Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_01-cv-05167/USCOURTS-caed-1_01-cv-05167-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 240
Nature of Suit: Torts to Land
Cause of Action: 28:1345 Property Damage

---

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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiffs,

v.

SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON,

COMPANY, 

Defendants.

1:01-CV-5167 OWW DLB

ORDER RE REQUEST FOR

RECONSIDERATION AND STRIKING

EXPERT OPINIONS OF KEVIN MARA

I. INTRODUCTION

On July 12, 2005, the magistrate judge issued an order

denying Defendant Southern California Edison’s (“SCE”) motion to

strike the opinions of Plaintiff’s expert Kevin Mara and denying

Defendant’s alternative request to file a supplemental/rebuttal

expert report. Doc. 250. Before the district court is

Defendants request for reconsideration of the magistrate’s order. 

Doc. 260, filed July 17, 2005. 

II. BACKGROUND

The United States filed this lawsuit seeking to recover

damages resulting from the “Big Creek Fire” in the Sierra

National Forest. Doc. 1, filed Feb. 9, 2001. Plaintiffs allege

that the fire originated on the grounds of one of SCE’s

hydroelectric powerhouses. Initially, SCE admitted that the

Case 1:01-cv-05167-OWW -DLB Document 272 Filed 09/23/05 Page 1 of 11
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

2

terms of its Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) licenses

applied to the facilities that allegedly sparked the fire. 

However, Edison was later permitted to withdraw its admissions

concerning the applicability of the FERC licenses. Doc. 150,

filed Oct. 22, 2004. On February 6, 2005, the district court

modified the scheduling order to permit further discovery,

including further disclosures of experts. Doc. 211. 

Specifically, the revised scheduling order set April 5, 2005 as

the deadline for “further disclosure of experts” and May 5, 2005

as the deadline for “supplemental expert disclosure.” Id. at 2. 

The district court also stated that “either side may disclose any

further experts by April 5th, and any rebuttal or supplemental

experts to the new experts by May 5th.”

On April 5, 2005, Edison designated Joel Prehiem and

Geoffrey Rabone, both Edison employees, as expert witnesses. The

United States disclosed no expert on this date. 

On May 5, 2005, the United States designated Kevin J. Mara

and Cynthia A. Whelan as experts. The United States later

withdrew Ms. Whelan as an expert. Mr. Mara’s expert report was

provided to SCE along with the May 5, 2005 disclosure. 

On May 23, 2005, Edison moved to strike Mr. Mara’s opinion

and on June 3, 2005, Edison served a “supplemental disclosure of

rebuttal expert, designating Donald Clark. 

In a decision issue July 12, 2005, the magistrate judge

found that the district court “did not intend to limit the May

5th designation to supplementation to an initial disclosure or

rebuttal to other experts designated.” In the alternative, even

if the modified scheduling order only permitted the desigation of

Case 1:01-cv-05167-OWW -DLB Document 272 Filed 09/23/05 Page 2 of 11
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

rebuttal witnesses on May 5, 2005, the magistrate judge’s July

12, 2005 order found that Mr. Mara’s opinion was proper rebuttal

testimony.

III. STANDARD OF REVIEW

A magistrate judge’s non-dispositive order is subject to a

“clearly erroneous or contrary to law” standard. See Local R.

72-303(f); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a). The clearly erroneous

standard, “which applies to a magistrate judge's findings of

fact, is significantly deferential, requiring a definite and firm

conviction that a mistake has been committed.” Green v. Baca,

219 F.R.D. 485, 490 (C.D. Cal. 2003). Legal determinations,

however, are subject to the “contrary to law” standard, which

“permits independent review of purely legal determinations by the

magistrate judge.” Id. 

IV. DISCUSSION

A. Interpretation of the District Court’s Modified

Scheduling Order.

At the core of this dispute is the language used by the

district court in the February 6, 2005 modified scheduling order

and oral clarification. Interpreting the language of a court

order is a question of law, see Williams v. Principi 310 F.3d

1374, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2002), and is therefore subject to

independent review by the district court under the “contrary to

law” standard.

