Cequel Communications, LLC v. Mox Networks, LLC

Nature of the Document

The supplied text is a January 13, 2023 letter from counsel for Cequel Communications, LLC to Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald, with MOX Networks, LLC's position included. It asks the court to resolve a dispute about expert disclosures. The text does not contain a judicial analysis, ruling, or order.

Underlying Dispute

The parties' dispute concerns an agreement under which MOX received a right to use a fiber-optic cable route. The letter states that Cequel claims MOX breached the agreement by refusing to pay after Cequel constructed and delivered the route. Cequel also claims that MOX supplied defective or nonconforming cable. MOX counterclaims that the route failed to meet the agreement's performance requirements because of allegedly substandard construction practices.

Cequel's Position

Cequel asks to serve an expert report responding only to affirmative opinions in the rebuttal report of MOX's expert, Dr. Daniel Peterson. Cequel says its expert, Mr. Helmut Knehr, opined that MOX's cable did not conform to industry standards and addressed reasonable performance requirements for a route built with that cable.

According to Cequel, Dr. Peterson did not merely challenge Knehr's methodology or conclusions. Cequel says Peterson instead offered an affirmative opinion that the route showed no problems indicating nonconforming cable and that the relevant issues reflected poor construction. Cequel characterizes this as a new expert disclosure that permits a response under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2)(D). Alternatively, Cequel asks Judge Buchwald to exercise discretion to allow a response because Peterson addressed new matters, test data, and methodology. Cequel requests three weeks to prepare the response and three more weeks for the parties to depose the relevant experts if permission is granted.

MOX's Position

MOX asks the court to deny Cequel leave to submit another expert report. MOX argues that Peterson's report properly rebutted Knehr's report by challenging the factual assumptions underlying Knehr's opinions about mid-span attenuation losses—losses occurring between cable splice points. MOX says Peterson examined the evidence Knehr cited, concluded that it did not show mid-span losses, and opined that Knehr relied on an incorrect premise.

MOX also argues that allowing a response would merely let Knehr correct omissions or strengthen his initial report, prolong expert discovery, increase MOX's costs, and potentially lead to additional motion practice. MOX states that, if the court allowed a response, the existing expert-discovery schedule should not be extended.

Disposition

The supplied text does not state what Judge Buchwald decided. It contains no grant, denial, dismissal, or other court disposition. Accordingly, this summary does not identify an outcome beyond the parties' competing requests and positions.