Proposed Order — Brooks v. Thomson Reuters Corporation (Dkt. 165.1)

Full text

     Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC         Document 165-1     Filed 03/06/23    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 DENYING
                                                 PLAINTIFFS’ OMNIBUS MOTION TO
16                         Plaintiffs,           EXCLUDE DEFENDANT THOMSON
                                                 REUTERS’ EXPERT OPINIONS ON
17          v.                                   CLASS CERTIFICATION

18   THOMSON REUTERS CORPORATION,

19                         Defendant.

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28
     Case No. 3:21-cv-01418-EMC                          [PROPOSED] ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’
                                                         MOTION TO EXCLUDE KIVETZ, BAMBAUER
     Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC         Document 165-1        Filed 03/06/23     Page 2 of 2



 1                                       [PROPOSED] ORDER

 2          Plaintiffs have moved to exclude the opinions of two experts offered by Defendant

 3   Thomson Reuters: Dr. Ran Kivetz and Professor Jane Bambauer. Doc. 159 (the “Motion”).

 4   Having considered the Motion, Thomson Reuters’ Opposition, and all associated briefing,

 5   documents, and evidence on the record at the time of this Order, the Motion is hereby DENIED.

 6   The Court finds that the opinions offered by Dr. Kivetz and Prof. Bambauer meet the standards

 7   set forth by Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 589 (1993). Dr. Kivetz is well-

 8   qualified in consumer surveying, perception, and preferences, and those areas of expertise are put

 9   at issue by Plaintiffs’ expert, Professor Joseph Turow. And Prof. Bambauer’s opinion is not

10   subject to exclusion merely because she has declined to opine on Thomson Reuters’ conduct

11   under the lens of California law. Expert witnesses “cannot testify to a matter of law amounting to

12   a legal conclusion.” United States v. Tamman, 782 F. 3d 543, 552-53 (9th Cir. 2015).

13

14   IT IS SO ORDERED.

15

16    DATED: ____________________                        __________________________________
                                                         Judge: Hon. Edward M. Chen
17                                                       United States District Judge
18

19   Submitted by:

20   PERKINS COIE LLP
21

22   By: /s/ Hayden M. Schottlaender
     Hayden M. Schottlaender
23   Admitted pro hac vice
24   Attorneys for Defendant
     Thomson Reuters Corporation
25

26

27

28
     Case No. 3:21-cv-01418-EMC                    -2-      [PROPOSED] ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’
                                                            MOTION TO EXCLUDE KIVETZ, BAMBAUER


File and source

File

gov.uscourts.cand.374304.165.1.pdf

Size

126,551 bytes

SHA-256

f46d3f261ad29c504d9091f73cba6e5011f3b286f22ddc92ea67d041b8a4bd72

Our copy

gov.uscourts.cand.374304.165.1.pdf

Original

PACER (login required)