and Mejdrech Class Areas are consistent with TCE that originated
from the biological degradation of PCE. Even before Sturchio
recanted these findings, however, Plaintiffs questioned the
reliability of his methods and opinions. Obviously, the
recantation has significantly bolstered their arguments.

A. Isotope Analysis Methodology

Given Sturchio’s recantation, the only remaining sections in
his report relate to his isotopic analysis of the groundwater
samples taken from the LeClercq and Mejdrech Class Areas and the
Lockformer Site. Plaintiffs contend that this methodology is not
scientifically accepted and produced unreliable results.

Plaintiffs point first to Sturchio’s admissions that, to his
knowledge, the method he employed in analyzing the TCE had never
been used before. Indeed, Sturchio admitted that he was “pushing
the frontiers” of science when he used large water samples to
overcome the relatively small concentrations of TCE.

Plaintiffs also rely on the opinions of their own expert, Dr.
Ramon Aravena (“Aravena”), a research professor in the Department
of Earth Sciences at the University of Waterloo, Canada. Aravena,
whose articles on isotopic analysis are repeatedly cited in
Sturchio’s report, is one of six core professors on the board of
the Environmental Isotope Laboratory at the University of Waterloo.
Aravena has reviewed Sturchio’s expert report, the documents

produced by Sturchio and his lab, including documents relating to


the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a witness qualified
as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or
education, may” offer an opinion on the relevant issues. Fkmp. R.
Evip. 702. The witness may only offer such an opinion if (1) the
proffered testimony is “based upon sufficient facts or data, (2)
the testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods,
and (3) the witness has applied the principles and methods reliably
to the facts of the case.” Id. It is the district court’s
gatekeeping obligation to ensure that expert testimony is not only
relevant, but reliable. Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S.
137, 147 (1999). In performing that function, courts may consider
several factors, including whether the expert’s “theory or
technique . . . can be (and has been) tested,” whether it “has been

“

subjected to peer review and publication,” whether the technique
has a high “known or potential rate of error,” whether there are
“standards controlling the technique’s operation,” and whether the
technique enjoys “general acceptance” within a “relevant scientific
community.” Daubert, 509 U.S. at 592-94.

Sturchio’s isotope analysis method was an unprecedented
variation on a peer-reviewed procedure. It was not tested or
subjected to peer review or publication, it appears to sustain a
high potential rate of error, and it does not enjoy general

acceptance within the relevant scientific community. The

unreliability of his method is compounded by his seeming disregard

~7-


low, Sturchio used large water sample sizes to generate enough TCE
mass for analysis. In his expert report and affidavit, Sturchio
states that the isotopic analysis of C and Cl extracted from
groundwater well samples in both the LeClercq and Mejdrech Class
Areas indicated extremely low Cl isotope ratios compared to the TCE
extracted from the soil samples on the Lockformer Site. Sturchio
also asserts that the isotopic analysis of compounds extracted from
groundwater well samples in the southeastern portion of the
Lockformer property evidenced extremely low Cl isotope ratios
compared to the TCE extracted from the soil samples below the fill
pipe, the middle of the Lockformer Site and the southwestern corner
of the property. He concludes that the differences in the Cl
isotope ratios indicate that the TCE in the groundwater in the
LeClercq and Mejdrech Class Areas did not originate from the
Lockformer TCE source.

In his report, Sturchio claims that the only known source for
TCE with such low Cl isotopes, such as those found in the Class
Areas and in the southeastern portion of the Lockformer property,
is from biodegradation of tetrachloroethylene or PCE. He
identifies St. Joseph’s Creek, the Downers Grove municipal sanitary
sewer line, the Lisle sewer line, and Ellsworth Industrial Park as
significant sources of PCE.

