Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_18-cv-00612/USCOURTS-cand-5_18-cv-00612-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 130
Nature of Suit: Miller Act
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question: Breach of Contract

---

Case No.: 5:18-cv-00612-EJD

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO EXCLUDE

1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

FOR THE USE AND BENEFIT OF 

BERGELECTRIC CORP., et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

SAUER, INC., et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 5:18-cv-00612-EJD 

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO 

EXCLUDE EXPERT TESTIMONY OF 

MARK ZOLLMAN

Re: Dkt. No. 111

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 702, Sauer moves to exclude the testimony of Mike 

Zollman (“Zollman”) related to (1) calculation of lost productivity damages for rough-in work 

based on a measured mile analysis; (2) calculation of lost productivity for finish work based on a 

“loss percentage” derived from the rough-in analysis; and (3) calculation of a daily rate for jobsite 

overhead costs related to alleged delay. Dkt. No. 111. Sauer also contends that Zollman’s 

causation opinions related to interpretation of meeting minutes and letters should be excluded 

because they usurp the role of the trier of fact and require no specialized knowledge to assist the 

same. For the reasons stated below, Sauer’s motion will be denied.

I. STANDARDS

Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence provides that expert opinion evidence is 

admissible if: (1) the witness is sufficiently qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, 

training, or education; (2) the witness’s scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will 

Case 5:18-cv-00612-EJD Document 120 Filed 01/29/20 Page 1 of 6
Case No.: 5:18-cv-00612-EJD

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO EXCLUDE

2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

help the trier of fact to understand the evidence or resolve a factual issue; (3) the testimony is 

based on “sufficient facts or data;” (4) “the testimony is the product of reliable principles and 

methods”; and (5) the witness reliably applies the relevant principles and methods to the facts of 

the case. Fed. R. Evid. 702 (2019). The trial court serves a gatekeeping function to prevent 

unreliable and irrelevant information from being presented at trial. See Daubert v. Merrell Dow 

Pharm., Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 584 (1993). In performing this function, the trial court must 

determine “whether the expert is proposing to testify to (1) scientific knowledge that (2) will assist 

the trier of fact to understand or determine a fact in issue.” Id. at 590. 

Where the matter will proceed by bench trial as in this instance, “the importance of the trial 

court’s gatekeeper role is significantly diminished . . . because, there being no jury, there is no 

risk of tainting the trial by exposing a jury to unreliable evidence.” Whitehouse Hotel Ltd. P’ship 

v. Comm’r of Internal Revenue, 615 F.3d 321, 330 (5th Cir. 2010); see also Fed. Trade Comm’n v. 

BurnLounge, Inc., 753 F.3d 878, 888 (9th Cir. 2014) (“When we consider the admissibility of 

expert testimony, we are mindful that there is less danger that a trial court will be unduly 

impressed by the expert’s testimony or opinion in a bench trial.” (quotation omitted)); Volk v. 

United States, 57 F. Supp. 2d 888, 896 n. 5 (N.D. Cal. 1999) (“[T]he Daubert gatekeeping 

obligation is less pressing in connection with a bench trial” where “the ‘gatekeeper’ and the trier 

of fact [are] one and the same.”)

II. DISCUSSION

Berg retained Zollman to opine about Berg’s claimed damages. According to Zollman’s 

report, (1) Sauer caused Berg to be less productive during all rough-in activities on each floor of 

each building; (2) Berg is entitled to damages resulting from alleged loss of productivity for its 

rough-in labor amounting to $1,123,809.37 before overhead and profit; (3) Berg is entitled to 

damages resulting from alleged loss of productivity for its finish labor amounting to $314,528.36 

before overhead and profit; and (4) Berg is entitled to jobsite time-related costs for delay 

amounting to $497,402.36 before overhead and profit. G. Martin Decl. ¶¶ 3, 6-7,10; M. Zollman 

Expert Report on Damages (the “Report”), 10-20, 23-24.

