Briggs v. Blomkamp et al

Filing 58

ORDER re 45 MOTION To disqualify Export Report of Jeff Rovin filed by Steve Kenyatta Wilson Briggs. Signed by Judge Hamilton on 7/17/2014. (pjhlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/17/2014)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5
6
7

STEVE WILSON BRIGGS,
Plaintiff,

8
9

v.

ORDER

NEILL BLOMKAMP, et al.,

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

No. C 13-4679 PJH

Defendants.
_____________________________/

12
13

Before the court is the motion of plaintiff Steve Wilson Briggs to "disqualify" the

14

expert report of defendants' expert Jeff Rovin. The motion is presently set for hearing on

15

July 23, 2014. Having read the parties' papers and carefully considered their arguments

16

and the relevant legal authority, the court hereby rules as follows.

17

The court construes the motion as a motion to disqualify Mr. Rovin as an expert,

18

pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharms, Inc., 509

19

U.S. 579 (1993). Under that authority, a witness who has been qualified as an expert by

20

knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education may give an opinion on scientific,

21

technical, or otherwise specialized topics if (1) the expert’s scientific, technical, or other

22

special knowledge will help the trier of fact understand the evidence or determine a fact in

23

issue, (2) the testimony is based upon sufficient facts or data, (3) the testimony is the

24

product of reliable principles and methods, and (4) the witness has applied the principles

25

and methods reliably to the facts of the case. See id.

26

Because the motions for summary judgment have not yet been filed, the court is

27

unable to ascertain how defendants intend to use the Rovin report, or whether Mr. Rovin

28

has properly applied the correct principles and methods to the facts of the case. Moreover,

1

the court notes that while plaintiff has asserted in this motion and in prior "Notices of

2

Rebuttal" that the Rovin report has been "filed" with the court, the report was in fact not

3

filed with the court until defendants filed their opposition to the present motion on June 26,

4

2014. In addition, plaintiff has cited other references in his motion, but has failed to attach

5

copies to a declaration properly authenticating the references. The result is that the court

6

is hard-pressed to understand the basis of a number of plaintiff's objections to the Rovin

7

report.

8
9

Accordingly, the court DEFERS ruling on the present motion until the motions for
summary judgment have been heard. The July 23, 2014 hearing date is VACATED.

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10
IT IS SO ORDERED.

12

Dated: July 17, 2014
______________________________
PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON
United States District Judge

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2