1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 ALFA CONSULT SA, Case No. 21-cv-00812-BLF

8 Plaintiff,

ORDER DENYING WITHOUT

9 v. PREJUDICE DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO EXCLUDE PLAINTIFF'S EXPERT 10 TCI INTERNATIONAL, INC., HAIDER ALA HAMOUDI 11 Defendant. [Re: ECF No. 76]

12 13 On February 27, 2023, Plaintiff ALFA Consult SA (“Plaintiff” or “Alfa”) filed the instant 14 complaint against Defendant TCI International, Inc. (“Defendant” or “TCI”). See Amended 15 Complaint (“AC”), ECF No. 68. Trial in this action is scheduled to begin on January 8, 2024. 16 Order Extending Case Deadlines (“Scheduling Order”), ECF No. 73. Pursuant to the Scheduling 17 Order, the parties’ deadline to file dispositive motions and Daubert motions was May 4, 2023, and 18 the deadline to file motions in limine is October 19, 2023. Id. On May 4, 2023, Defendant filed 19 the pending motion to exclude the expert opinions, testimony, and report of Haider Ala Hamoudi. 20 See Defendant’s Notice of Motion and Motion to Exclude Plaintiff’s Expert Haider Ala Hamoudi 21 (“Motion”), ECF No. 76. 22 A Daubert motion requests that the district court exercise its role as a gatekeeper when 23 evaluating expert testimony under Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and “ensure that any and all 24 scientific testimony or evidence admitted is not only relevant, but reliable.” Daubert v. Merrell 25 Dow Pharms., Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 589 (1993). “Scientific evidence is reliable if the principles and 26 methodology used by an expert are grounded in the methods of science.” Grodzitsky v. Am. 27 Honda Motor Co., Inc., 957 F.3d 979, 984 (9th Cir. 2017) (citation omitted); see also Kumho Tire 1 obligation applies not only to scientific testimony but to all expert testimony). “The focus of the 2 || district court's analysis must be solely on principles and methodology, not on the conclusions that 3 they generate, and the court's task is to analyze not what the experts say, but what basis they have 4 || for saying it.” Id. at 984-85 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). The district court 5 || considers four narrow questions in a Daubert analysis: (1) whether the theory or technique 6 || employed by the expert is generally accepted in the scientific community; (2) whether it has been 7 subjected to peer review and publication; (3) whether it can be and has been tested; and (4) 8 whether the known or potential rate of error is acceptable. /d. at 985 (citation and quotation marks 9 omitted). 10 Defendant seeks to exclude Mr. Hamoudi’s evidence on four grounds, only one of which is 11 that his “opinions are unreliable and invade the province of the court and the jury by improperly 12 applying the law to the facts of the case and telling the jury which factual and legal conclusions to 5 13 || reach from the evidence.” Mot. 1. Upon review, the two vague references to reliability in 14 || Defendant’s arguments—i.e., that Mr. Hamoudi did not provide a proper basis for three statements 3 15 in his expert report, see id. at 9—do not convert this motion to exclude evidence into a narrower 16 || Daubert motion. The real thrust of the Motion is that Mr. Hamoudi’s evidence is not relevant. 3 17 || See generally id. Whether the Court will require the assistance of a foreign law expert is properly 18 addressed at the final pretrial conference. 19 The Court therefore finds that the Motion is an impermissibly early motion in limine, 20 || rather than a Daubert motion, and hereby denies the Motion as improper. This denial is without 21 prejudice to the Motion being timely refiled as a motion in limine of five or fewer pages, as 22 || required by Section IV(A)(2) of this Court’s standing orders. 23 IT IS SO ORDERED. 24 Dated: June 20, 2023 25 26 _fliInfdedian

BETH LABSON FREEMAN

United States District Judge 28