Munoz, et al. vs. PHH Mortgage Corp., et al.

Filing 510

ORDER RESPECTING 468 Plaintiffs' Motion in Limine #2, signed by Judge M Miller Baker on 01/10/2022. (Maldonado, C)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
EFRAIN MUNOZ, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated,
et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.

No. 1:08-cv-00759-MMB-BAM
ORDER RESPECTING
PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION
IN LIMINE #2

PHH MORTGAGE CORPORATION,
et al.,
Defendants.

15

Plaintiffs’ second motion in limine (ECF 468, at 4–8) requests an order

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

to preclude Defendants from offering at trial any expert testimony
on issues that were not previously included or otherwise disclosed
in their expert’s reports. Specifically, Defendants must be precluded from offering expert testimony: (1) quantifying the value of
the reinsurance services, i.e., risk transfer, or any other service
purportedly provided by Atrium, for purposes of determining
whether the amounts paid by the mortgage insurers to Atrium in
connection with the CRAs were commensurate with that risk or (2)
comparing the captive reinsurance agreements at issue with industry standards or norms.

26

ECF 468, at 4 (“defined term” omitted). Plaintiffs’ motion specifically refers to

27

Dr. Timothy Riddiough and argues that he testified at his deposition that he

28

was not asked to, and therefore did not, base his opinions on “price commen-

29

surability.” Id. at 6.

30

Defendants respond that Dr. Riddiough has indeed “not offered a quan-

31

titative opinion on the monetary value of the services provided by Atrium,”

1

ECF 479, at 2 (emphasis in original), and that they “have no present intention

2

of asking him to offer such an opinion at trial,” id. But they argue that his

3

expert report and deposition testimony do discuss “qualitative” opinions re-

4

garding Atrium’s provision of valuable services and rebutting Plaintiffs’ ex-

5

perts on the issue of price commensurability, id., and they offer a bullet-point

6

list of citations to his expert report’s disclosure of those opinions, id. at 3–4.

7

Defendants also argue that Dr. Riddiough’s reports do compare the Atrium re-

8

insurance agreements with industry standards or norms. Id.

9

On reply, Plaintiffs argue that (1) because Defendants concede that Dr.

10

Riddiough has not offered a quantitative opinion and state that they have no

11

intention of asking him to offer one at trial, the court should preclude him from

12

so testifying, ECF 493, at 1–2; and (2) as to the issue of conformity with indus-

13

try standards or norms, “Plaintiffs do not seek to preclude Dr. Riddiough from

14

opinion on those issues to the extent they are within the scope of his report,”

15

id. at 2, but they may object to any testimony that is “not specifically outlined

16

in Dr. Riddiough’s report,” id. Plaintiffs’ reply does not address Defendants’

17

argument about the “qualitative” opinions.

18

Because Defendants state they have no intention of asking Dr. Rid-

19

diough to offer a quantitative opinion about the value of Atrium’s reinsurance

20

services, there is no reason not to grant Plaintiffs’ motion as to that issue. Sim-

21

ilarly, however, because Plaintiffs now say they do not seek to preclude Dr.
2

1

Riddiough from testifying on conformity with industry standards or norms to

2

the extent those issues fall within the scope of his expert report, there is no

3

reason to grant Plaintiffs’ motion as to that issue. Finally, because Plaintiffs’

4

reply does not address Defendants’ citations to Dr. Riddiough’s expert report

5

regarding “qualitative” opinions on price commensurability, the court con-

6

cludes that Plaintiffs are conceding that those opinions were properly dis-

7

closed. Accordingly, it is hereby

8

ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ motion in limine #2 is GRANTED only in-

9

sofar as it relates to any potential testimony by Dr. Timothy Riddiough quan-

10

tifying the value of reinsurance or other services Atrium may have provided in

11

connection with the captive reinsurance agreements, the motion is DENIED

12

insofar as it relates to Riddiough’s testimony about his “qualitative” opinions

13

on the issue of price commensurability, and the motion is further DENIED

14

insofar as it relates to Riddiough’s testimony comparing the captive reinsur-

15

ance agreements at issue with industry standards or norms.

16
17

Dated: January 10, 2022

1

/s/ M. Miller Baker
M. Miller Baker, Judge 1

Judge of the United States Court of International Trade, sitting by designation.

3