Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_01-cv-05167/USCOURTS-caed-1_01-cv-05167-4/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff(s),

v.

SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON, et

al.,

Defendant(s).

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

1: 01 CV F -5167 OWW DLB 

ORDER DENYING SOUTHERN

CALIFORNIA EDISON’S MOTION TO

STRIKE EXPERT OPINIONS OR TO

PERMIT EDISON TO FILE A

SUPPLEMENTAL/REBUTTAL EXPERT

REPORT

[Doc 230]

Pursuant to a notice filed on May 23, 2005, Defendant Southern California Edison

(“Edison”) seeks to strike the opinion of Kevin J. Mara disclosed by Plaintiff the United States of

America (the “United States”) on May 5, 2005 pursuant to the Court’s modified scheduling order

of February 6, 2005. On July 5, 2005, the parties filed a joint stipulation re discovery dispute

pursuant to Local Rule 37-251 on July 5, 2005. The Court deemed the motion suitable for

decision without oral argument and took the matter under submission on July 8, 2005. Having

considered the papers filed by the parties, as well as the Court’s file, the Court issues the

following order.

BACKGROUND

The United States filed this action seeking to recover damages allegedly resulting from

Case 1:01-cv-05167-OWW -DLB Document 250 Filed 07/13/05 Page 1 of 6
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

the “Big Creek Fire” in the Sierra National Forest that plaintiff alleges originated on August 24,

1994 on the grounds of SCE’s hydroelectric generation facilities known as Big Creek

Powerhouses Nos. 2 and 2A. SCE generates power at Big Creek 2/2A under two Federal Energy

Regulatory Commission (FERC) licenses, denominated by their FERC project numbers, Project

Nos. 67 and 2175.

On September 27, 2002, the Court issued a scheduling order setting the deadline for

written designation of experts pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(A) and (B). On

March 9, 2004, the Court granted the parties’ joint application to modify the scheduling order

which required the parties to disclose experts by July 15, 2004 and provide supplemental expert

disclosures by July 30, 2004. On February 6, 2005, the Court modified the scheduling order

based on Edison’s withdrawal of admissions concerning the applicability of the FERC licenses in

this case. The Court ordered that further discovery, including further disclosures of experts shall

be limited to the issues raised by the withdrawal of the admissions by Edison. The order

amended the trial schedule to, among other things, set April 5, 2005 as the “Deadline for Further

Disclosure of Experts” and May 5, 2005 as the “Supplemental Expert Disclosure Deadline.” The

“Close of Discovery” was set for June 10, 2005. In doing so Judge Wanger stated, “Let’s have

further experts, either side may disclose any further experts by April the 5th, and any rebuttal or

supplemental experts to the new experts by May the 5th.”

On April 5, 2005, Edison served “Defendant’s Further Disclosure of Experts” designating

Joel Preheim and Geoffrey Rabone as expert witnesses. Edison did not provide expert reports for

these witnesses, both of whom are Edison employees.

On May 5, 2005, the United States served “Supplemental Disclosures” of experts

designating Kevin J. Mara and Cynthia A. Whelan. Mr. Mara’s report was enclosed with the

disclosure. The United States has withdrawn Ms. Whelan as an expert and therefore her

designation is not at issue in this motion. 

On May 23, 2005, Edison filed the present motion to strike Mr. Mara’s opinion.

Case 1:01-cv-05167-OWW -DLB Document 250 Filed 07/13/05 Page 2 of 6
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

On June 3, 2005, Edison served a “Supplemental Disclosure of Rebuttal Expert”

designating Donald Clark.

In this motion, Edison contends that the United States’ disclosure of Mr. Mara on May 5,

2005 does not qualify as either supplemental or rebuttal expert disclosure but instead was a late

initial disclosure of expert opinions that should be stricken.

Edison argues that Mr. Mara’s opinions are not “supplemental” in that supplemental

expert disclosure under Rule 26(e)(1) is merely correction to information already disclosed. 

Edison further argues that even if the modified scheduling order is read to allow supplemental

experts to be disclosed (not just supplementation of previously disclosed opinions under Rule

26(e)(1)), there can be no supplementation of experts where there are no experts initially

disclosed. Edison also argues that Mr. Mara does not qualify as rebuttal disclosure because his

opinions have little or no relation to the opinions expressed by Mr. Preheim and Mr. Rabone. 

