Mountain Valley Pipeline, LLC v. 10.67 Acres of Land

• Decision Date: 12 November 2019
• Docket Number: Civil Action No. 7:18-cv-00609,Civil Action No. 7:18-cv-00611
• Court: U.S. District Court — Western District of Virginia
• Parties: MOUNTAIN VALLEY PIPELINE, LLC, Plaintiff, v. 10.67 ACRES OF LAND, OWNED BY DOE CREEK FARM, INC., Defendant. MOUNTAIN VALLEY PIPELINE, LLC, Plaintiff, v. 0.18 ACRES OF LAND, OWNED BY GEORGIA LOU HAVERTY, Defendant.

MOUNTAIN VALLEY PIPELINE, LLC, Plaintiff, v. 10.67 ACRES OF LAND, OWNED BY DOE CREEK FARM, INC., Defendant.

MOUNTAIN VALLEY PIPELINE, LLC, Plaintiff, v. 0.18 ACRES OF LAND, OWNED BY GEORGIA LOU HAVERTY, Defendant.

Civil Action No. 7:18-cv-00609

Civil Action No. 7:18-cv-00611

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA ROANOKE DIVISION

November 12, 2019

By: Elizabeth K. Dillon United States District Judge

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Plaintiff Mountain Valley Pipeline (MVP) is constructing an interstate natural gas pipeline. It commenced a condemnation action under the Natural Gas Act, 15 U.S.C. § 717 et seq., to acquire a permanent easement and temporary easements on numerous properties, including these properties located in Giles County, Virginia, and owned by Doe Creek Farm, Inc. and Georgia Lou Haverty. Doe Creek Farm is an agritourism property, with uses including a kennel, a retail orchard operation, and an event venue. On March 8, 2018, the court entered an order in the primary condemnation case, Mountain Valley Pipeline LLC v. Easements to Construct, 7:17-cv-492 (W.D. Va.) (Dkt. No. 716), granting MVP immediate possession of the easements on this property. A trial on just compensation for the takings on the subject properties is scheduled to begin on November 19, 2019.

Before the court are five motions: (1) Landowners' motion to exclude the testimony of Kevin Wagner and Brian Murphy; (2) Landowners' motion to exclude the testimony of Wesley Woods; (3) Landowners' motion to exclude the testimony of Joseph Thompson; (4) MVP's motion to exclude the testimony of Steven Noble; and (5) MVP's omnibus motion in limine.

For the reasons set forth below, the court will deny the Landowners' motions to exclude Wagner, Murphy, and Woods; grant the Landowners' motion to exclude Thompson; and grant MVP's motion to exclude Noble. MVP's motion in limine will be granted in part and denied in part.

I. DISCUSSION

A. Legal Standard

The motions present various issues of just compensation in eminent domain cases as well as issues involving the qualification of experts and their reliability and relevance. Legal standards regarding the same are set forth herein.

1. Just compensation for partial permanent takings, including severance damages

The Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment prohibits the taking of private property without just compensation. Lingle v. Chevron U.S.A., Inc., 544 U.S. 528, 536 (2005). When the government condemns private property for a public purpose, it must pay just compensation for that property. Just compensation is the monetary equivalent of the property taken, and the federal courts have employed the concept of "fair market value" to determine the condemnee'sloss. United States v. 564.54 Acres of Land, 441 U.S. 506, 510-11 (1979); Almota Farmers Elevator & Warehouse Co. v. United States, 409 U.S. 470, 473-74 (1973).

Unless otherwise proscribed by Congress, federal law governs "questions of substantive right, such as the measure of compensation" for federal courts in condemnation proceedings. United States v. Miller, 317 U.S. 369, 379-80 (1942). See also Tenn. Gas Pipeline Co. v. Permanent Easement for 1.7320 Acres, No. 3:cv-11-028, 2014 WL 690700 (M.D. Pa. Feb. 24, 2014) (unpublished) (concluding that federal law applies in determinations of just compensation under the Natural Gas Act). The Fourth Circuit defines just compensation in a case of partial taking as "the value of the land taken plus the depreciation in the market value of the remainder." United States v. 97.19 Acres of Land, 582 F.2d 878, 881 (4th Cir. 1978) (citing W. Va. Pulp & Paper Co. v. United States, 200 F.2d 100, 104 (4th Cir. 1952)). Moreover, "value [of the condemned land] is to be ascertained as of the date of taking." Miller, 317 U.S. at 374.

