Kewazinga Corp. v. Google LLC
- Lorna Schofield
- 1:20-cv-01106
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Kewazinga Corp. v. Google, Judge Schofield denied reconsideration and denied permission to supplement an expert report after excluding portions of expert testimony.
Kewazinga Corporation’s request to revisit the expert-testimony ruling and supplement Michele Riley’s report was denied; Google LLC’s earlier exclusion ruling remained in place.
What happened
In Kewazinga Corporation v. Google LLC, the court had previously granted in part and denied in part Google’s request to exclude portions of Michele Riley’s expert opinions. Kewazinga then asked the court to reconsider that decision or allow Riley to supplement her report.
The court said Kewazinga identified no change in controlling law, new evidence, clear error, or injustice. It also rejected Kewazinga’s repeated arguments that Riley’s method was reliable and that the jury should decide whether to admit her testimony. The court further found no good reason to allow a second chance to fix the report after discovery had ended and the case had been scheduled for trial.
Judge Lorna G. Schofield denied both Kewazinga’s motion for reconsideration and its alternative request for permission to supplement Riley’s expert report. The Clerk was directed to close the motion, and the court said sealing orders would issue separately.
The detailed version
- Kewazinga Corp. v. Google LLC · No. 1:20-cv-01106
- Lorna Schofield
- Nov. 29, 2023
Background
The court had previously ruled on Google’s motion to exclude certain portions of Michele Riley’s expert opinions, granting that motion in part and denying it in part. Kewazinga Corporation timely moved for reconsideration of that ruling or, alternatively, for permission for Riley to supplement her expert report.
Reconsideration standard
The court explained that reconsideration is available only when the moving party identifies an intervening change in controlling law, newly available evidence, a clear error, or a need to prevent injustice. It also stated that reconsideration is not a way to relitigate issues, present new theories, or obtain a second hearing on the merits. The court noted that new arguments or evidence that could have been presented before the earlier decision generally will not be considered.
Court’s analysis
The court denied reconsideration because Kewazinga did not identify a change in controlling law, new evidence, clear error, or injustice.
The court also denied reconsideration on the merits. Kewazinga principally argued that Riley had a reliable basis for using the Maps to Street View Adjustment. Kewazinga repeated its argument that Riley’s ecosystem theory supplied that basis, but the court said the earlier Opinion had already expressly addressed and rejected that theory. The court found that Riley offered no new basis for concluding that her method accurately measured any ecosystem value provided to users. It also rejected Kewazinga’s argument that objections to Riley’s testimony should be left to the jury, explaining that the earlier exclusion was based on the reliability of the testimony under the court’s required gatekeeping review for expert evidence, rather than on improper weighing of evidence.
The court separately denied Kewazinga’s request to supplement Riley’s expert report. It found that Kewazinga had not shown good cause for allowing Riley a second opportunity to satisfy the reliability requirement at a late stage, when discovery had concluded and the case had been scheduled for trial.
Disposition
Judge Lorna G. Schofield ordered that Kewazinga’s motion for reconsideration or, alternatively, permission to supplement Riley’s expert report, is DENIED. The Clerk of Court was directed to close the motion at Docket 326. The court stated that sealing orders would issue separately.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.