Adams, et al v. USA

Filing 1969

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER granting 1962 Motion to Compel. The BLM shall disclose (1) how Barry and Ranallo divided their work, and (2) how each relied on the other in arrivein at his opinions due by 6/13/2011. Signed by Judge B. Lynn Winmill. (caused to be mailed to non Registered Participants at the addresses listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by cjm)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO

TIMM ADAMS, et al.,
Case No. 4:CV 03-49-BLW
Plaintiffs,
v.

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND
ORDER

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al.,
Defendants.

INTRODUCTION
The Court has before it a motion to compel filed by plaintiffs. After a mediation
session proved unsuccessful, the Court ordered expedited briefing that has now been
received. For the reasons expressed below, the Court will grant the motion.
ANALYSIS
In their motion to compel, plaintiffs object to a joint expert report filed by the
BLM. The plaintiffs argue that the Federal Rules do not contemplate two experts signing
a single report that does not explain their division of labor or their reliance on each other.
Plaintiffs seek to compel the BLM to disclose which expert holds which opinion.
The two experts are Christopher C. Barry and Lawrence F. Ranallo, both
employed by PricewaterhouseCoopers. Their joint report addresses the plaintiffs’
damage claims, and consists of a main report of 105 pages in length, and individual

Memorandum Decision & Order - 1

reports (over a hundred in number) on each individual grower of about 20 to 50 pages
each. Each individual report is supported by detailed spreadsheets. The main report, the
individual reports, and the supporting materials together are thousands of pages in length,
and each report is signed by both experts. Their depositions are set for June 20, 2011.
Barry and Ranallo worked as a team and divided up the work of analyzing
plaintiffs’ damages. See BLM Brief (Dkt. 1966) at pp. 2, 3. While these experts reached
the same opinions, they arrived at their conclusions by working on different aspects of the
damages issues. The BLM has not, however, disclosed the division of labor, i.e., which
expert studied which area.
Because the reports and supporting documentation do not reveal this division of
labor, the reports are incomplete. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(A)(2)(B) (“[t]he report must
contain . . . a complete statement of all opinions the witness will express and the basis
and reasons for them”). While the Rule contains no bar to filing a joint report signed by
two experts, the Rule does require that the report contain the “basis and reasons for” each
expert’s opinions. When two experts work as a team and divide up the work, the report
must reveal this division of labor.
However, the full “basis and reason” for an opinion is not revealed simply upon
disclosing the division of labor. To know that Barry worked on a certain aspect of
damages is part of the answer but leaves unanswered how Barry relied on Ranallo’s work
on other aspects of damages. Obviously, since they were working as a team, Barry relied
on Ranallo to fill in some gaps (and vice-versa). However, the joint report does not
Memorandum Decision & Order - 2

disclose this reliance. While both experts hold the same ultimate opinions, they arrived at
those opinions by different paths because they divided up the work. Neither did all the
work and so each is relying to some degree on the work done by his partner. An expert
may base an opinion in part on the work of another, but must fully disclose that reliance
in the Rule 26 report.
Thus, to comply with the “basis and reason” requirement of Rule 26(A)(2)(B), the
BLM must reveal (1) how Barry and Ranallo divided their work, and (2) how each relied
on the other in arriving at his opinions. Consequently, the Court will grant plaintiffs’
motion to compel.
ORDER
In accordance with the Memorandum Decision set forth above,
NOW THEREFORE IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, that the motion to compel
(docket no. 1962) is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that on or before June 13, 2011, the BLM shall
disclose (1) how Barry and Ranallo divided their work, and (2) how each relied on the
other in arriving at his opinions.

DATED: May 29, 2011

Honorable B. Lynn Winmill
Chief U. S. District Judge

Memorandum Decision & Order - 3