Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

plaintiffdefendantliabilitytrialtestimonymotionjoint and several liabilityhazardous waste
plaintifftrialtestimonymotionwill

Related Cases

O’Leary v. Moyer’s Landfill, Inc., 523 F.Supp. 642, 20 ERC 1318, 11 Envtl. L. Rep. 21,005
View Case »
City of Davis v. Coleman, 521 F.2d 661, 8 ERC 1259, 5 Envtl. L. Rep. 20,633
View Case »
Bean v. Southwestern Waste Management Corp., 482 F.Supp. 673
View Case »
Bradley v. American Smelting and Refining Co., 104 Wash.2d 677, 709 P.2d 782, 23 ERC 1851, 16 Envtl. L. Rep. 20,346
View Case »
Environmental Defense Fund, Inc. v. Massey, 772 F.Supp. 1296, 33 ERC 1796, 21 Envtl. L. Rep. 21,512
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Pinal Creek Group v. Newmont Mining Corp., 352 F.Supp.2d 1037, 35 Envtl. L. Rep. 20,021

Facts

The plaintiffs, a group of three mining companies, engaged in a voluntary cleanup of a hazardous waste site and brought an action against other potentially responsible parties under CERCLA. They sought to recover their cleanup costs and impose joint and several liability. The defendant, Atlantic Richfield Company, filed a motion to exclude the plaintiffs' expert testimony, which included law professors and other experts, arguing that their opinions were inadmissible legal opinions.

The reports of these experts are attached to Atlantic Richfield's previously filed Motion to Strike Reports and Testimony of Plaintiffs' Legal Experts (document # 1014) and are included in the notebook accompanying the pending Motion in Limine (the “Notebook”) as Exhibits A–D.

Issue

The main legal issue was whether the expert testimony proffered by the plaintiffs was admissible, particularly regarding legal opinions and corporate norms related to liability under CERCLA.

Atlantic Richfield contends that the opinions of law professors Delogu, Haas, Rose, and Elhauge are inadmissible legal opinions.

Rule

The court applied the principle that expert testimony is admissible when it assists the trier of fact in understanding the evidence or determining a disputed issue of fact, but legal opinions are inadmissible as they invade the province of the trial judge.

Expert testimony is admissible when it will assist the trier of fact in understanding the evidence or determining a disputed issue of fact.

Analysis

The court analyzed the expert reports and determined that the legal opinions offered by law professors were inadmissible because they attempted to interpret the law and apply it to the facts of the case, which is the role of the judge. However, the court found that expert testimony regarding corporate norms and the involvement of agents in pollution-causing activities was relevant and could assist the trier of fact in determining liability.

The Court finds that Professor Delogu's proffered testimony constitutes inadmissable legal opinion.

Conclusion

The court granted the motion in limine in part, excluding the legal opinions of certain experts, while allowing testimony related to corporate norms and the actions of agents in pollution-causing activities.

The Court, therefore, will preclude Plaintiffs from offering his testimony and his expert report in the Phase I trial.

Who won?

The prevailing party was Atlantic Richfield Company, as the court granted part of their motion to exclude expert testimony, particularly the legal opinions.

The Court finds that Professor Delogu's proffered testimony constitutes inadmissable legal opinion.

You must be