United States v. 4.620 Acres of Land

• Docket Number: Civil Action 7:20-cv-00154,7:20-cv-00170
• Decision Date: 20 December 2021
• Parties: UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. 4.620 ACRES OF LAND, more or less, in HIDALGO COUNTY, TEXAS; and FULLER FARMS, Defendants. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. 8.570 ACRES OF LAND, more or less, in HIDALGO COUNTY, TEXAS; and FULLER FARMS, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of Texas

1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff,
v.
4.620 ACRES OF LAND, more or less, in HIDALGO COUNTY, TEXAS; and FULLER FARMS, Defendants.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff,
v.
8.570 ACRES OF LAND, more or less, in HIDALGO COUNTY, TEXAS; and FULLER FARMS, Defendants.

Civil Action Nos. 7:20-cv-00154, 7:20-cv-00170

United States District Court, S.D. Texas, McAllen Division

December 20, 2021

OPINION AND ORDER

Micaela Alvarez United States District Judge

The Court now considers “Defendant's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, ”^[1]Plaintiff's response, ^[2] and Defendant's reply.^[3] The Court also considers Plaintiff “United States of America's Rule 71.1(h) Motion to Exclude Defendant Fuller Farms' Expert Testimony of Leonel Garza III, ”^[4] Defendant's response, ^[5] and Plaintiff's reply.^[6] After considering the motion, record,

2

and relevant authorities, the Court DENIES Defendant's motion for partial summary judgment and GRANTS IN PART Plaintiff's motion to exclude.

I. Background and Procedural History

This is an eminent domain case. On June 11, 2020, the United States commenced civil action number 7:20-cv-00154 to take the 4.620-acre Tract RGV-MER-4009-1 in fee simple with certain reservations.^[7] On June 24, 2020, the United States commenced civil action number 7:20-cv-00170 to take the 6.126-acre Tract RGV-MER-3002-1 and the 2.444-acre Tract RGV-MER-3002-2.^[8] The two cases involved the same Defendant, Fuller Farms, and Plaintiff and Defendant jointly moved to consolidate the two cases.^[9] The Court consolidated the cases on December 17, 2020.^[10] On January 8, 2021, Plaintiff United States filed an amended complaint “to update the legal description and maps of land to be condemned only for Tract RGV-MER-3002-2, ” which is the live complaint with respect to that tract.^[11]

On the dispositive motion deadline, ^[12] the parties filed the instant motions, which are now ripe for consideration. The Court first turns to Plaintiff United States' motion to exclude because it attacks the evidence before the Court for purposes of summary judgment, then to Defendant's motion for summary judgment.

3

II. Plaintiff'S Motion to Exclude

a. Legal Standard

“[T]he Federal Rules of Evidence control the admission of expert testimony.”^[13] The Rules and judicial scrutiny extend to all experts, whether scientific or otherwise.^[14] “[P]reliminary factual and legal issues are the Court's responsibility under [Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 71.1(h)], whether trial is had before a jury or a commission.”^[15] When an expert's “factual basis, data, principles, methods, or their application” are sufficiently called into question, ^[16] the Court must undertake a “preliminary assessment of whether the reasoning or methodology underlying the testimony is scientifically valid and of whether that reasoning or methodology properly can be applied to the facts in issue.”^[17] “The gatekeeping role of the district court is particularly pronounced in condemnation proceedings under Rule 71.1. While the jury tries issues of valuation, the trial judge must screen the proffered” evidence.^[18] The Court must first determine, under Federal Rules of Evidence 104(a) and 402, that the expert's proposed testimony is relevant and would assist with determining a fact at issue.^[19] Evidence that is not both is not admissible.^[20] “Expert

4

testimony which does not relate to any issue in the case is not relevant and, ergo, non-helpful. Similarly, low probative value, or a total lack of it, will render proposed expert testimony unhelpful and, therefore, inadmissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 702.”^[21] The Court scrutinizes proposed expert testimony more searchingly than lay witness testimony for its pertinency and potential prejudice.^[22]

Additionally, “[u]nder the Rules[, ] the trial judge must ensure that any and all scientific testimony or evidence admitted is not only relevant, but reliable.”^[23] “Experts qualified by knowledge, skill, experience, training or education may present opinion testimony to the jury”^[24]only if “(1) the testimony is based upon sufficient facts or data, (2) the testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods, and (3) the witness has applied the principles and methods reliably to the facts of the case.”^[25] The proponent of the proffered expert testimony “must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the testimony is reliable” and cannot rest on generic assurances.^[26] Under the first element, “the existence of sufficient facts . . . is in all instances

