Southwestern Bell Telephone Company et al v. V247 Telecom LLC et al
Filing
153
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: The testimony of Mr. Jeffords is excluded from this case. The Court GRANTS Plaintiffs' 140 Motion to Exclude Testimony of Joseph Jeffords. (Ordered by Judge Ed Kinkeade on 11/17/2016) (trk)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION
SOUTHWESTERN BELL
TELEPHONE COMPANY, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
V247 TELECOM LLC, et al.,
Defendants.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
Civil Action No. 3:14-CV-1409-K
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Motion to Exclude Testimony of Joseph Jeffords
(Doc. No. 140). Plaintiffs AT&T ILECs move to exclude the expert testimony of
Joseph Jeffords. Mr. Jeffords’s expert testimony seeks to establish that Defendants are
not liable to the AT&T ILECs for originating switched access service charges and
disputes the calculation method Dr. Debra Aron used to determine the AT&T ILECs’
damages. After careful consideration of Plaintiffs’ motion, the response, the reply, the
supporting appendices, and the applicable law, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ motion.
I.
Legal Standard
When making a determination of whether to exclude expert testimony the Court
considers criteria such as (1) whether the proffered expert is qualified to testify because
ORDER – PAGE 1
of his knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education; (2) whether the proffered
expert’s testimony is reliable; and (3) whether proffered expert testimony is relevant.
See FED. R. EVID. 702; Kumho Tire Co. Ltd. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137, 152 (1999).
Federal Rule of Evidence 702 specifically states that:
A witness who is qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill,
experience, training, or education may testify in the form of
an opinion or otherwise if:
(a) the expert’s scientific, technical, or other specialized
knowledge will help the trier of fact to understand the
evidence or to determine a fact in issue;
(b) the testimony is based on sufficient facts or data;
(c) the testimony is the product of reliable principles and
methods; and
(d) the expert has reliably applied the principles and
methods to the facts of the case.
FED. R. EVID. 702.
“District Courts are given wide latitude in determining the admissibility of expert
testimony.” Wilson v. Woods, 163 F.3d 935, 936 (5th Cir. 1999) (citing Watkins v.
Telsmith, Inc., 121 F.3d 984, 988 (5th Cir. 1997)) (quotation marks omitted).
II.
Analysis
A. The Court has already determined Defendants are liable.
This Court previously granted partial summary judgment in two different
Memorandum Opinions and Orders for Plaintiffs AT&T ILECs and held that
Defendants V247 Telecom, LLC, Saving Call, LLC, and EZ Network LP were liable for
ORDER – PAGE 2
payment of originating switched access service charges to Plaintiffs.
Despite this
Court’s previous rulings, Defendants want to present Mr. Jeffords’s expert testimony
to establish that Defendants are not liable to the AT&T ILECs for originating switched
access service charges. Because the Court has already ruled on Defendants’ liability,
Mr. Jeffords’s testimony about Defendants’ liability is unnecessary and will not be
permitted.
B. Mr. Jeffords is not an expert in determining damages.
A district court should refuse to allow an expert witness to testify if it finds that
the witness is not qualified to testify in a particular field or on a given subject. Wilson,
163 F.3d at 937. Mr. Jeffords’s testimony seeks to establish that the AT&T ILECs did
not incur damages and that the 1.07 conversion factor Dr. Aron used to convert
conversation minutes to access minutes to calculate the AT&T ILECs damages is
improper.
Mr. Jeffords does not have the knowledge, skill, experience, training, or
education to testify as an expert about the damages incurred by the AT&T ILECs.
Although Mr. Jeffords has experience in the telecommunications industry, Mr. Jeffords
does not have specific experience related to calculating originating switched access
service charges. Mr. Jeffords does not have previous experience calculating originating
ORDER – PAGE 3
switched access service charges and has never presented expert testimony regarding
damages for originating switched access service charges.
The experience that Mr. Jeffords has consulting end user consumers about their
telecommunications networks and equipment does not relate to him being able to
evaluate Dr. Aron’s damages calculation.
Mr. Jeffords also admits that the 1.07
conversion factor used by Dr. Aron is widely recognized and reasonable. Defendants
did not show how the knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education of Mr.
Jeffords qualify him to be an expert to testify regarding damages to the AT&T ILECs.
See GWTP Investments, L.P. v. SES Americom, Inc., No. 3:04-CV-1383-L, 2007 WL
7630459, at *14–15 (N.D. Tex. Aug. 3, 2007) (granting motion to exclude expert
testimony and determining that a purported expert’s opinion about financial valuations
of teleports was not reliable because the purported expert did not show how his
experience in the telecommunications industry applied to the facts of the case).
ORDER – PAGE 4
III.
Conclusion
The testimony of Mr. Jeffords is excluded from this case. The Court GRANTS
Plaintiffs’ Motion to Exclude Testimony of Joseph Jeffords.
SO ORDERED.
Signed November17, 2016.
______________________________________
ED KINKEADE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
ORDER – PAGE 5
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?