Here, the magistrate judge correctly concluded that the

district court “assumed responsibility for setting dates for

Case 1:01-cv-05167-OWW -DLB Document 272 Filed 09/23/05 Page 3 of 11
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

4

disclosure of expert witnesses limited to the applicability of

the FERC licenses thereby rendering Rule 26(a)(2)(C)

inapplicable.” The magistrate judge then found that 

The language used by the Court is not as limiting as

argued by Edison. The Court set April 5th as the

initial deadline for designating experts regarding

applicability of the FERC licenses and May 5th as the

deadline for designating additional experts in this

limited area. The [district] Court did not intend to

limit the May 5th designation to supplementation to an

initial disclosure or rebuttal to other experts

designated. The United States’ designation of Mr. Mara

and the production of his corresponding report on May

5, 2005 was therefore timely under the modified

scheduling order.

The district court, having reviewed its own order and related

statements on this issue, finds that the magistrate judge’s

interpretation is incorrect.

First, the district court did “intend to limit the May 5th

designation to supplementation to an initial disclosure or

rebuttal to other experts designated.” The plain language of the

revised scheduling order reveals as much. Here, the revised

scheduling order limited further discovery to “issues raised by

Defendant Southern California Edison’s withdrawal of admissions

concerning the applicability of the FERC licenses in this case.” 

April 5, 2005 was set as the deadline for “further disclosure of

experts,” while May 5, 2005 was set as the deadline for

“supplemental expert disclosure.” Id. at 2. The district court

orally expanded the May 5, 2005 deadline to also include rebuttal

experts in stating that “either side may disclose any further

experts by April 5th, and any rebuttal or supplemental experts to

the new experts by May 5th.” The district court did not,

however, invite the United States to make initial expert

Case 1:01-cv-05167-OWW -DLB Document 272 Filed 09/23/05 Page 4 of 11
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

1 Hampton concerns the use of the term “supplemental in a

case governed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26,” the timing

provisions of which no longer apply here because of the amended

scheduling order. Nevertheless, nothing in the amended

scheduling order alters the applicability of the Hampton court’s

definition of the term “supplemental,” which is the addition of

expert information to amplify, explain, or correct to make not

misleading previously disclosed expert opinions and information.

5

disclosures on May 5, 2005. The May 5, 2005 order specifies that

any new experts were to be designated by April 5, 2005. The oral

order clarifies that the May 5 designations were to be of any

rebuttal or supplemental experts to the new experts. This was to

prevent any party from “laying in the weeds” and designating a

new expert on subjects not addressed by the April 5 designated

experts.

SCE designated two experts on or before this deadline. The

United States disclosed no experts by the April 5, 2005 deadline,

choosing instead to designate an Kevin Mara on May 5, 2005. 

B. Mr. Mara Cannot Be Considered a Supplemental Expert.

Mr. Mara cannot be considered a “supplemental” expert under

the generally-accepted definition of that term. The designation

of “supplemental” experts “is an ongoing obligation of the

parties to correct earlier opinions disclosed by an expert. It

does not refer to the disclosure of a new expert after the

court-ordered deadline for simultaneous disclosure.” Hampton v.

Schimpff, 188 F.R.D. 589, 590 (D. Mont. 1999).1 Here, Kevin Mara

was not initially designated (nor was any other individual

designated) as an expert on the applicability of the FERC

licenses before May 5, 2005. It is improper to allow his new

Case 1:01-cv-05167-OWW -DLB Document 272 Filed 09/23/05 Page 5 of 11
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

2 Again, although the timing set forth in Rule 26 does

not apply in this case, the revised scheduling order does not

suggest a different meaning should be ascribed to the term

“rebuttal.” 

6

opinions which do not supplement (i.e., correct or clarify) his

earlier opinions. 

C. The Magistrate Judge’s Conclusion that Mr. Mara’s is a

Proper Rebuttal Expert is Clearly Erroneous. 

Determining whether Mr. Mara’s opinions are properly

considered rebuttal opinions demands an examination of his

opinions vis-a-vis those offered by SCE’s experts. Evidence is

“rebuttal” evidence if it is “intended solely to contradict or

rebut evidence on the same subject matter identified by another

party...” Rule 26(a)(2)(C); see also Keener v. United States, 181

F.R.D. 639, 640 (D. Mont. 1998).2

The magistrate judge concluded that Mr. Mara’s was properly

designated as a rebuttal expert: 

Even if the Court were to interpret Judge Wanger’s

order to only allow designation of rebuttal experts on

May 5, 2005, the designation of Mr. Mara was

appropriate in that it responds to the opinions of

Edison’s experts Mr. Rabone and Mr. Preheim. 

Mr. Rabone identifies Exhibit M to the licenses in

question (for FERC Project Nos. 67 and 2175). Exhibit M

specifies the electrical equipment of the project. Mr.

