Court Opinion

ID: 9755360
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-28 20:35:37.866769+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:53:49.764504
License: Public Domain

PHIL HARDBERGER, Chief Justice,
dissenting.
This case tests the abuse of discretion standard for the trial court acting as the “gatekeeper” for expert testimony. The trial court took all the appropriate steps that a “gatekeeper” is supposed to take and, in my opinion, decided the admissibility question with ample evidence to make the court’s decision a reasonable one. I do not think there was an abuse of discretion, but my learned colleagues disagree, so I must respectfully dissent. I dissent to all of the majority opinion with the sole exception of the majority’s conclusion that the oral call center contract was barred by the statute of frauds. I agree it was.
The majority concludes that the evidence is legally insufficient to support the jury’s damage award. The basis of the majority’s conclusion is the majority’s determination that the testimony of James Perdiew and Dr. Harvey Sundel was unre*470liable. Perdiew and Dr. Snndel testified regarding the projected net profit of the BizLink program had it been fully launched as represented by SBC. Because a third expert, David Marshall, used the net profit projections provided by Dr. Sun-del in calculating the terminal value of the BizLink program, the majority also rejects Marshall’s testimony as unreliable. I respectfully dissent because the trial court did not abuse its discretion in determining that the testimony of Perdiew and Dr. Sundel was sufficiently reliable and, therefore, was admissible.
A. Standard of Review
A two-part test governs whether expert testimony is admissible: (1) the expert must be qualified; and (2) the testimony must be relevant and be based on a reliable foundation. Helena Chemical Co. v. Wilkins, 47 S.W.3d 486, 499 (Tex.2001). The trial court makes the initial determination about whether the expert and the proffered testimony meet these requirements. Id. The trial court has broad discretion to determine admissibility, and we will reverse only if there is an abuse of that discretion. Id.
In E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Co., Inc. v. Robinson, six nonexclusive factors were identified to determine whether an expert’s testimony is reliable. 923 S.W.2d 549, 557 (Tex.1995). However, the Texas Supreme Court has recognized that the Robinson factors will not apply to all experts’ testimony. See Gammill v. Jack Williams Chevrolet, Inc., 912, S.W.2d 713, 726-27 (Tex.1998). In those instances, there still must be some basis for the opinion offered to show its reliability, and, ultimately, the trial court must determine how to assess reliability. Helena, 47 S.W.3d at 499.
B. James Perdiew
James Perdiew was called as an expert to testify regarding the anticipated revenues and expenses for the BizLink program during the three-year term of the MSA. Perdiew testified that he has been involved in direct marketing for thirty years. For six years, Perdiew had worked in market planning and analysis, advertising and sales promotion at a large department store chain. Perdiew then worked eleven years as a national account executive for a company that provided consultative direct marketing services for a variety of direct marketing firms around the United States. In 1982, Perdiew started his own firm that provides consultative direct marketing services to various clients. Perdiew had worked on programs offering a package of benefits or services to small businesses similar to the BizLink program. As part of his services, Perdiew worked to develop projections by building econometric models, which are “mathematical depictions of a business” that “try to take into account all of the key things that affect a business so that from a mathematical and financial point of view, [we] can evaluate the affect [sic] of changes and so we can project what happens over time.” Perdiew stated that he uses a 90 percent level of confidence in his calculations. Perdiew testified that his methodology is called “standard procedures” in the direct marketing business.
SBC and SBTC assert numerous specific reasons to support their contention that Perdiew’s opinion was unreliable. The following summarizes the assertions and the reason I believe the record does not support the assertions.
(1) Perdiew is a marketing expert and, therefore, is not qualified to testify as a damages expert.
The evidence showed that Perdiew has thirty years of direct marketing experience and routinely develops econometric models in the course of his business. Accordingly, Perdiew was qualified to give his testimony.
*471(2) Perdiew used response rates that were based on predictions as opposed to actual results.
Perdiew explained that the reason he did not use the response rate reported by RMG was due to the early cut-off of results. Perdiew explained that the results were only counted for forty-eight days; therefore, the actual reported response rate was not a proper measure.
(3) Perdiew used higher response rates for certain vendors based on his experience, and Perdiew’s estimation of enrollment rate and growth rate were unreliable.
The higher response rates were based both on Perdiew’s experience and SBC’s estimates. Just as “[ojbserva-tions of enough bees in various circumstances to show a pattern would be enough to support [a beekeeper’s] opinion,” Gammill) 972 S.W.2d [at] 726, the measuring of response rates to various vendors in numerous direct marketing programs provides a basis for Perdiew to use his experience in providing a response rate taking into consideration SBC’s estimates. Furthermore, Perdiew’s estimation of enrollment rate and growth rate were based on his vast experience in direct marketing programs.
(4) Perdiew should not have included telemarketing efforts in his calculation.
