Presence of ​Some Benchmark Differences Does Not Necessitate Daubert Exclusion of Yardstick Damages Model

The court denied defendants’ Daubert motion to exclude the yardstick damages model of plaintiff’s expert and determined the expert’s choice of benchmarks made the model sufficiently reliable. “⁠[Defendants assert] that the benchmarks [plaintiff’s expert] selected are too different from [plaintiff] to provide a reliable model of the but-for world. . . . Defendants have identified some important differences between [the expert’s] selected benchmark companies and [plaintiff]. But these differences alone do not make [the expert’s] testimony unreliable . . . . [The expert] concluded that the commonalities between [the benchmark company and plaintiff]–an online platform, a business model based on endorsement by state dental associations, and a customer base of cost-sensitive solo practitioners and small dentistry practices–made the former’s experience relevant despite the companies’ differences. [The expert] reached a similar conclusion about [another comparator], whose business model in the dental industry was also based on receiving endorsements from state dental associations. The benchmarks [plaintiff’s expert] selected are sufficiently comparable to permit a degree of reliable comparison, and therefore do not render his damages calculation inadmissible.”

SourceOne Dental, Inc. v. Patterson Companies, Inc. et al, 2-15-cv-05440 (NYED 2018-05-10, Order) (Brian M. Cogan)

2018-05-14T11:46:02+00:00May 14th, 2018|Antitrust, Docket Report|