Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_01-cv-05167/USCOURTS-caed-1_01-cv-05167-0/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

Edison filed an amended notice on April 5, 2004 and a second amended notice on April 14, 2005.

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 RE SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA

EDISON’S MOTION TO STRIKE

EXPERT OPINIONS OR TO PERMIT

EDISON TO FILE A

SUPPLEMENTAL/REBUTTAL EXPERT

REPORT

Doc 215

Pursuant to notices filed on March 25, 2005, April 5, 2005 and April 14, 20051,

Defendant Southern California Edison (“Edison”) seeks an order striking all of the new and

additional opinions offered by the government’s expert, Richard Ford (“Mr. Ford”), at his

deposition on December 14, 2004. Alternatively, Edison seeks leave to file a

supplemental/rebuttal expert report(s) (which may involve disclosure of an additional expert) that

addresses and responds to the new and additional opinions offered by Mr. Ford at his deposition. 

The parties filed a joint stipulation re discovery dispute pursuant to Local Rule 37-251 on April

27, 2005. The matter came on regularly for hearing on April 29, 2005 in Department 5 of the

above-entitled court. Appearing on behalf of the United States was Kirk E. Sherriff. Appearing

Case 1:01-cv-05167-OWW -DLB Document 233 Filed 05/25/05 Page 1 of 8
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

 

2On 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 admission by Edison.

2

on behalf of Edison was Stevens & O’Connell, LLP by attorney Craig C. Allison. Having

considered the papers filed by counsel, as well as the arguments of counsel and the Court’s file,

the Court issues the following order.

BACKGROUND

The United States filed this action seeking to recover damages resulting from the “Big

Creek Fire” in the Sierra National Forest which the U.S.A. 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, 2004.2 The parties thereafter agreed to extend these deadlines by two

weeks. The United States timely disclosed and provided Mr. Ford’s report in July 2004. Mr.

Ford’s resume indicates that he is an experienced wildland fire scene investigator, which includes

evaluating and determining the cause and point of origin. Edison’s counsel deposed Ford on

December 14, 2004. 

This dispute centers around Edison’s contention that at his deposition, Mr. Ford provided

untimely additional opinions that were not contained in his report as to what he now claims was

the precise point of origin of the Big Creek fire. Edison argues that these new opinions should be

excluded from evidence as violative of Rule 26 and Judge Wanger’s Scheduling Order. Edison

Case 1:01-cv-05167-OWW -DLB Document 233 Filed 05/25/05 Page 2 of 8
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

also argues that Mr. Ford’s new opinions do not constitute “supplemental disclosures” under

Rule 26(e) since the opinions were developed after the expert reports were due and submitted. 

At a minimum, Edison argues that it should be entitled to offer rebuttal expert reports to Ford’s

untimely deposition opinions. 

The United States maintains that Edison’s motion is an attempt to introduce untimely

expert reports, including one from a previously undisclosed expert. The United States argues

that Ford’s opinions are not “new” and not beyond the scope of the opinions set forth in his

report dated July 13, 2004. Even assuming Ford’s testimony modified his report in any material

respect, the United States contends the supplemental disclosure provision in Rule 26(e)(1)

authorizes such supplemental disclosure at deposition. The United States maintains that

Edison’s untimely attempt to reopen this issue on which discovery is closed would be prejudicial,

particularly as new government counsel is already required to focus a disproportionate amount of

time on the issues on which discovery was specifically reopened by Judge Wanger as a result of

Edison’s late withdrawal of admissions concerning the applicability of the FERC licenses in this

case. 

DISCUSSION

A. Mr. Ford’s July 2004 Report.

In his July 2004 report, Mr. Ford offered the following opinion regarding the point of

origin of the Big Creek Fire:

Initial Fire Spread

The base of the slope adjacent to the transformer enclosure is now covered with a

coating of sprayed concrete, preventing examination of residual fire vegetation to

determine the point of origin of the wildfire. However, the cupping of the top of

the stub on its downslope face is consistent with frontal fire spread uphill from the

substation. (See photo 11).

Above the secondary enclosure is a cleared area to channel surface water drainage

around the substation enclosure. It also serves as a cleared pathway to the hillside

above which remains largely undisturbed since the fire. Residual evidence created

by the fire’s passage within this area is still undisturbed and identifies frontal fire

spread from the substation below. These fire spread indicators involve rock

stains, charred lichen, fallen unburned limbs and residual burned stubs of trees

and shrubs. (See photos 24-32)(Refer to sketch 5)

Case 1:01-cv-05167-OWW -DLB Document 233 Filed 05/25/05 Page 3 of 8
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 frontal advance of the fire up the slope is also identifiable by the existing

appearance of tree crowns at the visible top of this slope where the initial fire was

being observed. (See photos 33 & 34)

The visual evidence creates a widening “vee” pattern of fire spread uphill from the

area of the transformer enclosure, confirming that the wildfire started at a low

slope level in the vicinity of the transformer enclosure.