Case 5:18-cv-00612-EJD Document 120 Filed 01/29/20 Page 2 of 6
Case No.: 5:18-cv-00612-EJD

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO EXCLUDE

3

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

A. Zollman’s Qualifications

Sauer stated at the hearing on January 29, 2020 that it does not challenge Zollman’s 

qualifications as an expert.

B. Lost Productivity Calculations For Rough-in Work

Zollman opines that Berg’s loss of productivity damages for rough-in work is 

$1,123,809.37. Zollman arrives at this figure by performing a “measured mile” analysis, which is 

a recognized and accepted method of calculating loss of productivity. See United States of Am. for 

the Use of Salinas Constr., Inc. v. W. Sur. Co., No. 14-1963 JLR, 2016 WL 3632487, at *3 (W.D. 

Wash. July 7, 2016); see also Safeco Ins. Co. of Am. v. Cty. of San Bernardino, 347 Fed. Appx. 

315, 318 (9th Cir. 2009). “The measured mile method is a technique whereby an unimpacted 

period or area or activity of construction work is compared with another period or area or activity 

of construction work that has been disrupted, the assumption being that the difference between the 

labor or equipment hours expended per unit of work performed in the unimpacted and impacted 

periods represents the loss to the contractor due to the impact or disruption for which another party 

is responsible.” Salinas Constr., 2016 WL 3632487, at *3 (quoting Lee Davis et al., Does the 

“Measured Mile” Measure Up? When It Has, When It Hasn't, and What May Happen Under

Daubert/Kumho, Construction Briefings No. 2007-4 (April 2007)) (emphasis added).

Sauer contends that Zollman’s measured mile analysis should be rejected for several 

reasons. Sauer contends that the documents Zollman relies upon are materially flawed in that: 

“(1) the unimpacted period contains rough-in labor hours for underslab work not performed in the 

impacted period; (2) Berg’s cost codes are limited, which resulted in dissimilar work being billed 

under the same code; (3) when Berg’s rough-in labor hours are compared against the daily reports, 

significant and consistent errors are present resulting in various activities being billed under an 

incorrect code; and (4) Zollman’s analysis lumps all rough-in work on multiple floors of multiple 

buildings across the project into one location for purposes of his attempted measured mile.” Mot. 

at 7. Zollman disagrees with these arguments with reasoned counterpoints. Zollman Decl. ¶¶ 24-

42 (Dkt. No. 114-1). In any event, the alleged flaws bear on the weight of Zollman’s testimony, 

Case 5:18-cv-00612-EJD Document 120 Filed 01/29/20 Page 3 of 6
Case No.: 5:18-cv-00612-EJD

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO EXCLUDE

4

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

not its admissibility. “[D]istrict courts within and outside this district have often concluded that 

experts’ decisions about what data to use in their analysis bear on the weight, not the admissibility, 

of expert testimony.” In re Qualcomm Antitrust Litig., 328 F.R.D. 280, 305 (N.D. Cal. 2018) 

(collecting cases). And an expert may rely on data that others collected. See Safeco Ins. Co. Of 

Am. v. Cty. Of San Bernardino, 347 F.App’x 315, 317 (9th Cir. 2009) (upholding award of lost 

productivity damages based on expert testimony using measured mile approach). The alleged 

flaws in Zollman’s measured mile analysis for rough-in work may be tested during trial “through 

competing evidence and incisive cross-examination.” Id. (quoting Murray v. S. Route Mar. SA, 

870 F.3d 915, 925 (9th Cir. 2017)). 

C. Lost Productivity Calculations For Finish Work

Zollman opines that Berg is entitled to damages resulting from alleged loss of productivity 

for its finish labor amounting to $314,528.36. Zollman arrives at this figure as follows. Zollman 

first derives a loss percentage from the measured mile analysis he conducted for rough-in work by 

taking the loss of productivity hours (16,401) and dividing that number by the total rough-in hours 

(32,836.25), which equals 49.9%. Next, Zollman applies that loss of productivity percentage to 

the total number of hours expended on finish work (9,190.25)), and arrives at 4,590 hours. 

