Brink's Global Services USA, Inc. v. Bonita Pearl, Inc.

Background

The defendants moved for reconsideration of part of the court’s September 18, 2024 Opinion and Order. That earlier order struck paragraphs 8 and 9 of the rebuttal report of defendants’ expert Daniel W. Lupton. In those paragraphs, Lupton stated that Brink’s employees had a “quantifiable expectation” to guard valuables they had taken into custody.

Lupton said he was responding to testimony by Brink’s expert Michael Beech. The court understood Beech’s testimony on page 140 of his deposition to concern the language of Brink’s customer contracts, which did not promise that Brink’s would guard customer property. Lupton instead relied on evidence that Brink’s employees were trained to guard valuables and could face discipline for failing to do so.

Defendants’ reconsideration arguments

Defendants argued that the court had overlooked Beech’s testimony on page 150 of the deposition. According to defendants, Beech testified that Brink’s customers should not have expected Brink’s to guard their goods, and Lupton’s opinion directly rebutted that point. Defendants also argued that Lupton relied on information beyond the contract, including employee training and possible discipline.

The court rejected that argument for several reasons. First, Lupton’s report and defendants’ earlier briefing identified Beech’s page-140 testimony—not the page-150 testimony—as the opinion Lupton was rebutting. The court concluded that defendants were improperly presenting a new theory after losing the earlier motion, rather than identifying a clear error or overlooked controlling matter.

Second, the court found that the two opinions did not actually address the same issue. Beech’s testimony concerned what Brink’s customers could reasonably expect under their contracts. Lupton’s opinion concerned what Brink’s employees were expected to do based on their training and potential discipline. The court described the opinions as unrelated rather than one rebutting the other.

Third, the court stated that neither opinion was likely to be admissible at trial because experts generally may not testify about the parties’ intent, motives, expectations, or state of mind. The court said a jury could decide those issues without expert testimony.

Ruling

Judge Barbara Moses denied the defendants’ motion for reconsideration. The court also had denied defendants’ request for permission to file a reply brief. The Clerk of Court was directed to close the motions at Dockets 292 and 293. The order did not decide the underlying dispute between Brink’s and the defendants or state that the reconsideration motion was denied with or without prejudice.