Sibley et al v. Sprint Nextel Corporation et al

Filing 728

ORDER overruling 615 Motion to Exclude; overruling 617 Motion to Exclude. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Court adopts in full the Report Regarding Cross- Motions To Exclude Expert Testimony (Doc. #701) filed April 7, 2017. IT IS FURTHER ORDER ED that Plaintiffs' Objection To Report Regarding Cross- Motions To Exclude Expert Testimony (Doc. #713) and Defendants' Objections To The Special Master's Report And Recommendations Regarding The Admission Of Plaintiffs' Expert Testimony (Doc. #715), both filed May 5, 2017, are OVERRULED. Signed by District Judge Kathryn H. Vratil on 6/8/2017. (ydm)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
ROXIE SIBLEY, et al.,

)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
v.
)
)
SPRINT NEXTEL CORPORATION, et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
__________________________________________)

CIVIL ACTION
No. 08-2063-KHV

ORDER
Plaintiffs bring class action claims for unpaid commissions against Sprint Nextel Corporation
and Sprint/United Management Company (“collectively, “Sprint”). Specifically, plaintiffs claim
that Sprint is liable for violating the Kansas Wage Payment Act (“KWPA”), K.S.A. § 44-313 et seq.
(Count I) and breach of contract (Count II). This matter comes before the Court on Defendants’
Third Motion To Exclude Expert And Expert Testimony (Doc. #615) and Plaintiffs’ Motion To
Exclude Testimony Of Balance Engines LLC and Dr. Margaret Dunham (Doc. #617), both filed
February 29, 2016.
On April 7, 2017, Special Master David Cohen recommended that the Court overrule the
motions.1 See Report Regarding Cross-Motions To Exclude Expert Testimony (Doc. # 701). The
parties have filed objections to the Special Master’s Report. See Plaintiffs’ Objection To Report
Regarding Cross-Motions To Exclude Expert Testimony (Doc. #713) and Defendants’ Objections
To The Special Master’s Report And Recommendations Regarding The Admission Of Plaintiffs’
Expert Testimony (Doc. #715), both filed May 5, 2017. The Court has conducted a de novo review

1

On April 14, 2014, pursuant to Rule 53, Fed. R. Civ. P., the Court appointed David
Cohen as Special Master to assist the Court with pending motions and other issues related to the
commissions reconciliation process in this case. See Order of Appointment (Doc. #532).

of the Report, the record, the relevant legal authorities and the parties’ objections.2 The Special
Master’s Report meticulously examines the models presented by each side’s experts. The Court
agrees that on this record, plaintiffs and Sprint are each entitled to present to a jury their expert’s
model for commissions reconciliation.

The Court approves in full the findings and

recommendations set out by the Special Master in his Report.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Court adopts in full the Report Regarding CrossMotions To Exclude Expert Testimony (Doc. #701) filed April 7, 2017.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Objection To Report Regarding CrossMotions To Exclude Expert Testimony (Doc. #713) and Defendants’ Objections To The Special
Master’s Report And Recommendations Regarding The Admission Of Plaintiffs’ Expert Testimony
(Doc. #715), both filed May 5, 2017, are OVERRULED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants’ Third Motion To Exclude Expert And
Expert Testimony (Doc. #615) and Plaintiffs’ Motion To Exclude Testimony Of Balance Engines
LLC and Dr. Margaret Dunham (Doc. #617) both filed February 29, 2016 are OVERRULED.
Dated this 8th day of June, 2017 at Kansas City, Kansas.
s/ Kathryn H. Vratil
Kathryn H. Vratil
United States District Judge

2

In acting on a master’s report or recommendations, the Court “may adopt or affirm,
modify, wholly or partly reject or reverse, or resubmit to the master with instructions.” Fed. R. Civ.
P. 53(f)(1). The Court must conduct a de novo review of all objections to findings of fact made or
recommended by the Special Master, unless the parties, with the Court’s approval, stipulate that the
Court shall review findings for clear error or that the findings of the Special Master will be final.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 53(f)(3). Here, the parties have not agreed to clear error review and have not
stipulated to the finality of the Special Master’s Report. The Court decides de novo all objections
to findings of fact and conclusions of law made or recommended by the Special Master. Fed. R.
Civ. P. 53(f)(4).
-2-