Small, surface fuels on this steep slope would be expected to be ignited easily on

the fire date in recognition of: (1) exposure to morning solar heating; (2) hot, dry,

mid-day weather in late summer; (3) summer-long drying of annual vegetation;

and (4) low residual fuel moisture in the foliage of perennial species. The rapid

spread of the fire to the tip of the ridge confirms the severity of the fire danger at

the onset of the fire. (emphasis added.)

Ford Rept. at p. 3.

B. Mr. Ford’s December 14, 2004 Deposition Testimony.

 On September 7, 2004, Mr. Ford requested that prior to his deposition he be provided

with “8x10 color copies (from McPhail’s negatives for quality purposes) of Bates Nos. 009947,

009961, 009963, 009964 and 009974.” Allison Declaration, Exhibit M. Based on his review of

these higher quality photographs, at his deposition on December 14, 2004, Mr. Ford was able to

detail on exhibit photographs used during the deposition, a more specific area of origin and

spread of the fire. See Ford Deposition, p. 105-107 and Allison Declaration Exhibit E. Mr.

Ford’s more detailed opinion prompted the following exchange:

Q: Let me ask you this, because you have testified with some specificity as to –

not a specific dot, but at least a very small area where you say was the point of

origin of the fire, correct? And you testified about it earlier, is that right? Right? 

And you marked it on the photographs.

A: Where I marked on the photographs is where I’m saying basically this is your

area of – that I know an origin occurred, and spread up slope within the enclosure,

and beyond.

Q: And that is your opinion today, as you sit here, to a reasonable degree of

scientific certainty, is that correct? 

A: That’s correct.

Q: Did you hold that same opinion as to the area of origin or ignition, as we’ve

discussed earlier, at the time you put this report together? Your report that we’re

referring to as Exhibit 10.

A: I think, when I put this report together, I didn’t have the advantage of looking

at quality photographs that showed the corridor, and it’s only based upon these

photographs that I was able to establish that the – that a point of ignition behind

Case 1:01-cv-05167-OWW -DLB Document 233 Filed 05/25/05 Page 4 of 8
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

the substation.

Q: Did you have any discussion after doing your report, with Ms. Maccione or

anybody else, in which you were asked to more narrowly focus and come up with

an opinions as to a point of origin?

A: No, I don’t think she asked me, “Did it start within 30 feet?” That’s one of the

things she would ask me. (emphasis added)

Ford Deposition at 211:19-25 - 212:1-24.

Q: And at the time you did your report you had not been able to come to any

opinion or conclusion as to the area of ignition, as we discussed earlier today, is

that right?

Ms. Maccione: Objection. Characterizes the testimony.

The Witness: Precise point of ignition, yes. But as far as being a determination, it

was well within that lower area of the enclosure of the slope, yes. I was

confirmed – I could confirm that because I found a stub, now covered with

Gunite, that’s well within that 30-foot area, and showing fire spreading uphill

from that spot. So it was with knowledge and confirmation that I knew that to be

a fact, but I could not have – at that time hadn’t tried to – wasn’t able to get the

precise point until I got the quality photographs.

Q: And then once you got the photographs, which are the ones we talked about

earlier today –

A: Extensively today.

Q: – you analyzed then and you were able to further narrow down the area of

ignition that is your opinion?

A: The . . . the spread indication on the stub was not a point of origin, but it just

told me the fire origin was below that point. In more close proximity to the back

of the transformers. It was only when I got quality photographs that I was able to

pinpoint it beyond that point to the point that we’ve identified today.

Q: If you had the quality photographs prior to the time you generated your report, would

you have been more specific in your report as to the point of origin, along the lines we

talked about in this deposition?

A: Absolutely. Again, that was visible evidence at the time of the fire, and it would have

been an influence.

Ford Deposition at 215:25 - 217:1-12.

///

///

///

Case 1:01-cv-05167-OWW -DLB Document 233 Filed 05/25/05 Page 5 of 8
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

C. Edison’s Motion to Strike.

Rule 26(a)(2) requires the expert’s report to contain “a complete statement of all opinions

to be expressed and the basis and reasons therefor . . . “ Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(a)(2). Full disclosure

must be made of everything to be covered in the expert’s direct examination and anything

considered by the expert. See Adv. Comm. Notes to 1993 Amendments to FRCP 26(a)(2). 

The United States timely disclosed and served Mr. Ford’s written report in July 2004. 

However, at his deposition in December 2004, Mr. Ford provided testimony regarding the precise

point of origin of the fire beyond that which was provided in his report. The testimony

significantly narrows the area in which Mr. Ford opines the fire originated and Mr. Ford testified

that he was only able to form his opinion as to the precise point of origin of the fire after he

received the higher quality photographs, which he requested in September 2004 letter to Ms.

Maccione. The more detailed analysis of the point of origin is admittedly information that Mr.

Ford would have put in his report if he had the higher quality photographs prior to generating his

report therefore required by Rule 26(a)(2). 

