Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-00407/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-00407-14/pdf.json

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

---

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 

ORDER RE MOTIONS TO ALLOW EXPERT TESTIMONY AND DISCOVERY

CASE NO. 1:09-CV-00407 OWW GSA 

sf-2748749 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

THE DELTA SMELT CASES,

1:09-cv-407 OWW GSA

1:09-cv-422 OWW GSA 

1:09-cv-631 OWW GSA 

1:09-cv-892 OWW GSA 

PARTIALLY CONSOLIDATED 

WITH: 1:09-cv-480 OWW GSA 

ORDER RE MOTIONS TO 

ALLOW EXPERT TESTIMONY 

AND DISCOVERY 

Date: October 2, 2009 

Time: 1:30 p.m. 

Ctrm: 3 

Judge: Hon. Oliver W. Wanger 

SAN LUIS & DELTA-MENDOTA WATER 

AUTHORITY, et al. v. SALAZAR, et al. 

(Case No. 1:09-cv-407) 

STATE WATER CONTRACTORS v. SALAZAR, 

et al. (Case No. 1:09-cv-422) 

COALITION FOR A SUSTAINABLE DELTA, 

et al. v. UNITED STATES FISH AND WILDLIFE 

SERVICE, et al. (Case No. 1:09-cv-480) 

METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT v. 

UNITED STATES FISH AND WILDLIFE 

SERVICE, et al. (Case No. 1:09-cv-631) 

STEWART & JASPER ORCHARDS, et al. v. 

UNITED STATES FISH AND WILDLIFE 

SERVICE, et al. (Case No. 1:09-cv-892) 

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

Case 1:09-cv-00407-LJO-BAM Document 341 Filed 10/09/09 Page 1 of 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 

ORDER RE MOTIONS TO ALLOW EXPERT TESTIMONY AND DISCOVERY

CASE NO. 1:09-CV-004070 OWW GSA 1

sf-2748749 

On October 2, 2009, the Court heard the following motions concerning expert witness 

testimony and discovery by the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California 

(“Metropolitan”), San Luis & Delta-Mendota Water Authority and Westlands Water District 

(“SLDMWA”), and California Department of Water Resources and Lester Snow, Director, 

California Department of Water Resources (“DWR”): 

• Metropolitan’s Motion to Allow Expert Testimony and Discovery (Doc. # 158, 162, 

167, 168); 

• DWR’s Motion to Allow Extra Record Evidence to Explain Technical Terms and 

Complex Subject Matter (Doc. # 156); 

• SLDMWA’s Motion for Discovery and Admission of Expert Testimony (Doc. # 157, 

159, 160, 163, 164). 

The Court has fully considered the briefs, evidence, and oral arguments submitted by the 

parties, and good cause appearing therefore, THE COURT HEREBY ORDERS: 

1. Metropolitan’s Motion seeking admission of the testimony of Dr. Deriso is 

GRANTED because Metropolitan made a threshold showing of the materiality of such testimony 

and how it would be of assistance to the Court in understanding technical terms and complex 

subject matter. This ruling is without prejudice to the parties’ ability to object to the admissibility 

of Dr. Deriso’s testimony submitted at a later date. Metropolitan’s request for deposition of the 

person most knowledgeable and/or author of the Biological Opinion is DENIED, subject to 

further showing. 

2. DWR’s Motion seeking admission of expert testimony in GRANTED in part and 

conditionally DENIED in part. It is GRANTED with respect to DWR’s request to present expert 

testimony concerning the Potential Entrainment Index (PEI) because DWR made a threshold 

showing of the materiality of such testimony and how it would be of assistance to the Court in 

understanding technical terms and complex subject matter. This ruling is without prejudice to the 

parties’ ability to object to the admissibility of DWR’s expert testimony submitted at a later date. 

It is conditionally DENIED with respect to DWR’s request to present expert testimony 

concerning (i) the CALSIM II Simulation Model and (ii) studies addressing correlations between 

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

Case 1:09-cv-00407-LJO-BAM Document 341 Filed 10/09/09 Page 2 of 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 

ORDER RE MOTIONS TO ALLOW EXPERT TESTIMONY AND DISCOVERY

CASE NO. 1:09-CV-004070 OWW GSA 2

sf-2748749 

environmental factors affecting fall habitat and delta smelt abundance because DWR failed to 

make a threshold showing of the materiality of such testimony. DWR is provided the opportunity 

to make the requisite threshold materiality showing for admission of expert testimony concerning 

these two subjects according to the schedule set forth below. 

3. SLDMWA’s Motion seeking admission of expert testimony concerning three 

subject areas is conditionally DENIED because it did not identify with sufficient specificity the 

subject areas of the proposed testimony and did not make the requisite threshold showing of its 

materiality and how it would be of assistance to the Court in understanding technical terms and 

complex subject matter. SLDMWA is provided the opportunity to make the requisite 

identification and threshold showing for admission of expert testimony according to the schedule 

set forth below. SLDMWA’s request for deposition of the person most knowledgeable and/or 

author of the Biological Opinion is DENIED, subject to further showing. 

4. DWR, SLDMWA, and the State Wate Contractors (who joined the motions of 

Metropolitan and SLDMWA) may submit further requests for admission of expert testimony by 

October 9, 2009. The Federal Defendants and Defendant-Intervenors may oppose such further 

requests and designate rebuttal experts by October 16, 2009. The Court will hold a hearing on 

any such further requests on October 19, 2009. 

5. Expert declarations as authorized by this Order shall be filed and served pursuant 

to a schedule as further ordered by the Court. 

Dated: October 8, 2009 /s/ OLIVER W. WANGER 

OLIVER W. WANGER 

U.S. District Court Judge 

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

Case 1:09-cv-00407-LJO-BAM Document 341 Filed 10/09/09 Page 3 of 3