Tyntec Inc. et al v. Syniverse Technologies, LLC

Middle District of Florida, flmd-8:2017-cv-00591

ORDER denying without prejudice [118, 121 & 128] Sealed Motions to Exclude and Testimony and Strike Declarations. Signed by Judge Richard A. Lazzara on 7/13/2018. (CCB) Modified text on 7/13/2018

Interested in this case?

Current View

Full Text

PageID 20286 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION TYNTEC INC., and TYNTEC GROUP LTD. f/k/a Phoenix Spring, Ltd., Plaintiffs, v. CASE NO. 8:17-cv-591-T-26MAP SYNIVERSE TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, Defendant. / ORDER Pending before the Court for resolution are the parties' motions seeking to exclude expert testimony and their respective responses to those motions. After careful consideration of the parties' motions and responses, the Court is of the opinion that both motions should be denied without prejudice because the Court is not inclined to make a pretrial determination of the admissibility of this testimony based solely on written submissions. The Court prefers, instead, to convene a Daubert1 hearing well in advance of the scheduled December 2018 trial date at a time convenient to the parties, their 1 See Daubert v. Merrill Dow Pharms., Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 113 S.Ct. 2786, 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993). PageID 20287 attorneys, and the expert witnesses in the event the parties are unable to settle this case.2 At the hearing, the Court will receive the testimony of the two expert witnesses, listen to the argument of counsel, and, based on the testimony and arguments, make an informed decision as to whether the experts' testimony satisfies the Daubert standard for admissibility. The Court will also treat the motions and responses as memoranda of law in support of the parties' respective positions with regard to the admissibility of the experts' testimony. Finally, the Court will also consider at the hearing testimony and argument with respect to whether the testimony and opinions expressed by Plaintiffs' expert witness, Dr. Normann, in his declarations attached as Exhibits 1 and 2 to Defendant's Motion to Strike filed at docket 128 should be excluded. The Court will therefore deny that motion without prejudice and treat the Defendant's motion and the Plaintiffs' response to the motion as memoranda of law in support of their respective positions. ACCORDINGLY, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows: 1) Plaintiffs' Motion to Exclude the Testimony of Dr. Mohan Rao (Dkt. 118) is denied without prejudice. 2 See Cook ex rel. Estate of Tessier v. Sheriff of Monroe Cnty., Fla., 402 F.3d 1092, 1113 (11th Cir. 2005) (observing that a Daubert hearing, although not required, may be helpful in complicated cases). There can be no question that this case presents complex factual and legal issues. -2- PageID 20288 2) Defendant's Motion to Exclude Testimony of Plaintiffs' Expert (Dkt. 121) is denied without prejudice. 3) Defendant's Motion to Strike Declarations of Dr. Parker M. Normann (Dkt. 128) is denied without prejudice. DONE AND ORDERED at Tampa, Florida, on July 13, 2018. s/Richard A. Lazzara RICHARD A. LAZZARA UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE COPIES FURNISHED TO: Counsel of Record -3-