Recently, Sturchio has withdrawn his opinion that the chlorine

isotope ratios measured from samples taken throughout the LeClercq


the methodology Sturchio and his staff employed, the raw data
Sturchio generated, and Sturchio’s deposition transcripts.
Aravena describes Sturchio’s methodology as one that “has
never been demonstrated to be scientifically reliable for this
application.” He is unaware of any peer reviewed field studies
that support Sturchio’s methodology. Furthermore, because Sturchio
required such large volumes of water for his analysis, he had to
use multiple sample containers and multiple extractions per sample,
which, in Aravena’s opinion, “dramatically” increased the
likelihood of sample contamination and made the analysis
scientifically unreliable. Aravena recognizes that Sturchio cites
to a peer-reviewed study as support for his method. Aravena,
however, distinguishes the published, accepted study because it did
not involve the use of large volumes of water, of multiple sample
containers, or of multiple extractions to perform an analysis.
Aravena further explains that unlike carbon, chlorine is not
measured on a compound specific basis. The effect of this is that
when chlorine is measured in a water sample, the results will
reflect chlorine isotope composition of all chlorinated organic
compounds in the sample. Chlorine isotope results in a single
compound, such as TCE, cannot be isolated. Given that Sturchio
admits that he found other chlorine isotope-containing compounds in

his samples, Plaintiffs contend that his results are unreliable.



of any unfavorable findings in this case. The Court finds that
Sturchio’s opinions do not meet the reliability requirements set
forth in Rule 702 or in Daubert. FeD. R. Evip. 702; Daubert, 509
U.S. at 592-94,
For the foregoing reasons, the Court grants Plaintiffs’ motion
to bar the testimony of Dr. Sturchio.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, Plaintiffs’ motion to bar the

trial testimony of Dr. Neil Sturchio is GRANTED .
“

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Yow
}

Harry D. Leinenweber, Judge

WA United States District Court
Date: A, ‘phombel. . PLE



Minute Order Form (06/97)

United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois

Name of Assi

d Judge Harry D. Leinenweber Sitting Judge if Other

or Magistrate Judge than Assigned Judge
CASE NUMBER 01 C6107 DATE 9/4/2003
CASE Theresa Mejdrech, et al vs. The Lockformer Company, et al
TITLE
[In the following box (a) indicate the party filing the motion, e.g., plaintiff, defendant, 3rd party plaintiff, and (b) state briefly the nature
MOTION: of the motion being presented.]

DOCKET ENTRY:

(1) a Filed motion of [ use listing in “Motion” box above.]}

(2) im Brief in support of motion due

(3) oO Answer brief to motion due___. Reply to answer brief due.

(4) oO Ruling/Hearingon set for at__

(5) o Status hearing[held/continued to] [set for/re-set for]on___——ssetfor_ at.

(6) Oo Pretrial conference{held/continued to] {set for/re-set for]on__——ssetfor_— at

(7) im) Trial{set for/re-set for]on att

(8) a [{Bench/Jury trial] [Hearing] held/continuedto_— ss at__

(9) Oo This case is dismissed [with/without] prejudice and without costs[by/agreement/pursuant to]

OCOFRCP4(m) GLocal Rule 41.1 GFRCP4I1(a)(1) OO FRCP41(a)(2).
ao) if [Other docket entry) ENTER MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: Plaintiffs’ motion to
bar the trial testimony of Dr. Neil Sturchio is GRANTED.

(1) @ (For further detail see order attached to the original minute order.]

Y | No notices required. advised in open court Document
Number

No notices required
Notices mailed by judge’s staff.
Notified counsel by telephone. N
Docketing (0 mail notices:
Mail AO 450 form.