Edison argues that the United States took a risk in failing to provide initial disclosures of

experts on issues related to the application of the FERC licenses. As it turned out, Edison’s

disclosure of Mr. Preheim and Mr. Rabone limited the government’s expert disclosure to those

subjects having to do with the function of the substation and the version of Exhibit M to the

license in effect at the time of the fire. Edison argues that the government’s expert who opines

that the terms of the licenses, while not expressly referring to the 12KV Substation, nonetheless

somehow define or refer to the substation, should have been disclosed at the April 5, 2005

deadline for mutual, initial disclosure of experts. 

Edison argues that the United States should not be permitted to use the late disclosed

opinions in that there is no substantial justification for failing to disclose Mr. Mara earlier. 

Alternatively, Edison requests that it be allowed to offer the rebuttal opinions of Donald Clarke,

which were disclosed to the government on June 3, 2005. Mr. Clarke’s report discusses Mr.

Mara’s opinions, offering expert testimony that rebuts and contradicts each of Mr. Mara’s first

four opinions. 

Case 1:01-cv-05167-OWW -DLB Document 250 Filed 07/13/05 Page 3 of 6
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

The United States responds that Mr. Mara’s engineering analysis of the nature and

function of the 12KV Station and the electric power lines that emanate from it and a comparison

of those physical findings with the description of such works in the FERC licenses and exhibits is

an analysis that was required by and responds directly to issues raised by Edison’s experts Mr.

Rabone and Mr. Preheim. The United States takes the position that Mr. Mara’s report properly

addresses and counters opinions asserted Mr. Rabone and Mr. Preheim and therefore was a

proper supplemental disclosure under the modified scheduling order. 

DISCUSSION

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2)(C) provides:

(C) These disclosures shall be made at the times and in the sequence directed by

the court. In the absence of other directions from the court or stipulation by the

parties, the disclosures shall be made at least 90 days before the trial date or the

date the case is to be ready for trial or, if the evidence is intended solely to

contradict or rebut evidence on the same subject matter identified by another party

under paragraph (2)(B), within 30 days after the disclosure made by the other

party. The parties shall supplement these disclosures when required under

subdivision (e)(1).

Fed>R.Civ.P. 26(a)(2)(C). 

Here, the Court modified the original scheduling order based on Edison’s withdrawal of

admission concerning the applicability of the FERC licenses to the substation. In doing so, the

Court assumed responsibility for setting dates for disclosure of expert witnesses limited to the

applicability of the FERC licenses thereby rendering Rule 26(a)(2)(C) inapplicable. In setting

the deadlines for additional disclosures of experts in this limited area, the Court stated, “Let’s

have any further experts, either side may disclose any further experts by April the 5th, and any

rebuttal or supplemental experts to the new experts by May the 5th.” 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

Case 1:01-cv-05167-OWW -DLB Document 250 Filed 07/13/05 Page 4 of 6
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 5

designating additional experts in this limited area. The 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.

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 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.

Case 1:01-cv-05167-OWW -DLB Document 250 Filed 07/13/05 Page 5 of 6
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 6

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.

CONCLUSION

In summary, the Court finds that Judge Wanger’s modified scheduling order allowed for

designation of experts regarding the applicability of the FERC licenses, initially on April 5, 2005

and then additionally on May 5, 2005. All experts designated under this modified order were

restricted to the issue of the FERC licenses and therefore the May 5, 2005 disclosure was not

limited to supplementation of experts disclosed on April 5, 2005 or rebuttal to those experts. In

any event, the Court finds that Mr. Mara responds to the opinions of Edison’s experts and

therefore was timely even under Edison’s narrow interpretation of the modified scheduling order. 

Edison’s motion to strike is therefore DENIED. Because the Court finds the United States’

designation of Mr. Mara was appropriate, Edison’s request to designate an additional expert in

response to Mr. Mara is also DENIED. The Court’s order of February 6, 2005 did not provide

for additional disclosure of experts after May 5, 2005.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 12, 2005 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:01-cv-05167-OWW -DLB Document 250 Filed 07/13/05 Page 6 of 6