Trejos Hermanos Sucesores S.A. v. Verizon Communications Inc.
- Rochon
- 1:21-cv-08928
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
In Trejos Hermanos Sucesores S.A. v. Verizon Communications Inc., Judge Rochon partly granted and partly denied a request concerning an undisclosed declaration.
Trejos Hermanos Sucesores S.A. and Verizon Communications Inc.; the ruling determines which portions of Marvin Cespedes’s declaration may be considered in deciding Verizon’s opposition to summary judgment.
What happened
Trejos Hermanos Sucesores S.A. v. Verizon Communications Inc. involved the plaintiff’s request to strike a declaration by Marvin Cespedes and references to it in Verizon’s opposition to summary judgment. The plaintiff argued that the declaration contained expert testimony that Verizon had not disclosed on time.
Verizon argued that Cespedes’s testimony was factual, that the request was procedurally improper, and that only expert portions should be excluded if any existed. The court found that some parts described facts, while other parts offered specialized opinions and legal conclusions about Costa Rican law.
Judge Jennifer L. Rochon granted in part and denied in part the request. Rather than striking the entire declaration, the court said it would disregard the portions and related references that contained undisclosed expert testimony or improper legal analysis when deciding the pending summary-judgment motion.
The detailed version
- Trejos Hermanos Sucesores S.A. v. Verizon Communications Inc. · No. 1:21-cv-08928
- Rochon
- Jan. 3, 2023
Background
Trejos Hermanos Sucesores S.A. asked the court to strike Marvin Cespedes’s declaration and all references to it in Verizon Communications Inc.’s opposition to the plaintiff’s summary-judgment motion and its response to the required statement of undisputed facts. The plaintiff argued that the declaration contained expert testimony that Verizon had not timely disclosed.
Verizon argued that Cespedes’s testimony was factual, that the plaintiff’s request was procedurally improper, and that, even if some testimony was expert testimony, only those portions should be excluded. Verizon did not argue that any failure to disclose Cespedes as an expert was substantially justified or harmless.
Court’s analysis
The court explained that witnesses generally may testify about matters within their personal knowledge. A witness who is not disclosed as an expert may not offer opinions based on scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge. Witnesses also may not provide legal opinions, legal conclusions, or interpretations of legal terms.
The court found that Verizon did not timely disclose Cespedes as an expert by the September 19, 2022 deadline set in the court’s July 8, 2022 order. The court nevertheless determined that some portions of the declaration were factual, including descriptions of an action filed against Cespedes’s client, positions held by members of the plaintiff’s legal team, and actions Cespedes took in connection with litigation in Costa Rica.
Other portions offered opinions resembling expert testimony or improperly interpreted and applied Costa Rican law. Those portions included legal conclusions about what should have occurred under Costa Rican law and opinions about Costa Rican case law or procedural law. The court characterized this material as improper lay testimony because it relied on Cespedes’s specialized knowledge as an attorney and presented legal analysis and conclusions.
Ruling
Judge Jennifer L. Rochon granted in part and denied in part the plaintiff’s request. For purposes of the pending summary-judgment motion, the court will disregard portions of the Cespedes declaration and related references in accompanying filings to the extent they contain expert testimony or improper legal analysis. The court did not strike the declaration in its entirety and said it would apply these principles when deciding the summary-judgment motion rather than review every line of the declaration at that stage. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate the plaintiff’s request, ECF No. 58.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.