Electrical Engineering Expert’s Testimony Addressing the Coverage Gap Admitted
Posted on April 16, 2025 by Expert Witness Profiler
Puerto Rico Telephone Company (“Plaintiff” or “Claro”) brought this suit against the Municipality of Aguada, Hon. Christian Cortés-Feliciano, in his capacity as Mayor of the Municipality of Aguada, and Wesley Vega, in his capacity as Planning Director of the Municipality of Aguada (“Defendants” or “the Municipality”), for alleged violations of Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996 (“TCA”) based on Defendants’ denial of an application to install fiber optic cables and poles in the Municipality of Aguada in Puerto Rico.
Defendants challenged Plaintiff’s expert report prepared by Engineer Ricardo Matos-Acosta (“Eng. Matos-Acosta”), which they argue did not comport with Federal Rule of Evidence 702.
Electrical Engineering Expert Witness
Ricardo Matos-Acosta concentrated his practice in the following areas: electrical engineering, design, optimization, and planning of radio frequency (“RF”) wireless networks for voice, data, video and internet.
He completed a Master’s in Electrical Engineering at the Polytechnic University of Puerto Rico.
Discussion by the Court
Initially, the Defendants argued that Eng. Matos-Acosta’s report did not have any citation to “relevant scientific authorities that validate or otherwise support the methodology being employed” in the report, thus alleging a violation of Federal Rule of Evidence 702. Specifically, Matos-Acosta was hired to conduct an analysis of the current wireless service coverage in the Municipality of Aguada around a site that Claro identifies as “AGD1622,” where there is an existing tower.
Furthermore, the purpose of his report was to identify the existence of a coverage gap and the alternatives to addressing it. In his defense, Matos-Acosta stated in his sworn affidavit accompanying the report that he utilized his twenty-nine years of experience in electrical engineering, design, optimization, and planning of radio frequency (“RF”) wireless networks, in particular, his work experience in wireless systems for Claro since 1995, in preparing said report.
Analysis
To begin with, Eng. Matos-Acosta collected data from Claro’s Element and Network Management Server (the “ENM Server”) during a one-week period in October of 2023 to assess the RF wireless coverage and user experience in Aguada’s Río Grande sector. Moreover, Eng. Matos-Acosta explains each industry term used or relied on in his report. Finally, he provided numerous maps which demonstrated that signal levels in the subject area failed to meet Claro’s service-level standards, thereby supporting his opinion that said levels are insufficient to serve their customers in the area.
Upon review, a reading of his report makes clear that he gathered data, conducted various tests, and evaluated the findings using his experience in the telecommunications industry to determine whether a coverage gap exists and what options are available to address said gap. In contrast, the Municipality has not provided any testimony or expert opinion to rebut Claro’s showing that a significant gap in coverage exists. Most significantly, the Court held that the Municipality’s Daubert challenge did not point to specific parts of the report that were insufficient or articulate what about Eng. Matos-Acosta’s methodology is not in conformance with widely accepted industry methodologies, practices, and parameters. Instead, it attacks it broadly as unsupported by citations.
Held
The Court denied the Defendants’ Daubert motion to exclude Plaintiff’s expert Ricardo Matos-Acosta.
Key Takeaway:
Ricardo Matos-Acosta provided numerous maps which demonstrated that signal levels in the subject area failed to meet Claro’s service-level standards to support his opinion that said levels are insufficient to serve their customers in the area. Thus, a reading of his report makes clear that he gathered data, conducted various tests, and evaluated the findings using his experience in the telecommunications industry to determine whether a coverage gap existed and what options were available to address said gap.
Case Details:
| Case Caption: | Puerto Rico Telephone Company V. Municipality Of Aguada Et Al |
| Docket Number: | 3:22cv1315 |
| Court Name: | United States District Court, Puerto Rico |
| Order Date: | March 31, 2025 |