Zollman then multiplies 4,590 by an hourly labor cost of $68.52 to arrive at $314,528.36. 

Sauer contends that Zollman’s opinions regarding loss of productivity for finish work 

should be rejected because his methodology is unsound: he does not apply a measured mile 

analysis; he does not provide any basis to extrapolate the results of his analysis on rough-in work 

to finish work; he assumes without any factual basis that both types of work were performed under

the same conditions; and he does not show that finish work was actually impacted. Moreover, 

Sauer contends that Berg’s own cost accounting system shows that Berg actually saved

$54,113.67 on finish labor. Mot. at 10. 

Berg provides a persuasive rebuttal. Berg explains that a measured mile analysis could not 

be performed because such an analysis requires a comparison of an unimpacted period of 

construction work to an impacted period of construction work, and in this case, the entire period of 

Case 5:18-cv-00612-EJD Document 120 Filed 01/29/20 Page 4 of 6
Case No.: 5:18-cv-00612-EJD

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO EXCLUDE

5

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

finish work was impacted. Berg also asserts that the finish work was, in fact, performed under 

similar conditions as the impacted rough-in work. More specifically, Berg asserts that both were 

impacted by “trade stacking, out-of-sequence work, compression, multiple passes, go-backs, reworks, concurrent rather than sequential work, interference from material staging, etc.” Opp’n at 

22 (Dkt. No. 114). Although Zollman’s analysis is not as precise as a measured mile, it has a 

reasonably sound basis and methodology and will not be excluded from trial. At trial, Sauer will 

have ample opportunity to test Zollman’s analysis on cross-examination.

D. Delay Damages

 According to Zollman’s calculations, Berg’s delay damages are $497,402.36. His 

calculation is based on an average of jobsite overhead costs, which consist of cleanup and general 

labor, equipment rentals, office supplies, material handling, per diem, supervision, temporary 

power maintenance, travel, and vehicles.

Sauer contends that the delay damages figure is artificially high because some of the 

overhead costs were not necessarily affected by the alleged delays. For example, Sauer contends 

that Berg’s Project Summary sheet shows that Berg was only over budget for per diems by 

$49,909.00, whereas Zollman claims Berg is entitled to $111,364.00 for per diem costs.

Berg responds that Zollman’s methodology for calculating a daily rate for damages is 

common in the construction industry and cannot legitimately be excluded. The Court agrees. 

Whether or not certain items of costs should be included in the analysis goes to the weight rather 

than the admissibility of Zollman’s delay damages calculations.

E. Opinions Re Causation

Zollman opines that Sauer caused Berg to lose labor productivity, and in doing so, he 

quotes extensively from Project correspondence. Report 11-14. Sauer contends that Zollman 

should be precluded from testifying on these subjects so as not to usurp the role of the trier of fact.

The Court concludes that the portions of Zollman’s report to which Sauer objects will not 

usurp the factfinder’s role. Zollman is not offering expert opinion about the Project 

correspondence. Instead, he reasonably relies on the correspondence to provide background 

Case 5:18-cv-00612-EJD Document 120 Filed 01/29/20 Page 5 of 6
Case No.: 5:18-cv-00612-EJD

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO EXCLUDE

6

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

information and to demonstrate the bases for his opinions. The Project correspondence indicate 

that Sauer made changes to the Project schedule, that there were time constraints, and Sauer 

acknowledged there was a “stacking effect on various work activities.” Report 13-14. 

Furthermore, because the Project correspondence contain party admissions under Rule 801 of the 

Federal Rules of Evidence, Zollman may reasonably rely upon the correspondence to support his 

causation analysis. 

III. ORDER

Sauer’s motion to exclude the expert testimony of Mike Zollman is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 29, 2020

______________________________________

EDWARD J. DAVILA

United States District Judge

Case 5:18-cv-00612-EJD Document 120 Filed 01/29/20 Page 6 of 6