CamSoft Data Systems, Inc. VS Southern Electronics Supply, Inc. and Active Solutions, LLC

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL FIRST CIRCUIT 2019 CA 0736 2019 CW 0516 CAMSOFT DATA SYSTEMS, INC. VERSUS SOUTHERN ELECTRONICS SUPPLY, INC. AND ACTIVE SOLUTIONS, LLC Gr Judgment Rendered: ' JUL o 2 2019 Appealed from the Nineteenth Judicial District Court Parish of East Baton Rouge State of Louisiana Case No. 582, 741 The Honorable Janice Clark, Judge Presiding Karli Glascock Johnson Counsel for Defendants/ Appellants Vance A. Gibbs Dell, Inc. & Dell Marketing, L.P. Tara M. Madison Baton Rouge, Louisiana and James C. Grant Christopher A. Riley Elizabeth Helmer Michael P. Kenny Atlanta, Georgia Jason L. Melancon Robert C. Rimes R. Lee Daquanno, Jr. Frank Tomeny, III Baton Rouge, Louisiana and Marx D. Sterbcow New Orleans, Louisiana and Mark D. Plaisance Counsel for Plaintiff/Appellee CamSoft Data Systems, Inc. Marcus J. Plaisance Prairieville, Louisiana Michael T. Beckers Counsel for Defendants/ Appellees Brent P. Frederick MMR Constructors, Inc., Danielle N. Goren Inc. & MMR Offshore Services, Inc. MMR Group, Tiffany T. Kopfinger Baton Rouge, Louisiana Gus A. Fritchie, III Counsel for Defendant/Appellee New Orleans, Louisiana Continental Casualty Company Christine Lipsey Counsel for Defendant/Appellee Amanda Stout Ciber, Inc. Baton Rouge, Louisiana and Mark J. Chaney New Orleans, Louisiana and Christopher H. Toll Pro Hae Vice Greenwood Village, Colorado BEFORE: CRAIN, THERIOT, and HOLDRIDGE, JJ. 2 THERIOT, J. In this appeal, Dell, Inc. and Dell Marketing, L.P. ( collectively as " Dell") sometimes referred to seek review of the trial court' s judgment granting CamSoft Data Systems, Inc.' s (" CamSoft") William Lehr, Ph. D. Motion to Limit the Expert Testimony of Dr. For the following reasons, we vacate the trial court' s judgment, remand to the trial court, and deny the companion writ application, as well as CamSoft' s motion to strike, referred to this panel, as moot. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY The facts and procedural history are laid out in more detail in this court' s opinion in CamSoft Data Systems, Inc. v. Southern Electronics Supply, Inc., 2019- 0730 ( La. App. 1st Cir. 7/ 2/ 19) ( unpublished), which is also being issued this date. Relevant hereto, CamSoft filed a motion to limit the expert testimony of Dr. William Lehr, Ph.D., Dell' s opposition, expert economist. In response, Dell filed an and after two hearings — the first on September 13, 2018, and the second on April 2, 2019. - the trial court signed judgment granting the motion on April 3, 2019. From this judgment, Dell appeals pursuant to La. R.S. 51: 135. 1 DISCUSSION La. Code Civ. P. art. 1425M Reasons for Jud ment Dell has asserted the trial court erred by failing to comply with La. Code Civ. P. art. 1425( F)( 4) by failing to provide detailed reasons for limiting the testimony of Dr. William Lehr, Dell' s expert economist, when it granted CamSoft' s motion to limit his testimony. Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure article 1425( F)( 3) and ( 4) provide the following: As set forth in La. R.S. 51: 135, all interlocutory judgments in cases involving antitrust claims shall be appealable within five days and shall be heard and determined within twenty days after the appeal is lodged. 3 3) If the ruling of the court is made at the conclusion of the hearing, the court shall recite orally its findings of facts, conclusions of law, and reasons for judgment. If the matter is taken under advisement, the court shall render its ruling and provide written findings of facts, conclusions of law, and reasons for judgment not later than five days after the hearing. 4) The findings of facts, conclusions of law, and reasons judgment shall be made part of the record of the proceedings. for The findings of facts, conclusions of law, and reasons for judgment shall specifically include and address: a) The elements required to be satisfied for a person to testify under Articles 702 through 705 of the Louisiana Code of Evidence. b) The evidence presented at the hearing to satisfy the requirements of Articles 702 through 705 of the Louisiana Code of Evidence at trial. A decision by the judge as to whether or not a person shall be allowed to testify under Articles 702 through 705 of the Louisiana c) Code of Evidence at trial. d) The reasons of the judge detailing in law and fact why a person shall be allowed or disallowed to testify under Articles 702 through 705 of the Louisiana Code of Evidence. At the conclusion of the second hearing, the trial court stated its belief that Dr. Lehr " went outside of his scope," and that, although his opinion had value, it was only valuable within his area of expertise. The trial court added that it found it troubling that Dr. Lehr would rhetorically suggest that the trial court did not have a reason to question his expertise and methodology, and concluded that for those reasons, along with Dr. Lehr' s failure to render an opinion that could be adequately compared, controverted, explained, or tested, Dr. excluded except for the areas within his " conclusion, Lehr' s testimony should be specific expertise."' Despite this we find that neither the trial court' s reasons for judgment nor the judgment itself conformed to the requirements of La. Code Civ. P. was legal error. art. 1425. Robertson v. Doug Ashy Building Materials, Inc., pp. 28- 29 ( La. App. 1st Cir. ] 014111), This 2010- 1552, 77 So. 3d 339, 358- 359, writs denied, 2011- Z The court did not define the " specific expertise" to which it was referring. 4 2430, 2011- 2468 ( La. 1113112), 77 So. 3d 972, 973. We further find that the matter should be remanded to the trial court for compliance with La. Code Civ. P. art. 1425( F). Finding legal error requiring remand, we pretermit discussion of the remaining assignments of error. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, we vacate the trial court' s April 3, 2019 judgment denying Dell, Inc. Testimony of Dr. and Dell Marketing, L.P.' s Motion to Limit the Expert William Lehr, Ph.D., and remand to the trial court compliance with La. Code Civ. P. art. 1425( F)( 3) and ( 4). for We deny the companion writ application, as well as CamSoft' s motion to strike, referred to this panel, as moot. Costs of this appeal are to be assessed equally to appellants, Dell, Inc. and Dell Marketing, L.P., JUDGMENT and appellee, CamSoft Data Systems, Inc. VACATED; MATTER MOTION TO STRIKE DENIED AS MOOT. 5 REMANDED; WRIT AND

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.