Hawaii Wildlife Fund et al v. County of Maui
Filing
438
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT COUNTY OF MAUIS REQUEST FOR A PRETRIAL EVIDENTIARY HEARING PURSUANT TO RULE 702 OF THE FEDERAL RULES OF EVIDENCE re 422 . The court denies the County of Maui's motion for a pretrial evidentiary hearing pursu ant to Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence. This order is without prejudice to the raising of future challenges to the June 2013 Lahaina Groundwater Tracer Study or any evidence based on that study. Signed by JUDGE SUSAN OKI MOLLWAY on 4/7/2021. (cib)
Case 1:12-cv-00198-SOM-KJM Document 438 Filed 04/07/21 Page 1 of 5
11013
PageID #:
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII
HAWAI`I WILDLIFE FUND;
SIERRA CLUB-MAUI GROUP;
SURFRIDER FOUNDATION; and
WEST MAUI PRESERVATION
ASSOCIATION
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
vs.
)
)
COUNTY OF MAUI,
)
)
Defendant.
_____________________________ )
CIV. NO. 12-00198 SOM/KJM
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT
COUNTY OF MAUI’S REQUEST FOR
A PRETRIAL EVIDENTIARY
HEARING PURSUANT TO RULE 702
OF THE FEDERAL RULES OF
EVIDENCE
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT COUNTY OF MAUI’S MOTION
FOR A PRETRIAL EVIDENTIARY HEARING PURSUANT TO
RULE 702 OF THE FEDERAL RULES OF EVIDENCE
I.
INTRODUCTION.
Citing Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence,
Defendant County of Maui seeks a pretrial evidentiary hearing in
aid of having this court exclude from evidence a June 2013
Lahaina Groundwater Tracer Study and any opinions relying on that
study.
The County of Maui argues that the study was so flawed
that witnesses and documents relying on it should be excluded as
unreliable.
A nonjury trial in this case is set to begin this fall.
Now pending before this court is Plaintiffs’ motion for summary
judgment, which Plaintiffs contend does not rely on the disputed
evidence.
At this point, this court denies the County of Maui’s
Case 1:12-cv-00198-SOM-KJM Document 438 Filed 04/07/21 Page 2 of 5
11014
request.
PageID #:
This denial is without prejudice to a later challenge
by the County of Maui to the evidence.
II.
ANALYSIS.
The Lahaina Wastewater Reclamation Facility on the
island of Maui filters and disinfects sewage from about 40,000
people.
The resulting wastewater is discharged into four
injection wells.
Plaintiffs allege that the discharge leads to
Clean Water Act violations.
This case is now on remand to this court, following a
decision by the United States Supreme Court.
The County of Maui
is not disputing that “injectate pumped into injection wells 3
and 4 eventually finds its way to the Lahaina coastline, emerging
with groundwater into the ocean off Kahekili Beach and along
Maui’s west shore.”
ECF No. 422-1, PageID # 9790.
The evidence
that the County of Maui seeks to exclude relates to the extent of
the injectate reaching the ocean.
The County of Maui argues that
the June 2013 Lahaina Groundwater Tracer Study and evidence
grounded on that study are unreliable.
Under Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509
U.S. 579, 589 (1993), this “judge must ensure that any and all
scientific testimony or evidence admitted is not only relevant,
but reliable.”
But that does not mean that this judge must hold
an evidentiary hearing well in advance of trial.
See United
States v. Alatorre, 222 F.3d 1098, 1104 (9th Cir. 2000) (trial
2
Case 1:12-cv-00198-SOM-KJM Document 438 Filed 04/07/21 Page 3 of 5
11015
PageID #:
court has discretion with respect to timing of Daubert hearing
and need not conduct a pretrial hearing).
Here, Plaintiffs have
moved for summary judgment, which, if granted, would make
deciding any Rule 702 request unnecessary.
Plaintiffs represent
that their motion does not rely on the disputed evidence that the
County of Maui is seeking to exclude.
# 10966.
See ECF No. 433, PageID
While the County of Maui says Plaintiffs’ motion does
rely on such evidence, see ECF No. 436, PageID #s 10995-99,
judicial economy may nevertheless be served by deciding the
summary judgment motion first.
The County of Maui may, of
course, raise the reliability of the June 2013 Lahaina
Groundwater Tracer Study in opposition to Plaintiffs’ motion for
summary judgment.
The court is certainly not saying here that
the study is reliable.
Rather, this court is saying that the
County of Maui has not shown that the court must decide the issue
in advance of considering the pending summary judgment motion.
A major purpose of a court’s Daubert gatekeeping
function is to ensure that the trier of fact is not unduly
prejudiced.
However, when cases involve bench trials, as here,
the gatekeeping function is less pressing.
See M.G. v. Bodum
USA, Inc., 2021 WL 718839, at *13 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 24, 2021); see
also Deal v. Hamilton Cty. Bd. of Educ., 392 F.3d 840, 852 (6th
Cir. 2004) (“The ‘gatekeeper’ doctrine was designed to protect
juries and is largely irrelevant in the context of a bench
3
Case 1:12-cv-00198-SOM-KJM Document 438 Filed 04/07/21 Page 4 of 5
11016
PageID #:
trial.”); Boeing Co. v. KB Yuzhnoye, 2015 WL 12803452, at *4
(C.D. Cal. Nov. 3, 2015) (“Plaintiffs’ concerns about admitting
expert legal opinion will be lessened where, as here, this Court
sits as the trier of fact.”).
In this case, it might turn out
that the court can perform its gatekeeping function when the
disputed evidence is offered during the bench trial.
Indeed, it is not entirely clear that the dispute over
the study should be viewed as one of the admissibility, as
opposed to merely the weight, of the evidence.
The court
declines to hold an evidentiary hearing at this time.
III.
CONCLUSION.
The court denies the County of Maui’s motion for a
pretrial evidentiary hearing pursuant to Rule 702 of the Federal
Rules of Evidence.
This order is without prejudice to the
raising of future challenges to the June 2013 Lahaina Groundwater
Tracer Study or any evidence based on that study.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawaii, April 7, 2021.
/s/ Susan Oki Mollway
Susan Oki Mollway
United States District Judge
4
Case 1:12-cv-00198-SOM-KJM Document 438 Filed 04/07/21 Page 5 of 5
11017
PageID #:
HAWAII WILDLIFE FUND, et al. v. COUNTY OF MAUI, Civ. No. 12-000198 SOM/KJM; ORDER
DENYING DEFENDANT COUNTY OF MAUI'S REQUEST FOR A PRETRIAL EVIDENTIARY HEARING PURSUANT
TO RULE 702 OF THE FEDERAL RULES OF EVIDENCE
5
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?