 7-9, which governs requests to reconsider interlocutory orders—orders issued before the case is finally resolved. The rule permits reconsideration based on a previously unknown material difference in fact or law, new material facts or a change in law occurring after the order, or the court’s failure to consider material facts or decisive legal arguments.

Court’s reasoning

Amendment to Rule 702(d)

MBUSA argued that the amended rule created a new requirement that Okcuoglu apply his proposed method to the facts of the case. The court disagreed. It held that the requirement was not new and that the amendment emphasized the need for expert opinions to remain within the bounds of what can be concluded from a reliable application of the expert’s basis and method.

The court also explained that Rule 702 concerns whether expert testimony is admissible. At the class-certification stage, however, district courts have greater freedom in considering evidence and are not limited to evidence that would ultimately be admissible. The court said that questions about the ultimate admissibility of factual evidence generally affect the weight given to the evidence, rather than whether the evidence may be considered at that stage. MBUSA also had not argued that the amendment changed the established principle that an expert need not resolve factual disputes or determine the merits of the case during class certification.

The court therefore found that the Rule 702(d) amendment did not justify reconsidering the earlier order.

Addition of Steven Chan

MBUSA argued that Chan’s addition as a plaintiff required reconsideration because Okcuoglu’s method could not be applied to Chan. According to MBUSA, the method involved comparing the conductor plate in a repair kit with conductor plates from earlier generations, but Chan’s conductor plate was the same as the one in the repair kit.

The court found this issue moot because it had granted MBUSA’s motion for summary judgment as to Chan’s claim. The court therefore also found that Chan’s addition did not justify reconsideration of the earlier order.

Disposition

The court denied MBUSA’s motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration. This order addressed only whether MBUSA could seek reconsideration of the earlier expert-report ruling; it did not itself resolve the underlying claims.