Plaintiffs Donna Wood, Caelan Doherty, Max Goldstein, Bridget Logan, James Kyle Newman, Lakisha Watson-Moore, Tristan Angulo, Alexandra Marie Wheatley-Diaz, Robin Ceppos, and Nick Coker (together, “Plaintiffs”), individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, bring this collective and class action against Mike Bloomberg 2020, Inc. (the “Campaign” or the “Defendant”), asserting claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act (the “FLSA”) and state labor laws.
In November 2019, Michael Bloomberg announced his candidacy for President of the United States. The Campaign’s purpose was to advance Bloomberg’s presidential candidacy. Plaintiffs worked as Field Organizers (“FOs”) and “were tasked with primarily conducting phone calls and door-to-door canvassing with potential voters in the day-to-day functional work of the Campaign.”
Plaintiffs offered testimony from Jonathan Jaffe as an expert witness to establish that Plaintiffs communicated data in interstate commerce so as to be individually covered by the FLSA.
The Campaign presented arguments regarding the admissibility of his testimony under Rule 702 and Rule 403.
Technology Expert Witness
Jonathan Jaffe is a technology consultant, data scientist, software developer, and the founder and owner of Its-Your-Internet, an advanced technology software and general litigation support consulting firm, established in 2008.
His areas of expertise include “how the interne works, how a data center works, how we code things, how these apps work, [and] how these applications work,” and he has testified as an expert in numerous other matters.
Discussion by the Court
Jaffe opined that “Plaintiffs and opt-in Plaintiffs transmitted data and information across state lines using the NGP Van system” and “the Thru Talk system.”
Jaffe describes how, based on the material he reviewed, data that Plaintiffs collected would cross state lines (1) when it was stored in a single, national database located in another state, and (2) when it was aggregated to be viewed by employees in the Campaign’s headquarters in New York.
He relied on evidence that FOs collected voter data and inputted that data into VAN and ThruTalk. Jaffe noted that, in order to transmit the data they had collected across state lines for storage in a database located in another state, Plaintiffs either manually clicked a button to “sync” or enabled an “auto-sync” feature in the software.
Jaffe compares the “function of the underlying system” to “a long-distance phone call [by which] an individual would not physically transport their voice across state line[s] [but] effected the transmission of their voice across state lines by dialing the number” or “mailing a package through UPS or FedEx” whereby a delivery person, rather than the sender, physically transports the package.
Rule 702
The Campaign insists that Jaffe’s analysis merely “addresses an entirely different question: whether data and information that was entered in VAN and ThruTalk by Plaintiffs crossed state lines at all, at any point, by operation of the equipment being used, without consideration of whether Plaintiffs were responsible for the purported transmission.”
The Campaign’s highly technical relevance argument—that “whether Plaintiffs transmitted data” with a specific action is a different question from whether “the software’s internal workings” or a “headquarters request for information from another state” caused the data transmission —is not supported by the case law.
The Court stated that none of the cases cited by the Campaign establish a causation requirement for individual FLSA coverage.
The Campaign next insists that Jaffe’s conclusions are unreliable because his “opinions and testimony are based on insufficient facts and data, and they are the product of inappropriate speculation.”
The Court found that the Campaign’s argument, namely that “Jaffe admittedly never used the software systems at issue, and he also lacked the information required to establish that all Plaintiffs used the software systems,” does not satisfy this high bar.
While Jaffe never used the software systems at issue, he “utilized [his] 25 years expertise and experience with developing, expanding, and evaluating Enterprise level software systems.”
The Campaign’s assertion that Jaffe’s opinions lack reliability because “he did not confirm that all Plaintiffs used the VAN and/or ThruTalk software” and “did not have the data required to make determinations regarding the number of days that Plaintiffs may have transmitted data across state lines, the amount of time in each day that Plaintiffs may have spent transmitting data across state lines, or the volume of data that Plaintiffs may have transmitted across state lines” was likewise rejected by the Court.
Rule 403
The Campaign first argues that Jaffe’s opinions and testimony are not relevant within the meaning of Daubert “because they will not assist in understanding or resolving the issue of Plaintiffs’ alleged individual FLSA coverage.”
However, Jaffe’s conclusions that “Plaintiffs and opt-in Plaintiffs transmitted data and information across state lines using the NGP Van system” and “the Thru Talk system” are plainly relevant to the question of whether Plaintiffs’ work involved the use of instrumentalities for communication across state lines.
The Campaign’s argument that “Jaffe fails to present information and opinions that would assist the jury in resolving whether Plaintiffs transmitted data across state lines and whether they did so on a regular and recurrent basis, and he instead opines on whether data was transmitted across state lines at all, without consideration of whose actions caused the transmission or the frequency of transmission” does not present a danger of misleading the jury.
Basically, Jaffe does not opine on the ultimate legal issue—whether Plaintiffs are individually covered under the FLSA.
Held
The Court denied the Campaign’s motion to exclude the opinions and testimony of Jonathan Jaffe.
Key Takeaway:
While Jaffe never used the software systems at issue, he “utilized [his] 25 years expertise and experience with developing, expanding, and evaluating Enterprise level software systems.” Moreover, Jaffe’s conclusions are plainly relevant to the question of whether Plaintiffs’ work involved the use of instrumentalities for communication across state lines.
The Campaign’s arguments, therefore, go to the weight, rather than the admissibility, of the opinion in connection with the determination of whether Plaintiffs have met their burden to establish individual coverage under FLSA.
Case Details:
| Case Caption: | Wood V. Mike Bloomberg 2020, Inc. |
| Docket Number: | 1:20cv2489 |
| Court: | United States District Court, New York Southern |
| Order Date: | March 31, 2025 |
