Design Basics LLC v. Petros Homes, Inc., 1:14-cv-01966

Design Basics, LLC moved to exclude expert opinion testimony of architect Richard Kraly; court previously ruled on that motion in a July 3, 2017 order.
Plaintiff then filed a motion to reconsider the court’s decision to admit Kraly’s expert opinions; the magistrate judge addressed that motion.
Plaintiff argued Kraly should be excluded because he is not an expert in copyright law and plaintiff had not deposed him (allegedly due to case management scheduling).
The court treated the core question as whether Kraly, a registered architect, can assist the trier of fact in assessing substantial similarity of building plans, not whether he is a copyright-law expert.
The court noted its case-management order provides for a Daubert hearing if an expert’s qualifications are challenged, but plaintiff did not challenge Kraly’s qualifications as an architect; thus a Daubert hearing was unnecessary.
The court denied the motion to reconsider, confirmed the final pretrial, and required lead counsel and settlement-authority representatives to attend unless case resolves or summary judgment issues a decision.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Kraly should be excluded as an expert	Kraly lacks necessary expertise in copyright law and was not deposed, so his testimony should be excluded	Kraly is a registered architect whose expertise can aid the trier in dissecting plan similarities/differences	Denied — Kraly need not be a copyright-law expert; architect testimony is admissible under Rule 702
Whether a Daubert hearing is required	Court’s case-management order and lack of deposition justify a Daubert hearing to test qualifications	No substantive challenge to Kraly’s qualifications as an architect was raised, so a hearing is unnecessary	Denied — court has discretion and a hearing is unnecessary absent a challenge to architectural qualifications
Whether testimony about common architectural elements is admissible	Plaintiff contends lack of copyright expertise makes such testimony unhelpful/misleading	Expert can explain common design elements and distinctions relevant to copying analysis	Admissible — expert testimony can aid the jury in dissecting similarities and common design features
Whether reconsideration is warranted	Plaintiff asks the court to revisit its legal conclusions and gatekeeping analysis	Court defends prior ruling as legally correct and factually supported	Reconsideration denied — no basis shown to modify prior order

Arnstein v. Porter, 154 F.2d 464 (2d Cir.) (expert dissection and testimony may aid jury in determining copying)
LifeWise Master Funding v. Telebank, 374 F.3d 917 (10th Cir.) (expert must have verifiable expertise and a substantial foundation for opinion)
Nelson v. Tennessee Gas Pipeline Co., 243 F.3d 244 (6th Cir.) (district court has discretion to decide whether a Daubert hearing is necessary)