Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01559/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01559-25/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 33:1365 Environmental Matters

---

Order re: United States’ Motion to Strike Untimely Expert Opinion (Doc. 260)

City of Fresno v. United States of America et al., No. 1:06-cv-01559-OWW-GSA

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

Ignacia S. Moreno

Assistant Attorney General

Environment & Natural Resources Division

C. Scott Spear

Kim N. Smaczniak

Paul Cirino

Environmental Defense Section

United States Department of Justice

P.O. Box 23986

Washington, DC 20026-3986

(202) 514-1542 (telephone)

(202) 514-8865 (facsimile)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

THE CITY OF FRESNO,

Plaintiff,

v.

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, UNITED 

STATES ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, 

NATIONAL GUARD BUREAU and THE 

BOEING COMPANY, 

 

Defendants.

 No. 1:06-cv-01559-OWW-GSA

ORDER GRANTING THE UNITED 

STATES’ MOTION TO STRIKE 

UNTIMELY EXPERT OPINION 

OFFERED BY PLAINTIFF CITY OF 

FRESNO (DOC. 260)

Defendants United States of America, United States Army Corps of Engineers, and 

National Guard Bureau (collectively, “United States”) filed a Motion to Strike Untimely Expert 

Opinion Offered By Plaintiff City of Fresno (Doc. 260). The motion came on for hearing on 

May 24, 2010. All parties were represented by counsel at the hearing.

After considering all papers filed in connection with the United States’ motion, hearing 

oral argument, and an agreement having been reached by the parties as contained on the record,

it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED as follows:

Case 1:06-cv-01559-OWW -GSA Document 283 Filed 05/27/10 Page 1 of 3
Order re: United States’ Motion to Strike Untimely Expert Opinion (Doc. 260)

City of Fresno v. United States of America et al., No. 1:06-cv-01559-OWW-GSA

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. Plaintiff shall produce for further deposition in Washington, D.C. its designated 

expert witness Bernard Tod Delaney. Dr. Delaney shall be examined on (1) the opinion 

contained in the May 7, 2010 Declaration of Bernard Tod Delaney (Doc. 254) that 

epichlorohydrin (EPI) may have been present in perchloroethylene (PCE) as a stabilizer, (2) the 

background materials relied upon or reviewed by Dr. Delaney that form the basis for his opinion

that EPI may have been present in PCE as a stabilizer, including the materials attached as 

exhibits to his May 7, 2010 Declaration, and (3) communications with other experts, including 

exchanges of documents or information with other experts, regarding whether 1,2,3-

Trichloropropane (TCP) is a hazardous substance under CERCLA.

2. Plaintiff shall produce for further deposition in Washington, D.C. its designated 

expert witness Jay Vandeven. Mr. Vandeven shall be examined on (1) his background, 

qualification, and experience offering opinions on whether substances can qualify as hazardous 

substances under CERCLA and (2) the entire subject matter of the May 7, 2010 Declaration of 

Jay Vandeven (Doc. 254-17), including the underlying basis and support for the information 

contained therein.

3. Plaintiff shall produce for further deposition in Fresno, California its designated

expert witness Jeffrey Zelikson. Mr. Zelikson shall be examined on (1) his background, 

qualification, and experience relating to time critical response actions under CERCLA and (2) 

the entire subject matter of paragraphs 9, 10, and 11 of the May 6, 2010 Declaration of Jeffrey 

Zelikson (Doc. 254-18), including the underlying basis and support for the information contained 

therein.

4. Plaintiff shall produce for further deposition in Fresno, California its designated 

expert witness Harold V. Morgan. Mr. Morgan shall be examined on (1) the underlying basis for 

the statement that “[s]electing [the] alternative of the continuing use of an unhealthful source of 

supply would have been contrary to good water system management policy and practice” (Doc. 

254-16, 3:27-28) and (2) the entire subject matter of paragraph 17 of the May 4, 2010 

Declaration of Harold V. Morgan (Doc. 254-16), including the underlying basis and support for 

the information contained therein.

Case 1:06-cv-01559-OWW -GSA Document 283 Filed 05/27/10 Page 2 of 3
Order re: United States’ Motion to Strike Untimely Expert Opinion (Doc. 260)

City of Fresno v. United States of America et al., No. 1:06-cv-01559-OWW-GSA

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. Upon the completion of the aforementioned depositions, Defendants shall have 7 

days to counter-designate expert witnesses.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 26, 2010 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE DEAC_Signature-END:

emm0d64h

Case 1:06-cv-01559-OWW -GSA Document 283 Filed 05/27/10 Page 3 of 3