Cook v. Rockwell Intern. Corp.
| Decision Date | 07 December 2006 |
| Docket Number | No. Civ.A. 90-CV-00181-JLK.,Civ.A. 90-CV-00181-JLK. |
| Citation | 580 F.Supp.2d 1071 |
| Parties | Merilyn COOK, et al., Plaintiffs, v. ROCKWELL INTERNATIONAL COPORATION and the Dow Chemical Company, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Colorado |
Bernadette M. Rappold, David F. Sorensen, Ellen T. Noteware, Eric L. Cramer, Jennifer E. MacNaughton, Jonathan Auerbach, Peter B. Nordberg, Stanley B. Siegel, Merrill Gene Davidoff, Berger & Montague, P.C., Philadelphia, PA, Christopher Thomas Reyna, John David Stoner, Chimicles & Tikellis, L.L.P., Haverford, PA, David Evans Kreutzer, Colorado Department of Law, Gary B. Blum, Holly Brons Shook, Silver & Deboskey, P.C., Denver, CO, Jean Marie Geoppinger, Louise M. Roselle, Waite, Schneider, Bayless & Chesley Co., L.P.A., Cincinnati, OH, Kenneth A. Jacobsen, Jacobsen Law Offices, LLC, Wallingford, PA, R. Bruce McNew, Taylor, Gruver & McNew, P.A., for Plaintiffs.
Amy Horton, Edward J. Naughton, Michael K. Isenman, Timothy P. Brooks, Wendy S. White, Goodwin Procter, LLP, Washington, DC, David M. Bernick, Douglas J. Kurtenbach, Mark S. Lillie, John E. Tangren, Stephanie A. Brennan, S. Jonathan Silverman, Kirkland & Ellis, P.C., Martin Thomas Tully, Katten Muchin Rosenman, LLP, Chicago, IL, Joseph John Bronesky, Sherman & Howard, L.L.C., Lester C. Houtz, Bartlit, Beck, Herman, Palenchar & Scott, Denver, CO, Louis W. Pribila, Dow Chemical Company, Midland, MI, for Defendants.
Table of Contents
Introduction....................................................................___
Standard for Review of Expert Witness Testimony.................................___
Analysis........................................................................___
I. Defendants' Daubert Motions and Motions in Limine...............___
A. Defendants' Relevancy Standard........................................___
B. Motion to Exclude Plaintiffs' Expert Witness Testimony Relating to
Risk.................................................................___
1. Dr. Robert Goble...................................................___
2. Dr. Richard Clapp..................................................___
3. Dr. Steven Wing....................................................___
4. Dr. K. Shawn Smallwood.............................................___
C. Motion to Exclude Plaintiffs' Expert Witness Testimony Relating to
Damages..............................................................___
1. Dr. John Radke.....................................................___
2. Dr. Paul Slovic and Dr. James Flynn................................___
3. Wayne Hunsperger...................................................___
D. Defendants' Motion to Exclude Plaintiffs' Expert Witness Testimony
Relating to Conduct and Associated Motions in Limine.................___
1. Motions in limine to exclude conduct evidence (Nos. 6-12)..........___
2. Motion to exclude expert testimony by Dr. Robert Budnitz...........___
3. Motion to exclude expert testimony by Dr. Thomas Cochran...........___
E. Defendants' Additional Motions in Limine..............................___
1. Motions to exclude evidence regarding the FBI raid, grand jury
investigation and Rockwell's guilty pleas (Nos. 1-3)..............___
2. Motions to exclude evidence regarding other lawsuits (Nos. 14 &
15)...............................................................___
3. Motions to exclude evidence involving the Department of Energy
(Nos. 4 & 5)......................................................___
4. Motion to exclude certain lay witness testimony (No. 13)...........___
5. Motion to exclude evidence regarding remediation costs (No. 16)....___
II. Plaintiffs' Daubert Motion and Motion in Limine................___
A. Request to Exclude Certain Expert Testimony in its Entirety..........___
1. Daniel Conway.....................................................___
2. John Dorchester...................................................___
3. Geneva Smart......................................................___
4. Dr. Jack M. Holl..................................................___
B. Request to Limit Certain Expert Testimony............................___
1. Dr. Ward Whicker..................................................___
2. Laurie Van Court..................................................___
3. Expert testimony regarding the ability to abate plutonium
contamination in the Class Area..................................___
4. Expert testimony regarding RAC and Chem Risk studies..............___
C. Request to Exclude Certain Expert and Lay Evidence...................___
1. Evidence of Class Area property values after 1992.................___
2. Evidence of Class Members' knowledge of Rocky Flats problems......___
3. Evidence of Defendants' alleged compliance with regulatory
standards........................................................___
D. Request to Exclude Certain Lay Evidence..............................___
1. National security evidence........................................___
2. Lay testimony by real estate agents...............................___
3. Lay testimony by Roy Thigpen......................................___
Conclusion......................................................................___
This class action presents claims for trespass and nuisance against the former operators of the Rocky Flats Nuclear Weapons Plant ("Rocky Flats") near Denver. The named Plaintiffs represent a class of individuals and businesses that owned property in a defined area (the "Class Area") adjoining the plant site as of June 7, 1989.1 Plaintiffs seek damages for the diminished value of Class members' properties as a result of Defendants' alleged trespass and nuisance.
In February 2005, I set the class claims for an eight to ten week jury trial commencing on October 3, 2005. See Order (Doc. 1325).2 As part of the run-up to trial, I ordered the parties to file any motions challenging the admissibility of expert witness testimony ("Daubert motions") and any other motions in limine no later than June 16, 2005. See Order on Scheduling and Jury Instruction Issues (Doc. 1338) at 1 (May 17, 2005)[hereinafter "May 2005 Order"]; Minute Order (Doc. 1340).
