Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-01053/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-01053-37/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 893
Nature of Suit: Environmental Matters
Cause of Action: 42:4321 Review of Agency Action-Environment

---

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART STANISLAUS RIVER PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION 

FOR ADMISSION OF EXPERT TESTIMONY

1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CONSOLIDATED SALMON CASES )

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

LEAD CASE NO: 1:09-cv-1053 OWW-DLB

Consolidated Cases: 1:09-cv-1090 OWW-DLB

1:09-cv-1378 OWW-DLB

1:09-cv-1520 OWW-SMS

1:09-cv-1580 OWW-DLB

1:09-cv-1625 OWW-SMS

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND 

DENYING IN PART STANISLAUS RIVER 

PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR ADMISSION 

OF EXPERT TESTIMONY

Date: July 19, 2010

Time: 2:30 p.m.

Courtroom: 3

Judge; Hon. Oliver W. Wanger

SAN LUIS & DELTA-MENDOTA WATER 

AUTHORITY, et al. v. LOCKE, et al.

STOCKTON EAST WATER DISTRICT v. 

NATIONAL OCEANIC AND 

ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION, et 

al. 

STATE WATER CONTRACTORS v. 

LOCKE, et al., 

KERN COUNTY WATER AGENCY, et al. 

v. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE,

et al. 

OAKDALE IRRIGATION DISTRICT, et al. 

v. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE,

et al. 

THE METROPOLITAN WATER 

DISTRICT OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA 

v. NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES, et al.

On July 19, 2010, at 2:30p.m., the Court heard the Motion by Oakdale Irrigation 

District, South San Joaquin Irrigation District and Stockton East Water District (“Stanislaus 

River Plaintiffs”) to Admit Expert Testimony. The Court has fully considered the briefs, 

evidence, and oral arguments submitted by the parties, and good cause appearing, hereby 

enters the following order:

Case 1:09-cv-01053-LJO-BAM Document 463 Filed 08/13/10 Page 1 of 3
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART STANISLAUS RIVER PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION 

FOR ADMISSION OF EXPERT TESTIMONY

2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Stanislaus River Plaintiffs’ Motion for Admission 

of Expert Testimony is granted in part and denied in part as follows:

1. Avry Dotan – Stanislaus River Plaintiffs may submit expert testimony from Mr. Dotan 

in support of their motion for summary judgment. Mr. Dotan’s testimony shall be 

limited to (1) providing expert explanation of the technical and complex matters in the 

record related to temperature modeling for the Stanislaus River, and (2) laying the 

foundation for whether the temperature modeling performed by the Federal Defendants 

was the kind of temperature modeling that no reasonably prudent modeler would do 

under the totality of the circumstances. The Court requests that Mr. Dotan’s 

declaration be submitted as soon as Mr. Dotan is able to do so for further review by the 

Court. The Court will reserve its ruling on the admissibility of Mr. Dotan’s testimony 

until it has reviewed his declaration for admissibility on relevance grounds or for 

failure to meet one of the established exceptions to record review.

2. Daniel Steiner – Stanislaus River Plaintiffs may submit expert testimony from Mr. 

Steiner in support of their motion for summary judgment concerning the assumptions in 

the CalSim II modeling actually conducted by Federal Defendants. Mr. Steiner shall 

not offer any extra-record evidence dealing with the existence or importance of any 

errors in the code of the CalSim II model used by Federal Defendants as Stanislaus 

River Plaintiffs have not shown that such coding errors were brought to the attention of 

the Federal Defendants before the issuance of the BiOp in June 2009. In addition, Mr. 

Steiner’s testimony will not include any legal conclusions regarding water rights or 

asserted non-discretionary operations. The Court will reserve its ruling on the 

admissibility of Mr. Steiner’s testimony until it has reviewed his declaration for 

admissibility on relevance grounds or for failure to meet one of the established 

exceptions to record review.

Case 1:09-cv-01053-LJO-BAM Document 463 Filed 08/13/10 Page 2 of 3
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART STANISLAUS RIVER PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION 

FOR ADMISSION OF EXPERT TESTIMONY

3

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3. Lowell Ploss – Stanislaus River Plaintiffs may not submit a supporting declaration 

from Mr. Ploss with their opening brief. If Federal Defendants or Defendant 

Intervenors raise arguments in opposition which trigger a need to use Mr. Ploss’ 

testimony in reply, Stanislaus River Plaintiffs may apply to the Court for permission to 

use Mr. Ploss’ testimony at that time so long as Mr. Ploss’ testimony is the only source 

for the necessary information and there is no conflict with the Government in Ethics 

Act.

4. Doug Demko – Stanislaus River Plaintiffs may submit expert testimony from Mr. 

Demko in support of their motion for summary judgment concerning RPA Actions 

III.1.2 and III.1.3, provided Mr. Demko’s testimony is limited to providing an 

explanation of technical or complex issues related to fish biology issues in the record or 

used to explain how the Federal Defendants allegedly ignored relevant data or reached 

conclusions that are unsupported by the data in the record. The Court will reserve its 

ruling on the admissibility of Mr. Demko’s testimony until it has reviewed his 

declaration for admissibility on relevance grounds or for failure to meet one of the 

established exceptions to record review.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 13, 2010 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE DEAC_Signature-END:

emm0d64h

Case 1:09-cv-01053-LJO-BAM Document 463 Filed 08/13/10 Page 3 of 3