Copy to jiudge/magisteate judge

:uumber of notices

EP 05 2003

date dockered

oT

wap

date mailed notice

courtroom 02:9 Wy Ce d3S £0

SOT iiellane Welwelid Wd
contra cits Office

deputy initials



As further evidence of Sturchio’s overall unreliability as an
expert, Plaintiffs point to his disregard of unfavorable facts.
For example, while analyzing the chlorine isotope ratios in the
samples, Sturchio also analyzed the carbon isotope ratios. This
analysis showed that all but one of the ratios from the LeClercg
and Mejdrech Class Area samples matched the ratios found at the
Lockformer Site, which Sturchio concluded were attributable only to
manufactured TCE. Sturchio recorded these ratios in a Table
attached to his expert report, but although they conflicted with
his chlorine isotope results, he ignored them in his discussion.
Plaintiffs also charge Sturchio with dismissing unfavorable
chlorine isotope ratios from two on-site wells.

In its response to Plaintiffs’ claims, Honeywell asserts that
Sturchio’s methodology is “well known, published and peer
reviewed.” As support for this proposition, it explained that
Sturchio’s extraction methodology and the analysis of the chlorine
isotope ratio were performed according to a published, peer
reviewed procedure. Honeywell, however, concedes that Sturchio
veered from those published procedures in using the larger sample
containers. Honeywell does not rebut any of Plaintiffs’ other
challenges, nor does it address any of Aravena’s concerns about
Sturchio’s methods.

Rule 702 provides that “(i]f scientific, technical, or other

specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand



IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION F j L E D

THERESA MEJDRECH, DANIEL SEP 4 2093

MEJDRECH, MARY BENO, MARK JUDGE Harry

BENO, individually, and on US. DISTR COuNENWEBER
behalf of all persons ror T JUDGE
similarly situated, Case No. 01 C 6107

Plaintiffs,
Hon. Harry D. Leinenweber
v.

THE LOCKFORMER COMPANY, a
division of MET-COIL SYSTEMS
CORPORATION, a Delaware
corporation, MET-COIL SYSTEMS
CORPORATION, a Delaware ge
Corporation, and MESTEK, INC., DOCKETED
a Pennsylvania corporation,

and HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL, SEP 0 5 2003
INC., a Delaware corporation,

Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Plaintiffs Theresa Mejdrech, Daniel Mejdrech, Mary Beno, and
Mark Beno, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly
situated persons (the “Plaintiffs”) filed this class action against
The Lockformer Company (“Lockformer”), Met-Coil Systems Corporation
(“Met-Coil”), Mestek, Inc. (“Mestek”), and Honeywell International,
Inc. (“Honeywell”) seeking to recover costs pursuant to
Section 107(a) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation and Liability Act, 42 U.S.C. § 9607(a), and the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, 42 U.S.C. § 6972(a), and

asserting claims of negligence, private nuisance, trespass, and



willful and wanton misconduct. Plaintiffs have reached a
settlement agreement with Lockformer, Met-Coil, and Mestek, leaving
Honeywell as the only remaining defendant. Presently before the
Court is Plaintiffs’ motion to bar the trial testimony of
Lockformer/Met-Coil expert Dr. Neil Sturchio (“Sturchio”).
I. DISCUSSION

Lockformer and Met-Coil retained Sturchio to perform an
isotopic comparison between the chemical makeup of the volatile
organic compounds found in the Mejdrech and LeClercq Class Areas
and the TCE found on the Lockformer Site. Sturchio is a Professor
of Geochemistry and Head of the Department of Earth and
Environmental Sciences at the University of Illinois in Chicago
(“UIC”). He is also the Director of the Environmental Isotope
Geochemistry Laboratory at the UIC and a former Argonne National
Labs Scientist. Despite these credentials, Plaintiffs contend that
Sturchio’s methods, report, and opinions are entirely unreliable
and that, accordingly, he should be barred from testifying at trial
pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 702 (“Rule 702”) and the
principles established in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc., 509
U.S. 579 (1993).

Sturchio compared the isotopic ratios of carbon (C) and
chlorine (Cl) in soil and groundwater samples taken from the
Lockformer Site, the Mejdrech Class Area and the LeClercq Class

Area. Because the TCE groundwater concentrations were relatively