Cybersecurity Expert Allowed to Opine on the Functionality of the Software Tools
Posted on November 12, 2025 by Expert Witness Profiler
This case arises from Plaintiff Cox Automotives, Inc’s (“Cox”) allegations that Defendant Super Dispatch Inc. (“Super Dispatch”) has committed false advertising, unfair competition, and other business torts against Cox. Super Dispatch denied the allegations.
Cox retained an expert in computer security, Dr. Micheal Bailey (1) to evaluate the cybersecurity measures Cox employed to protect its Central Dispatch platform; and (2) to analyze the functionality of the software tools that Super Dispatch uses to interact with Central Dispatch. Super Dispatch filed a motion to strike the first category of testimony on the basis that it will not be helpful to the jury, is based on insufficient facts, and his evaluation is conclusory. With respect to the second category, Super Dispatch argued that the functionality of the software tools is “a factual inquiry” that did not require expert testimony.
Defendant Super Dispatch Inc. filed a motion to exclude the testimony of Bailey.
Cybersecurity Expert Witness
Micheal Donald Bailey currently serves as a Professor and School Chair in the School of Cybersecurity and Privacy at the Georgia Institute of Technology.
He received a Ph.D. in Computer Science from the University of Michigan, a Master of Science degree in Computer Science from DePaul University, and a Bachelor of Science in Computer Science from the University of Illinois.
Discussion by the Court
With respect to Bailey’s testimony about Cox’s cybersecurity measures, one of the issues in this case is whether Super Dispatch violated Missouri
Uniform Trade Secrets Act (“MUTSA”).
As an expert in computer security, Bailey’s testimony will help the jury understand industry practices for protecting electronic data and the
types of controls put in place by Cox. Moreover, Bailey’s evaluation was guided by three widely recognized cybersecurity frameworks and included interviews with a knowledgeable Cox witness, direct interaction with the Central Dispatch platform, and review of relevant documentation. Based on those assessments, Bailey evaluated whether the cybersecurity measures in place for Central Dispatch are consistent with recognized guidelines and industry expectations.
Analysis
The Court held that his testimony is not conclusory in any sense of the word. It is based on substantive analysis as demonstrated by his report. However, Bailey may not testify that Cox’s efforts to maintain the secrecy of information in the Central Dispatch were reasonable under MUTSA—an issue reserved for the jury—but he may testify that they were consistent with respect to industry expectations, standards, and guidelines.
Moreover, the functionality of the tools Super Dispatch used to interact with Central Dispatch, e.g., the digital “scraper” that Super Dispatch allegedly used to mine information behind Central Dispatch’s paywall without authorization, underlies all of Cox’s claims. The Court held that Bailey’s testimony will help the jury understand how these tools operate. Thus, his testimony is relevant.
His analysis includes source code where available (i.e., scraper and Chrome extension), direct interaction where available (i.e., Chrome extension), and review of relevant documentation and testimony.
Finally, the Court rejected Super Dispatch’s suggestion that its access of the Central Dispatch platform is a “factual inquiry” that should only be presented to the jury through “fact witnesses with personal knowledge.” This argument misconstrues one of the roles of expert testimony: to help the trier of fact understand the evidence.
Held
The Court granted in part and denied in part the Defendant Super Dispatch Inc.’s motion to exclude the testimony of Dr. Michael Bailey.
Key Takeaway:
Evidence regarding the software tools that Super Dispatch used to access Central Dispatch will involve highly technical subject matter, including source code, the operation of browser extensions, the use of an App to extract data from a third-party website, and two techniques for using automated means to post information to a third-party website. Expert testimony on these complex technical issues will be helpful to the jury.
Case Details:
| Case Caption: | Cox Automotive Inc. V. Super Dispatch Inc. |
| Docket Number: | 4:24cv292 |
| Court Name: | United States District Court, Missouri Western |
| Order Date: | November 11, 2025 |