Rabone determined, based on a review of FERC orders

approving revised Exhibit M’s for Project Nos 67 and

2175, that certain revised Exhibit M’s were in effect

at the time of the Big Creek fire. He then confirmed

that in the course of his work on re-licensing Edison’s

Big Hydro Facilities, he had never come across any FERC

license or exhibit or document that reflects that the

12KV Substation is under FERC license.

Mr. Preheim describes the electrical function of

the 12KV Substation and the distribution lines

emanating from it. He states that the basic function

Case 1:01-cv-05167-OWW -DLB Document 272 Filed 09/23/05 Page 6 of 11
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

7

and purpose of the substation at Big Creek No. 2 is to

step up power received from the powerhouse from 7KV to

12KV and distribute it to end users in the Big Creek

area. He then describes the service provided from the

three lines that emanate from the substation.

 

Mr. Mara responds to these opinions by analyzing

the nature and function of the 12KV Station and the

electric power lines that emanate from it and then

comparing those physical findings with the description

of such works in the FERC licenses and exhibits. Unlike

Mrs. Rabone and Mr. Preheim, he concludes that the

terms of the licenses refer to the substation. While

Mr. Mara uses a different analysis, he, like Edison’s

experts, opines regarding the applicability of the FERC

licenses based on an analysis of the substation.

In his expert report, Mr. Mara offers the following five

opinions:

(1) “The project boundary of Project 2175 encompasses

the site of the 12kV step-up substation.” Expert

Report of Kevin Mara, Ex. 1 to Decl. Of Kirk

Sheriff at 3-4.

(2) “Electrically, the 12kV step-up station is an

appurtenance to the Powerhouse and not a separate

substation.” Id. at 4-5. 

(3) “The 12kV step-up station is included as a project

work in the combined projects of Project 67 and

Project 2175.” Id. at 5-11. 

(4) “Not all of the Project(s) are contained in the

description of the Project(s).” Id. at 12.

(5) “The Fault that occurred on August 24 1994 was on

the 7.2kV bus of the 12kV step-up station.” Id.

at 12-14. 

The United States argues that the magistrate judge’s

conclusion was not clearly erroneous and maintains that each of

Case 1:01-cv-05167-OWW -DLB Document 272 Filed 09/23/05 Page 7 of 11
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

8

Mr. Mara’s five areas of opinion “responds to issues raised by

SCE’s expert disclosures of Mr. Rabone or Mr. Preheim.” Doc. 267

at 16. 

With respect to the first area of opinion the United States

points to Mr. Rabone’s declaration, in which Mr. Rabone states:

In the course of my work on the re-licensing of

Edison’s Big Creek Hydro Facilities, I have never

reviewed or otherwise been made aware of any license or

exhibit thereto, or any order, correspondence, or other

document from the Federal Power Commission or FERC that

states or reflects that a 12kV substation near Big

Creek Powerhouse Nos. 2 and 2A is licensed by the

Federal Power Commission or FERC. 

Rabone Decl., Ex. 9 to Kimball Decl., at ¶8. The United

States then offers Mr. Mara’s opinions, “based on [his] review of

the site and his comparison of the physical site with maps and

exhibits to the FERC licenses,” as confirmation “that the 12kV

substation is in fact depicted on a FERC exhibit, and is located

within the FERC-licensed project area.” Doc. 267 at 17. The

United States maintains that this is somehow responsive to Mr.

Rabone’s opinion “that there was no document reflecting that the

12kV station was licensed by FERC.” The United States

misinterprets import of Mr. Rabone’s statement. Id. Mr. Rabone

merely asserts that he was never made aware of any such document. 

Mr. Mara’s extensive discussion of the Project 2175 licenses and

exhibits is not a rebuttal to any statement made by Mr. Rabone. 

Rather, this portion of Mr. Mara’s report consists entirely of

legal conclusions that are not properly the subjects of expert

opinion. See McHugh v. United Serv. Automobile Ass’n, 164 F.3d

451, 454 (9th Cir. 1999). 

The United States submits that Mr. Mara’s second area of

Case 1:01-cv-05167-OWW -DLB Document 272 Filed 09/23/05 Page 8 of 11
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

9

opinion -- that “[e]lectrically, the 12kV step-up station is an

appurtenance to the Powerhouse and not a separate substation” --

is responsive to opinions offered by Mr. Preheim. To support

this assertion, the United States points to two portions of Mr.