Perdiew stated that telemarketing was used in reality, telemarketing was included in the business plan, and “part of [Perdiew’s] role [was] to project how the BizLink business would have performed if allowed to go forward using the best practices in direct marketing. That would have included telemarketing.” This is a sufficient explanation of Perdiew’s reason for including telemarketing.
(5)Perdiew failed to allocate the lost profits between SBC, BEI, and ADAR, failed to include general and administrative costs, and failed to consider the financial condition of BEI and ADAR.
Perdiew explained that the allocation of the lost profits was not within the scope of his assignment. Perdiew was assigned to evaluate the BizLink program. Perdiew did not evaluate ADAR, BEI or SBC. If BEI or ADAR had a negative net worth, Perdiew explained that “[i]t would have no bearing on the vitality of the BizLink program’s royalties.” Finally, Per-diew explained that “G & A is allocated to specific programs,” and “[t]he allocations are arbitrary and judgmental within each individual corporation. The direct costs involved with operating a program or a part of a business are necessary to evaluate the feasibility of the business.”
Considering Perdiew’s testimony as a whole, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting Perdiew’s testimony because it was sufficiently reliable. Perdiew’s econometric model requires certain assumptions to be made. Perdiew explained those assumptions and the basis for them. In those instances in which the assumptions differed from actual results, Perdiew explained why the data from the test launch was unreliable.
C. Dr. Harvey H. Sundel
Dr. Harvey Sundel has a bachelor’s and master’s degree in marketing. He also has a Ph.D in business administration with an emphasis in marketing. Dr. Sundel has taught marketing and been involved in marketing research for over 30 years. Dr. Sundel has his own consulting firm which does market research. Dr. Sundel has performed services for numerous industries including telecommunications. Dr. Sundel’s telecommunications clients in-*472elude AT & T, U.S. West, Nextel Communications, and Southwestern Bell. Dr. Sun-del’s firm performs approximately 200 projects a year. Approximately 20% of the projects Sundel performs require projections.
SBC and SBTC assert numerous specific criticisms of Dr. Sundel’s testimony. The following summarizes the assertions and the reason I believe the record does not support the assertions.
(1) Dr. Sundel has no qualifications in either cost accounting or in performing a damage calculation.
The evidence showed that Dr. Sundel has marketing degrees and wide experience in conducting marketing research, including making projections regarding a project’s revenues and expenses.
(2) Dr. Sundel’s calculations included rates that “bore no resemblence to actual experience.”
Dr. Sundel explained the basis for each figure included in the calculation. The figures were based on either actual results adjusted for information learned in the test launch that would be applied in the full roll-out or Dr. Sundel’s experience applied to SBC’s planned projections.
(3) Dr. Sundel included telemarketing after SBC was out of the program. Dr. Sundel stated that telemarketing was used during the test launch and BEI informed him BEI intended to continue telemarketing efforts.
(4) Dr. Sundel did not include an adjustment for the advent of the internet. Nothing in the record would support the need for including such an adjustment.
(5) Dr. Sundel accepted the expense amounts provided by BEI.
SBC and SBTC provide no record citations to evidence indicating that those numbers are unreliable.
(6)Dr. Sundel’s model did not divide the royalties between SBC, BEI, and ADAR.
Dr. Sundel was reviewing the revenues and costs for the BizLink Program, not determining what each of the participating companies would receive as a result.
Considering Dr. Sundel’s testimony as a whole, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting Dr. Sundel’s testimony because it was sufficiently rehable. Although Dr. Sundel’s calculations required certain assumptions to be made, Dr. Sundel explained those assumptions and the basis for them. In those instances in which the assumptions differed from actual results, Dr. Sundel explained why the data from the test launch was unreliable or adjusted.
D. Conclusion
The majority’s primary criticism of Per-diew is that he “did not factor in actual data from the test launch,” and the majority’s primary criticism of Dr. Sundel is that his conclusions “were based on his assumptions” which had “no basis in fact.” However, Perdiew explained his “standard procedures” methodology which is used in the direct marketing business, and he further explained the concept of the econometric model he used. In addition, Dr. Sundel explained that he used the data from the media test that was reliable. Both Per-diew and Dr. Sundel only made assumptions when the media test data was unreliable because SBC cut off the collection of data before the data could reliably measure the response to the BizLink program. In view of the prior focus group study demonstrating that customers needed time in order to be convinced that the BizLink program did not come with a “catch,” SBC was aware that the data would not reliably measure the response to the BizLink program if the results were prematurely cut *473off. Therefore, Perdiew and Dr. Sundel properly refused to base their calculations on SBC’s reported data because opinions drawn from unreliable foundational data are likewise unreliable. See Helena, 47 S.W.Bd at 499. Both Perdiew and Dr. Sundel demonstrated that their opinions comported with applicable professional standards and had a rehable basis in the knowledge and experience of their marketing discipline. See id.
Because the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the testimony of Perdiew and Dr. Sundel, their testimony was more than a scintilla of evidence to support the jury’s damage award. I would affirm the jury’s verdict with the exception of the damages awarded for the breach of the oral call center contract.