Defendants responded by filing nineteen motions seeking to exclude all testimony by Plaintiffs' eleven designated expert witnesses and much of Plaintiffs' anticipated lay evidence. Defs.' Mot. to Exclude Expert Witness Test. Relating to Damages (Doc. 1371); Defs.' Mot. to Exclude Expert Witness Test. Relating to Defs.' Conduct (Doc. 1374); Defs.' Mot. to Exclude Expert Witness Test. Relating to Risk (Doc. 1376/1380); Defs.' Mots. in Limine Nos. 1-16 (Docs.1354-69). Plaintiffs filed two, more limited motions seeking to exclude or limit the testimony of eleven of the eighteen or more expert witnesses designated by Defendants and to exclude certain lay evidence. See Pls.' Mot. to Exclude Test. of Certain Defense Expert Witnesses (Doc. 1350); Pls.' Omnibus Mot. in Limine (Doc. 1341). By the time briefing was completed on these motions, Plaintiffs had submitted nearly 300 pages of argument and Defendants had submitted more than 700 pages. Together, the parties provided approximately 5400 additional pages of exhibits to be considered in connection with their motions.
I heard oral argument on the parties' Daubert motions and motions in limine on July 28-29 and August 2-3, 2005. I offered the parties the opportunity to present live testimony at this hearing, but both declined. See Order (Doc. 1349); Jt. Statement re: Hr'g on Daubert Mots. and Mots. in Limine (Doc. 1403). Upon review of the parties' Daubert motions, I also determined that live testimony was not necessary for me to decide them.
After careful consideration of the parties' arguments, exhibits and authorities, I decided their respective motions in a series of pretrial bench rulings. Aug. 22, 2005 Tr. (Doc. 1430) at 3-9, 14-15 (); Sept. 13, 2005 Tr. (Doc. 1443) at 4-10 (); Sept. 22, 2005 Tr. (Doc. 1459) at 4-10 (). I also granted Defendants leave to file an additional Daubert motion regarding one of Plaintiffs' expert witnesses, see Defs.' Mot. to Exclude Test. of Dr. Steven Wing (Doc. 1444), and decided that motion before trial as well, see Order (Doc. 1483). In general, I denied Defendants' Daubert motions and granted in part and denied in part their motions in limine, and granted in part and denied in part Plaintiffs' Daubert motion and motion in limine. All of these rulings were reported in summary fashion so they could be provided to the parties as soon as possible and incorporated in their trial preparations.3
At the time of these summary rulings, I recognized my obligation under governing Tenth Circuit authority to make specific findings on the record sufficient for the appellate court to review my conclusions regarding the admissibility of the challenged expert witness testimony and to confirm that I had properly exercised my "gatekeeping" function with regard to this testimony. Aug. 22, 2005 Tr. at 4; Sept. 13, 2005 Tr. at 4; ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Native Village of Kivalina v. Exxonmobil Corp.
...emissions and the interests of advancing and preserving economic and industrial development"); see also Cook v. Rockwell Int'l. Corp., 580 F.Supp.2d 1071, 1166 (D.Colo.2006) ("To assess the utility of Defendants' conduct, the jury must consider several factors, including the primary purpose......
-
EST. OF GEORGE v. LEAGUE OF CITIES & TOWNS
...certain that the agent studied is associated with the disease. Such a study "is `statistically significant.'" Cook v. Rockwell Int'l Corp., 580 F.Supp.2d 1071, 1101 (D.Colo.2006) (citing Green, supra, at 361); accord, e.g., Turpin v. Merrell Dow Pharms., Inc., 959 F.2d 1349, 1353 n. 1 (6th ......
-
Rocky Mountain Peace & Justice Ctr. v. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Serv.
...that there are significant impacts on public health or safety from the trail modifications, point to Cook v. Rockwell International Corp. , 580 F. Supp. 2d 1071 (D. Colo. 2006), for support. In Cook , a group of plaintiffs who owned property to the east of what is now the Refuge sued the fo......
-
Kumar v. Frisco Indep. Sch. Dist.
...of the initial disclosure. " Diaz v. Con-Way Truckload, Inc. , 279 F.R.D. 412, 421 (S.D. Tex. 2012) (citing Cook v. Rockwell Int'l Corp. , 580 F. Supp. 2d 1071, 1169 (D. Colo. 2006) ) (emphasis in original).On cross examination, Dr. Morrison testified that, in his initial expert report, he ......
-
Table of Cases
...Ill. 1982), 73 Conwood Co. v. U.S. Tobacco Co., 290 F.3d 768 (6th Cir. 2002), 7, 9, 93, 95, 124, 227 Cook v. Rockwell Int’l Corp. 580 F. Supp. 2d 1071 (D. Colo. 2006), 126 Coordinated Pretrial Proceedings in Petrol. Prods. Antitrust Litig., In re , 691 F.2d 1335 (9th Cir. 1982), rev’d on ot......
-
Econometrics and Regression Analysis
...is a reliable means of common proof.”) (emphasis in original). 14. Rubinfeld, supra note 10, at 199. 15. Cook v. Rockwell Int’l Corp. 580 F. Supp. 2d 1071, 1113 (D. Colo. 2006). 16. See, e.g. , Bazemore v. Friday, 478 U.S. 385, 400 (1986) (“Normally, failure to include variables will affect......