Preheim’s deposition in which counsel for the United States asked

Mr. Preheim to read portions Mr. Mara’s report and invited Mr.

Prehiem to criticize the report. See Preheim Depo. at 22_-40. 

The United States then asserts that these invited criticisms are

“opinions concerning whether the transformers at the 12kV station

were electrically part of the powerhouse and whether they formed

a separate substation.” Doc. 267 at 18. The United States

cannot justify the admission of Mr. Mara’s report with such

circular reasoning. 

Mr. Mara’s third opinion -- that “[t]he 12kV step-up station

is included as a project work in the combined projects of Project

67 and Project 2175” -- is also not proper rebuttal evidence. 

The United States first points to a single line from Mr. Rabone’s

declaration, where Mr. Rabone states that “...the substation was

never included in the FERC licenses as a project work.” Ex. 9 at

¶9. However, the United States quotes Mr. Rabone out of context. 

The entire paragraph from which this phrase was excerpted is as

follows:

Edison has applied at times to delete from FERC

hydroelectric power project licenses issued to Edison

certain facilities that no longer serve as project

works, including such facilities from Project Nos. 67

and 2175. However, Edison has never sought from FERC

or obtained an order deleting or removing the 12kV

substation near Big Creek Powerhouse Nos. 2 and 2A from

the FERC licenses for Project Nos. 67 or 2175, because

the substation was never included in the licenses as a

project work.

Case 1:01-cv-05167-OWW -DLB Document 272 Filed 09/23/05 Page 9 of 11
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

10

Id. The highlighted phrase is an argument made in support of Mr.

Rabone’s assertion that Edison has never sought to delete the

12kV substation from the licenses. The United States also

highlights Mr. Preheim’s deposition testimony addressing which

power lines might be considered “ancillary” as that term is used

in a particular portion of one of the FERC licenses. Mr. Preheim

acknowledged in his deposition that he reviewed a particular

paragraph in the Project 67 license to identify which power lines

were meant by the phrase “small ancillary lines” found in that

paragraph. This exercise was apparently undertaken by Mr.

Preheim to aid SCE’s in responding to one of the United States’

interrogatories. The United States attempts to characterize Mr.

Mara’s detailed and expansive analysis of the FERC licenses, see

Mara Report at 5-11, as “rebuttal.” It might as well thread an

elephant through the eye of a needle. Mr. Mara’s opinions in

this section touch upon almost every conceivable interpretive

application of the FERC licenses. Even if Mr. Mara’s extensive

legal conclusions were admissible expert testimony, which they

are not, this section of the report cannot fairly be

characterized as rebuttal to any of the opinions offered by SCE’s

experts. 

The arguments offered by the United States regarding Mr.

Mara’s fourth and fifth opinions are equally unavailing. The

fourth opinion purports to rebut Mr. Rabone’s description of

Exhibit M to the Project 67 and 2175 license exhibit as a

“description of the electrical and transmission equipment in the

project.” Rabone Decl. at ¶¶ 2, 5. In response, Mr. Mara

describes several components, such as “roads, bridges, culverts,

Case 1:01-cv-05167-OWW -DLB Document 272 Filed 09/23/05 Page 10 of 11
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

11

guardrails, gates, etc.,” that are not listed in Exhibit M. 

Essentially, in this section, Mr. Mara offers his own factual

observations and conclusions that do not conflict with Rabone’s

description of Exhibit M in any way. Again, the United States is

trying to slip Mr. Mara’s report in through the back door.

Mr. Mara’s fifth area of opinion discusses Mr. Mara’s own

theories as to how and where the fire originated. The United

States does not argue that Mr. Rabone or Mr. Prehiem opined as to

the origin of the fire, but suggests that this section of Mr.

Mara’s report responds to SCE’s claim “that the transformers in

the 12kV station are part of a local 12kV distribution network.” 

Doc. 267 at 20. Although Mr. Mara’s opinions as to the origin of

the fire may indirectly address the relationship between the 12kV

station and the 12kV local distribution network, the thrust of

his argument is unrelated to any opinions offered by SCE. 

V. CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above, Defendants motion for

reconsideration and to strike the expert opinions of Dr. Kevin J.

Mara is GRANTED. 

SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 23, 2005

/s/ OLIVER W. WANGER

______________________________

 Oliver W. Wanger

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:01-cv-05167-OWW -DLB Document 272 Filed 09/23/05 Page 11 of 11