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
- 14
In Watson v. Manhattan Luxury Automobiles, Judge Schofield denied reconsideration of limits on the defendant’s expert testimony about Zipwhip.
The ruling affected Manhattan Luxury Automobiles, Inc. d/b/a Lexus Of Manhattan’s effort to use Ken Sponsler’s expert opinions and the plaintiffs’ ability to challenge that testimony. It also permitted limited supplemental expert reports before any summary-judgment briefing.
What happened
In Watson v. Manhattan Luxury Automobiles, Inc. d/b/a Lexus Of Manhattan, the defendant asked the court to reconsider an earlier order that partly excluded opinions from its expert, Ken Sponsler. The dispute concerned whether the Zipwhip texting platform qualified as an automatic telephone dialing system under federal law.
The defendant argued that Sponsler had relied on extensive experience, documents, testing of the Zipwhip platform, and witness testimony. It said his opinions were based on reliable methods and that his discussion of a Supreme Court decision was meant to respond to the plaintiffs’ expert, not to offer a legal opinion.
Judge Lorna Schofield denied the motion for reconsideration for substantially the reasons given in the earlier order. The court explained that Sponsler’s opinion was excluded because, as presented, it was not based on his expertise and relied on another witness’s testimony and legal interpretation. The court allowed the defendant to submit a brief supplemental report limited to whether Zipwhip was an automatic telephone dialing system, with a brief rebuttal report from the plaintiffs’ expert.
The detailed version
- Watson v. Manhattan Luxury Automobiles, Inc. d/b/a Lexus Of Manhattan · No. 1:20-cv-04572
- Lorna Schofield
- Oct. 18, 2022
Background
The defendant moved for reconsideration under Local Civil Rule 6.3 and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59. It sought reconsideration of an earlier order that granted, in part, the plaintiffs’ motion to exclude the defendant’s expert, Ken Sponsler. The earlier order addressed Sponsler’s opinions about the capabilities of the Zipwhip Version 1.0 Economy Package and whether that platform was an automatic telephone dialing system, or ATDS.
The defendant argued that the earlier order overlooked the basis for Sponsler’s opinions. According to the defendant, Sponsler relied on more than 20 years of experience analyzing dialer systems, experience serving as an expert in more than 200 cases, personal testing of the Zipwhip platform, technical manuals, data, pleadings, discovery responses, witness testimony, and other expert reports. The defendant also argued that Sponsler’s discussion of the Supreme Court’s decision in Facebook, Inc. v. Duguid was factual and rebutted statements by the plaintiffs’ expert rather than being an improper legal opinion.
Court’s Analysis
The court applied the standard that reconsideration is available only when a party identifies an intervening change in controlling law, new evidence, or the need to correct a clear error or prevent manifest injustice. The court stated that reconsideration is generally denied unless the moving party identifies controlling decisions or data that the court overlooked and that could reasonably change the result.
The court rejected the defendant’s request for reconsideration. It clarified that Sponsler’s opinion that the Zipwhip platform was not an ATDS had not been excluded because of a lack of qualifications or deficient experience. Instead, the opinion was excluded because, as presented, it was not based on Sponsler’s expertise. The court stated that Sponsler did not explain how his general experience, combined with one experience using the Zipwhip platform, led to his conclusions about what the platform could not do. The court further stated that Sponsler’s reports showed that his opinions on that issue relied solely on James Lapic’s testimony and legal interpretation of the Facebook decision. The court said that this evidence and case law could be presented when appropriate, including on summary judgment, but that Sponsler’s expert testimony was not the proper vehicle for those arguments.
Disposition
The court denied the defendant’s motion for reconsideration for substantially the reasons stated in the earlier opinion and order. The court nevertheless permitted the defendant to submit a brief supplemental report from Sponsler addressing only whether the Zipwhip platform was an ATDS. The plaintiffs’ expert could submit a brief rebuttal report limited to that opinion. If the defendant sought to offer new opinions, the parties were directed to meet and confer about a schedule for exchanging reports and any appropriate discovery before summary-judgment briefing. Any renewed motions to exclude expert testimony were to be filed as motions made during trial proceedings only after the court decided any summary-judgment motion.
Read the full 14-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.