In West Virginia Pulp and Paper, the Fourth Circuit recognized the well-settled principle that "whenever there has been an actual physical taking of a part of a distinct tract of land, the compensation to be awarded includes not only the market value of that part of the tract appropriated, but the damage to the remainder resulting from that taking, embracing, of course, injury due to the use to which the part appropriated is to be devoted." 200 F.2d at 102. The court recognized that the landowner was damaged not only by the loss of the land, but also by the proposed use that caused depreciation to the remainder, and therefore was entitled to be awarded a sum that "would put it in as good position pecuniarily as it would have been if its property had not been taken." Id. at 103. The measure of this sum was "the value of the land taken plus the depreciation in the market value of the remainder due to the use made of the part taken." Id. at 104. See also 97.19 Acres of Land, 582 F.2d at 881 (citations omitted) (explainingthat severance damages to the remainder, if any, are measured as "the difference in market value of the residue before and after the taking").

2. Damages for perceived market negative influences

In a previous opinion, this court analyzed the law with regard to testimony about damages resulting from perceived market negative influences, such as the perceived danger, or unsafe nature, of pipelines. See Mountain Valley Pipeline, LLC v. 1.23 Acres of Land Owned by Eagle's Nest Ministries, Inc., Civil Action No. 7:18-cv-00610 (W.D. Va.), Dkt. No. 55; Mountain Valley Pipeline, Inc. v. 6.50 Acres of Land Owned by Sizemore Inc. of Va., Civil Action No. 7:18-cv-00612 (W.D. Va.), Dkt. No. 66. The court will not repeat that entire analysis here, but merely incorporates it by reference. By way of summary, the court held that, to be admissible, an expert's opinions with regard to some hazard incident to the use of the property taken must be supported by some evidence that the hazards are reasonably probable and more than just speculative. Moreover, there must be a nexus between those hazards and/or the public perception in the marketplace—specifically, the marketplace for that property—and a diminution in value of the property. In other words, there must be a causal link between the hazard inherent in the taking and a direct loss in the marketplace. United States v. 760.807 Acres of Land, 731 F.2d 1443, 1448 (9th Cir. 1984); see also Atl. Coast Pipeline LLC v. 0.07 Acres, No. 3:18-cv-00006, 2019 WL 2527571, at *14-17 (W.D. Va. June 19, 2019) (excluding an expert environmental professional's opinion about a natural gas pipeline's effect on property value because the analysis was not linked to the specific property's value and was therefore irrelevant to the determination of just compensation).

3. Expert testimony

Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and the standards established in Daubert v. Merrell DowPharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993), govern admissibility of expert testimony. Rule 702 states:

A witness who is qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education may testify in the form of an opinion or otherwise if:

(a) the expert's scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will help the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue;

(b) the testimony is based on sufficient facts or data;

(c) the testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods; and

(d) the expert has reliably applied the principles and methods to the facts of the case.

Fed. R. Evid. 702.

Before considering whether a proffered expert's testimony is reliable, the court first determines whether the witness qualifies as an expert. A witness may qualify as an expert on the basis of "knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education." Fed. R. Evid. 702. The expertise must relate to the areas in which the expert is expressing opinions. See Thomas J. Kline, Inc. v. Lorillard, Inc., 878 F.2d 791, 800 (4th Cir. 1989). Exclusion should occur only where all bases for expertise are lacking with regard to the issue for which the opinion is offered, and a proffered expert "need not be precisely informed about all details of the issues raised in order to offer an opinion." Kopf v. Skyrm, 993 F.2d 374, 377 (4th Cir. 1993) (quoting Thomas J. Kline, Inc., 878 F.2d at 799).

While the test for exclusion may be a "strict one," Kopf, 993 F.2d at 377, some type of relevant expertise is nonetheless required. For example, where experience is one of the bases for a witness's expertise, the witness must "explain how [his] experience leads to the conclusion reached, why [his] experience is a sufficient basis for the opinion, and how [his] experience is reliably applied to the facts." Radiance Found., Inc. v. Nat'l Ass'n for the Advancement ofColored People, 27 F. Supp. 3d 671, 674 (E.D. Va. 2013) (alteration in original) (citations omitted). Additionally, a witness's expertise must be tailored, to some degree, to the specific opinions offered and the particular facts in the case; general expertise or knowledge on a broad topic or general field may be insufficient, depending on the facts of a case. Shreve v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 166 F. Supp. 2d 378, 391-92 (D. Md. 2001) ("The fact that a proposed witness is an expert in one area, does not ipso facto qualify him to testify as an expert in all related areas.") (citing Oglesby v. Gen. Motors Corp., 190 F.3d 244, 247 (4th Cir. 1999)).

After ensuring that an individual qualifies as an expert, this court has an obligation under Daubert to act as a gatekeeper and ensure that any testimony concerning scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge offered in support of a party's claim is "not only relevant, but reliable." 509 U.S. at 589; Kuhmo Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137, 147 (1999) (quoting same). The proponent of the testimony must establish its admissibility, although it need not prove its expert's theory is correct. Cooper v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., 259 F.3d 194, 199 (4th Cir. 2001); Md. Cas. Co. v. Therm-O-Disc, Inc., 137 F.3d 780, 783 (4th Cir. 1998). First, the trial court must ask whether...