Mr. Ford’s more specific opinion does not constitute supplementation. Rule 26(e)

requires supplementation when a “party learns that in some material respect the information

disclosed is incomplete or incorrect.” Mr. Ford’s report was not incomplete or incorrect, he

simply failed to do the more detailed examination of the photograph which would have enabled

him to provide his later arrived at opinion within the disclosures deadlines. Rule 26(e) does not

cover this situation. The purpose of the supplementary disclosures is to supplement earlier

disclosures regarding the designated experts. Designating a new expert or new opinions after the

disclosure deadline is not allowed as a “supplemental disclosure.” See Keener v. United States

181 FRD 639, 642 (D MT 1998). 

A party who fails to properly disclose its expert and their reports may be barred from

using on direct examination any exert testimony not so disclosed: 

c) Failure to Disclose; False or Misleading Disclosure; Refusal

to Admit.

Case 1:01-cv-05167-OWW -DLB Document 233 Filed 05/25/05 Page 6 of 8
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

 

3At the hearing, counsel for the United States suggested that the United States would be willing to forego the

additional testimony by Mr. Ford in lieu of allowing Edison to file a supplemental expert report..

 

4

Indeed, the Court notes that the supplemental/rebuttal report proposed by Edison goes beyond providing rebuttal

opinions to Mr. Ford’s more specific opinion as to the point of origin of the fire. Mr. Ben Hull not only opines that it

is not possible to identify the area described by Mr. Ford as a specific point of origin but also that, “there were very

likely multiple points of ignition higher up on the slope.” See Allison Declaration, Exhibit F, p.1-2 (emphasis

added). 

7

(1) A party that without substantial justification fails to disclose

information required by Rule 26(a) or 26(e)(1), or to amend a prior

response to discovery as required by Rule 26(e)(2), is not, unless

such failure is harmless, permitted to use as evidence at a trial, at a

hearing, or on a motion any witness or information not so

disclosed. In addition to or in lieu of this sanction, the court, on

motion and after affording an opportunity to be heard, may impose

other appropriate sanctions. 

Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(c)(1).

The United States offers no justification for failing to timely disclose Mr. Ford’s more

detailed opinion regarding the origin of the fire. While the Court finds no evidence of bad faith

on the part of the Untied States, Mr. Ford’s testimony at his deposition is based on work that he

could and should have performed prior to submitting his report or at least in a supplemental

report well in advance of his deposition. Indeed, Mr. Ford requested the higher quality

photographs in September but it was not until the deposition in December that his more specific

opinion was provided to Edison. Exclusion of critical evidence is a harsh sanction, especially in

the absence of bad faith. However, allowing Mr. Ford to offer his opinion at trial regarding the

precise point of origin of the fire using the high quality photographs would necessitate giving

Edison the opportunity to respond to this opinion. Based on the representations by counsel at the

hearing, the Court finds that a more practical solution is to grant Edison’s motion to strike the

additional opinions offered by Mr. Ford at his deposition thereby limiting both parties to the

expert opinions that were disclosed in accordance with the scheduling order.3 In addition,

eliminating the additional testimony by Mr. Ford at his deposition renders Edison’s motion to file

a supplemental/rebuttal expert report moot.4 

Notwithstanding the Court’s determination that Mr. Ford’s initial report did not put

Case 1:01-cv-05167-OWW -DLB Document 233 Filed 05/25/05 Page 7 of 8
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

Edison on notice of his more detailed opinion as to the precise point of origin of the fire, a fair

reading of the Report does put Edison on notice of his opinion that the fire started within the

transformer enclosure at the bottom of the slope. The Report describes the substation containing

the transformers and power grid as located adjacent to the power house access road within view

of the power house and built against a steep (47 degree) hillside. Ford Report at p. 1. Mr. Ford

states that the transformers and power grid are installed on a concrete slab and are enclosed by a

wire fence approximately 30 yards long (E-W) and 25 feet deep. Id. He then describes a

secondary wire enclosure built on the slope of the hillside behind the substation, the top of which

extends about 175 feet upslope from the base of the slope. Ford Report at p. 2. He opines that

the fire spread “uphill from the substation” and that the “visual evidence creates a widening

“vee” pattern of fire spread uphill from the area of the transformer enclosure, confirming that the

wildfire spread at a low slope level in the vicinity of the transformer enclosure.” Ford Report at

p.3. Based on his description of the substation, transformer enclosure, secondary enclosure and

the pictures referenced, his Report clearly states that the fire originated inside the transformer

enclosure and spread uphill in a widening “vee.” This Order does not preclude Mr. Ford from so

testifying. 

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, Edison’s, motion to strike expert opinions is HEREBY

GRANTED in part. The United States will not be permitted to offer at trial the additional

opinions rendered by Mr. Ford after his review of higher resolution copies of 1994 photographs

of the fire scene and consistent with this Order, the United States will be limited to Mr. Ford’s

opinion as disclosed in his July 2004 report. Edison’s alternative motion to permit the filing of

supplemental/rebuttal expert reports is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 24, 2005 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:01-cv-05167-OWW -DLB Document 233 Filed 05/25/05 Page 8 of 8