Syntel Sterling Best Shores Mauritius Limited v. The Trizetto Group, Inc.
- Lorna Schofield
- 1:15-cv-00211
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
In Syntel Sterling Best Shores Mauritius Limited v. The Trizetto Group, Judge Schofield granted in part Syntel’s motion challenging Dr. Bergeron’s expert testimony.
Syntel and TriZetto were affected by the limits on Dr. Bergeron’s expert testimony concerning trade secrets, copyright infringement, the two presentations, and the similarity of source code to the Data Dictionary.
What happened
In Syntel Sterling Best Shores Mauritius Limited v. The Trizetto Group, Syntel asked the court to exclude Dr. Bryan P. Bergeron’s expert opinions and testimony under evidence rules governing expert testimony and unfair prejudice. The dispute concerned TriZetto’s alleged trade secrets, copyrighted works, presentations, and software source code.
The court excluded Bergeron’s opinions about whether Syntel legally misappropriated trade secrets or infringed copyrights. It also excluded his opinions about whether Syntel copied two presentations. But the court allowed him to testify about whether information qualified as a trade secret, whether Syntel used the information, and the similarities between Syntel’s source code and TriZetto’s Data Dictionary.
Judge Lorna G. Schofield therefore granted in part Syntel’s motion. The court said Syntel could challenge Bergeron’s permitted testimony through cross-examination and directed the Clerk of Court to close the motion.
The detailed version
- Syntel Sterling Best Shores Mauritius Limited v. The Trizetto Group, Inc. · No. 1:15-cv-00211
- Lorna Schofield
- Sept. 30, 2020
Background
Plaintiffs and counterclaim defendants Syntel Sterling Best Shores Mauritius Limited and Syntel, Inc., together called “Syntel,” moved to exclude the opinions and expert testimony of Dr. Bryan P. Bergeron. Syntel relied on Federal Rules of Evidence 403 and 702 and the Supreme Court’s decision in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Rule 702 governs when qualified expert testimony is admissible. It requires that the testimony help the factfinder, rely on sufficient facts or data, use reliable methods, and reliably apply those methods to the case.
Testimony Excluded
The court ruled that Bergeron could not testify to legal conclusions, including whether Syntel misappropriated TriZetto’s trade secrets or infringed TriZetto’s copyrights. The court explained that those conclusions would improperly take over the jury’s role in deciding the legal significance of the facts.
Bergeron also could not testify about whether Syntel copied the “Best Practices in ICD-10 Configuration” presentation or the “Facets Roadmap Review” presentation. The court found that his opinions on those questions merely stated legal conclusions based on emails and presentations that the jury could review itself. The court concluded that the opinions’ value did not outweigh the risk of unfair prejudice under Rule 403.
Testimony Allowed
The court found Bergeron qualified to provide testimony about three subjects: whether TriZetto’s confidential and proprietary information constituted trade secrets; whether Syntel used TriZetto’s confidential and proprietary information; and whether Syntel’s source code was similar to TriZetto’s Data Dictionary.
The court relied on Bergeron’s medical-informatics and computer-science experience, his development of medical-informatics software, his source-code and software-customization experience, and his consulting work involving confidential information, trade secrets, and copyrighted material. It also considered his review of the source code, pleadings, motions, declarations, discovery responses, hearing and deposition transcripts, and exhibits. The court found this foundation and methodology sufficiently reliable for the permitted testimony.
Although Bergeron could not testify about the legal question of whether Syntel copied the Data Dictionary, he could testify about similarities between Syntel’s source code and the Data Dictionary. The court found that testimony could help the jury assess whether the source code was substantially similar and that Syntel could challenge it through cross-examination.
Disposition
The court ordered that Syntel’s motion was granted in part. It permitted Bergeron to testify on the three subjects identified above and directed the Clerk of Court to close the motion at Docket Number 730.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.