Medidata Solutions, Inc. v. Veeva Systems Inc.
- Jed Rakoff
- 1:17-cv-00589
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
In Medidata Solutions v. Veeva Systems, Judge Schofield denied Medidata’s motion to exclude Veeva expert Andrew Crain’s opinions, limiting undisclosed copying explanations at trial.
Medidata Solutions, Inc. and Veeva Systems Inc.; the ruling determines what portions of Veeva expert Andrew Crain’s analysis and explanations may be presented at trial.
What happened
In Medidata Solutions, Inc. v. Veeva Systems Inc., Medidata asked the court to exclude parts of Veeva expert Andrew Crain’s report about computer-file access dates. Medidata argued that Crain’s methods were unreliable.
The court denied the motion. It said the report’s inconsistencies and possible problems were issues for the factfinder to consider when deciding how much weight to give the evidence, rather than reasons to exclude it. However, Veeva may not present explanations about file-copying and access dates unless those explanations were expressly disclosed in Crain’s report.
Judge Lorna G. Schofield issued the opinion and order. The ruling concerns the evidence that may be presented at trial; it does not decide the parties’ underlying dispute.
The detailed version
- Medidata Solutions, Inc. v. Veeva Systems Inc. · No. 1:17-cv-00589
- Jed Rakoff
- Feb. 25, 2022
Background
Medidata moved to exclude portions of the rebuttal report of Veeva’s forensic expert, Andrew Crain. The motion argued that Crain did not use a reliable method when analyzing computer-file metadata, including dates showing when files were last modified or accessed.
The dispute involved files retained by former Medidata employee Anthony Tsai on two networked hard drives. Medidata’s expert, Julian Ackert, relied substantially on “last modified” dates as evidence that Tsai viewed particular files or folders. Crain’s report responded that opening a folder could update the last-modified dates of files in that folder, but that file-specific “last accessed” dates would be updated when a person opened, copied, emailed, or otherwise interacted with individual files on a Mac computer.
Crain analyzed metadata for a folder containing approximately 122,000 files. His report stated that only 1,460 files had last-accessed dates after April 15, 2011, when Tsai left Medidata. It also stated that most files on another drive had April 17, 2011, as their last-accessed date, which Crain treated as evidence that Tsai copied the folder on that date. The report did not explain why all of the files’ last-accessed dates were not updated during the copying process. Tsai testified that he recalled copying the folder in 2012, and Medidata submitted a press release stating that the model of drive used by Tsai was released after Crain’s proposed April 2011 copying date.
Legal standard
Federal Rule of Evidence 702 governs expert testimony. The court must act as a gatekeeper by determining whether expert evidence rests on a reliable foundation and is relevant. The inquiry considers whether the witness is qualified, whether the opinion is based on reliable data and methodology, and whether the testimony will help the factfinder.
Court’s analysis
The court recognized that the Crain Report contained facial inconsistencies concerning the last-accessed dates and the timing of the alleged copying. Those inconsistencies could affect the accuracy and persuasiveness of Crain’s analysis. But the court held that they were matters for the factfinder to weigh, not grounds for excluding the opinions as inadmissible.
Medidata also argued that Crain had not tested how last-accessed dates behaved in various situations involving non-Mac computers. The report was based on the assumption that Tsai used Mac computers, and Crain testified consistently with that assumption. The court therefore did not exclude the report on that basis. It ruled, however, that Veeva could introduce alternative explanations about how last-accessed dates operate during file copying only if those explanations were explicitly disclosed in the Crain Report, as required by the expert-disclosure rules.
Disposition
The court denied Medidata’s motion in limine, identified as Medidata MIL 3. It also ordered that Veeva may not introduce at trial explanations about file-copying and last-accessed dates that were not explicitly set out in Crain’s report. The Clerk of Court was directed to close the docket entry for the motion.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.