5

mandatory.”^[27] Unsubstantiated factual assertions will bar expert testimony, ^[28] as will “altered facts and speculation designed to bolster [the proponent's] position.”^[29] Expert opinions that are unsupported, self-contradicted, or assumptive are to be excluded.^[30] However, the proponent “need not prove the testimony is factually correct, but rather need only prove by a preponderance of the evidence the testimony is reliable.”^[31] The Court should “approach its inquiry with the proper deference to the jury's role as the arbiter of disputes between conflicting opinions.”^[32] “As a general rule, questions relating to the bases and sources of an expert's opinion affect the weight to be assigned that opinion rather than its admissibility and should be left for the jury's consideration .”^[33]Indeed, the Fifth Circuit has cautioned against transforming a motion to exclude an expert into a trial on the merits, because the factfinder may be entitled to accept or reject an expert's testimony including by judging whether the predicate facts on which an expert relied are accurate.^[34] In short, experts may rely on disputed facts, ^[35] but not unsubstantiated assertions. Cross-examination and

6

presentation of competing evidence are traditionally sufficient to challenge an expert opinion, rather than exclusion for inadmissibility.^[36] “It is the role of the adversarial system, not the court, to highlight weak evidence.”^[37]

Under the second and third elements for assessing expert evidence, “expert testimony ‘must be reliable at each and every step or else it is inadmissible. The reliability analysis applies to all aspects of an expert's testimony: the methodology, the facts underlying the expert's opinion, the link between the facts and the conclusion, et alia.'”^[38] “Under Daubert, ‘any step that renders the analysis unreliable . . . renders the expert's testimony inadmissible. This is true whether the step completely changes a reliable methodology or merely misapplies that methodology.”^[39] To test reliability, the Court assesses the intellectual rigor of the proposed expert testimony, ^[40] which must be validated by an independent and objective source beyond the expert's assurances, ^[41] and the Court “should ensure that the [expert] opinion comports with applicable professional standards outside the courtroom and that it will have a reliable basis in the knowledge and experience of [the] discipline.”^[42] However, an expert report or opinion need not be in lockstep with the common

7

or prevailing standard to be admissible.^[43] “Certain more specific factors, such as testing, peer review, error rates, and ‘acceptability' in the relevant scientific community . . . might prove helpful in determining the reliability of a particular scientific ‘theory or technique.'”^[44] Reliance on studies that do not support a contention, cherry-picked data, or a dubious methodology may be grounds to reject expert testimony.^[45] Additionally, the Court should exclude expert evidence if the witness is not qualified in a particular field or subject, ^[46] but an expert witness need not be highly credentialed or specially qualified to offer an expert opinion to the factfinder.^[47] The Court may “conclude that there is simply too great an analytical gap between the data and the opinion proffered” to be admissible, ^[48] but there is no definite formula for determining whether expert testimony is reliable or unreliable “and the court must judge admissibility based on the particular facts of the case.”^[49]The test is, at bottom, “a flexible one, ”^[50] so “[t]rial judges retain ‘broad latitude' both in deciding

8

how to determine whether an expert's testimony is reliable, and ultimately, whether the testimony is, in fact, reliable.”^[51]

The Court is particularly hesitant to exclude a defendant landowner's expert evidence in eminent domain cases because the Fifth Circuit has instructed:

The value of property taken by the Government, which is no longer on the market, is largely a matter of opinion. Since there are no infallible means for determining with absolute conviction what a willing buyer would have paid a willing seller for the condemnee's property at the time of taking, eminent domain proceedings commonly pit the Government's valuation experts against those of the landowner. Thus, the exclusion of one or all of either party's proposed experts can influence substantially the amount of compensation set by the factfinder.... Recognizing the critical role of expert witnesses in these cases and the strong interest on both sides that compensation be just trial courts should proceed cautiously before removing from the jury's consideration expert assessments of value which may prove helpful.^[52]

“[I]f suitability for a particular use might reasonably affect fair market value in the sense that a just compensation award based in part upon the potential for that use would not be invalid as a matter of law then evidence pertaining to that use must be admitted for consideration by the trier of fact.”^[53] Nevertheless, “[c]onsiderations that may not reasonably be held to affect market value are excluded.”^[54]

b. Analysis

9

Appraisals are conventional expert evidence in an eminent domain case.^[55] Plaintiff United States moves to exclude Defendant Fuller Farms' appraisal expert Leonel Garza III and his appraisal...