Pandemic Darlings The pandemic economy, in original documents
Home Court filings Brooks v. Thomson Reuters Corporation — U.S. District Court, N.D. Cal. Proposed Order — Brooks v. Thomson Reuters Corporation (Dkt. 157.5)

Court filing

Proposed Order — Brooks v. Thomson Reuters Corporation (Dkt. 157.5)

Summary

Document 157-5, filed 02/06/23 in Case No. 3:21-cv-01418-EMC, is a proposed order submitted by Perkins Coie LLP for Defendant Thomson Reuters that would grant its Motion to Exclude Testimony of Joseph Turow. The proposed order would state that Plaintiffs' expert's opinion fails to meet the criteria of the Federal Rules of Evidence and that his testimony constitutes mere personal opinion not supported by scientifically valid principles. It would exclude his testimony and report to date. The date line and the signature line for Hon. Edward M. Chen are blank.

Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used

Cite this document

“Proposed Order — Brooks v. Thomson Reuters Corporation (Dkt. 157.5).” Original at ecf.cand.uscourts.gov, No. 3:21-cv-01418-EMC, Doc. 157-5. Archived at Pandemic Darlings, https://pandemicdarlings.com/court-filings/full-docket-brooks-thomsonreuters-cand-374304/2023-02-06-gov-uscourts-cand-374304-157-5-gov-uscourts-cand-374304-157-5/, SHA-256 3870c4d160f5a545087dd2116e2c720c525edb619421f1938cf34383117b1445.

Search CourtListener for this docket number

Full text

     Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC         Document 157-5     Filed 02/06/23    Page 1 of 2



 1    Susan D. Fahringer, Bar No. 21567              Gabriella Gallego, Bar No. 324226
      SFahringer@perkinscoie.com                     GGallego@perkinscoie.com
 2    Nicola C. Menaldo, pro hac vice                PERKINS COIE LLP
 3    NMenaldo@perkinscoie.com                       3150 Porter Drive
      Erin K. Earl, pro hac vice                     Palo Alto, CA 94304-1212
 4    EEarl@perkinscoie.com                          Telephone: 650.838.4300
      Anna M. Thompson, pro hac vice                 Facsimile: 650.838.4350
 5    AnnaThompson@perkinscoie.com
      PERKINS COIE LLP                               Hayden M. Schottlaender, pro hac vice
 6    1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4900                  HSchottlaender@perkinscoie.com
 7    Seattle, WA 98101-3099                         PERKINS COIE LLP
      Telephone: 206.359.8000                        500 N. Akard Street, Suite 3300
 8    Facsimile: 206.359.9000                        Dallas, TX 75201-3347
                                                     Telephone: 214.965.7700
 9    Attorneys for Defendant                        Facsimile: 214.965.7799
      Thomson Reuters Corporation
10

11                              UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                              NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
12                                 SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
13

14   CAT BROOKS and RASHEED                      Case No. 3:21-cv-01418-EMC
     SHABAZZ, individually and on behalf of
15   all others similarly situated,              [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING
                                                 DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO EXCLUDE
16                         Plaintiffs,           TESTIMONY OF JOSEPH TUROW

17          v.

18   THOMSON REUTERS CORPORATION,

19                         Defendant.

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28
     Case No. 3:21-cv-01418-EMC                               [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING DEF.’S
                                                                MOTION TO EXCLUDE PROF. TUROW
     Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC         Document 157-5        Filed 02/06/23     Page 2 of 2



 1                                        [PROPOSED] ORDER

 2          Defendant Thomson Reuters has filed a Motion to Exclude the Testimony of Plaintiffs’

 3   Expert, Joseph Turow (the “Motion”). Plaintiffs oppose that Motion. Having considered the

 4   Motion, Plaintiffs’ Opposition, and all associated briefing, documents, and evidence on the record

 5   at the time of this Order, Defendant’s Motion is hereby GRANTED. The Court finds that the

 6   opinion offered by Professor Joseph Turow fails to meet the criteria of Federal Rule of Evidence

 7   702. Prof. Turow’s testimony constitutes mere personal opinion and is not supported by

 8   scientifically valid principles. Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharms., Inc., 43 F.3d 1311, 1319 (9th

 9   Cir. 1995). His testimony and report to date are therefore excluded.

10   IT IS SO ORDERED.

11

12    DATED: ____________________                        __________________________________
                                                         Judge: Hon. Edward M. Chen
13                                                       United States District Judge
14

15   Submitted by:

16   PERKINS COIE LLP
17

18   By: /s/ Hayden M. Schottlaender
     Hayden M. Schottlaender
19
     Attorneys for Defendant
20   Thomson Reuters Corporation
21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28
     Case No. 3:21-cv-01418-EMC                    -2-            [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING DEF.’S
                                                                    MOTION TO EXCLUDE PROF. TUROW


File and source

File
gov.uscourts.cand.374304.157.5.pdf
Size
123,617 bytes
SHA-256
3870c4d160f5a545087dd2116e2c720c525edb619421f1938cf34383117b1445
Our copy
gov.uscourts.cand.374304.157.5.pdf
Original
PACER (login required)
Back to top