Watson v. Manhattan Luxury Automobiles, Inc. d/b/a Lexus Of Manhattan
- Lorna Schofield
- 1:20-cv-04572
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
In Watson v. Lexus of Manhattan, Judge Schofield denied plaintiffs’ request to file a sur-reply but allowed them to file deposition errata.
The ruling affected the plaintiffs’ ability to submit additional briefing and deposition materials in response to the defendant’s expert-related motion; it denied the proposed sur-reply but permitted a limited filing of Randall Snyder’s deposition corrections or excerpts.
What happened
In Watson v. Manhattan Luxury Automobiles, Inc. d/b/a Lexus Of Manhattan, the plaintiffs asked to file a four-and-a-half-page sur-reply responding to arguments they said the defendant raised for the first time in its reply concerning expert witnesses Randall Snyder and Anya Verkhovskaya. The defendant opposed the request.
The court denied the application. It found that the arguments about Verkhovskaya fairly responded to the plaintiffs’ opposition or to new factual statements in her affidavit. For Snyder, the court said the plaintiffs argued only that deposition corrections would show he reviewed and possessed a document, not that he relied on it. The court allowed the plaintiffs instead to file the relevant deposition corrections or excerpts by May 6, 2022, without additional briefing.
Judge Lorna Schofield issued the order on May 3, 2022. The ruling addressed only whether the plaintiffs could submit additional briefing and related deposition materials; it did not decide the underlying claims or the separate motion concerning the experts.
The detailed version
- Watson v. Manhattan Luxury Automobiles, Inc. d/b/a Lexus Of Manhattan · No. 1:20-cv-04572
- Lorna Schofield
- May 3, 2022
Background
The plaintiffs moved for permission to file a four-and-a-half-page sur-reply responding to the defendant’s reply in support of its motion concerning the exclusion of expert witnesses Randall Snyder and Anya Verkhovskaya. The plaintiffs argued that the reply raised new arguments and misstated or contradicted the record. The defendant opposed the request.
The plaintiffs identified several issues involving Verkhovskaya, including the treatment of class data, the reliability of LexisNexis information about wireless telephone numbers, the dates included in her data set, an example involving “TALLBOY 7 INC,” and the treatment of her declaration. Regarding Snyder, the plaintiffs argued that corrections to his deposition testimony would show that he had reviewed and possessed a document called ML 250, contrary to the defendant’s presentation of the record.
Court’s ruling
The court denied the application for leave to file a sur-reply. As to Verkhovskaya, the court found that the arguments raised in the defendant’s reply were fairly responsive to arguments in the plaintiffs’ opposition and/or to new factual contentions in an affidavit submitted with the opposition.
As to Snyder, the court stated that the plaintiffs argued the deposition corrections would show that Snyder had reviewed and possessed ML 250, but did not argue that the corrections would show he actually relied on that document—the point contested in the defendant’s reply.
Alternative filing permitted
Instead of filing a sur-reply, the plaintiffs were permitted to file the relevant Snyder deposition corrections, or relevant excerpts, by May 6, 2022. The court specified that this filing could be made without any further briefing.
This was a procedural ruling about additional briefing and deposition materials. The opinion did not decide the underlying claims or the motion concerning whether the expert witnesses should be excluded.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.