Adams, et al v. USA
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER RE DR. DUFT & CORNELIUS HOFMAN. It is hereby ordered that DuPont produce to plaintiffs the 20 or so sub-files of documents created by Dr Duft that he used to "code" or link his opinions in his Rule 26 Report to the Bibliography attached to that report. 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
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND
ORDER RE DR. DUFT &
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al.,
The Court has before it two discovery disputes. The first involves Dr. Ken Duft and the
second involves Cornelius Hofman.
The parties have a dispute over the production of certain materials by Dr. Ken Duft, an
expert retained by DuPont. After an attempt to mediate the dispute with the Court’s staff failed,
the parties submitted short letters with exhibits to the Court. The need for a quick resolution
warranted foregoing the formal motion and briefing procedure.
Dr. Duft was retained by DuPont to analyze the damage claim of plaintiff Nature’s Best
Produce. Excerpts from his Rule 26 report have been provided to the Court. Plaintiffs have
alleged, without rebuttal, that the bibliography Dr. Duft attached to his report – containing a list
of the documents he “relied upon or considered” in his analysis – identifies over 50,000
documents. The report itself, however, renders many opinions on the basis of an unspecified
Memorandum Decision & Order - 1
“record” without citing any of the specific documents listed in the bibliography. The following
examples are illustrative: (1) “the records suggest profit levels of less than $.40/CWT as
characteristic of the industry;” (2) “[a]s shown in the record, this disparity between [Nature’s
Best] performance and the industry norm was also evident during 2002;” (3) “[t]he record also
suggests that [Nature’s Best] began with fixed packing charges, but later changed that policy to
reflect variations in packing costs;” and (4) “the documents do suggest that potato tonnage from
‘outside’ growers was being delivered to [Nature’s Best], particularly during the earlier periods
of is operation . . . .” (emphasis added). Dr. Duft never identifies the specific “records” or
“documents” he relies upon, implying only that they exist somewhere in his vast bibliography.
At his deposition, Dr. Duft testified that in rendering his opinions, he relied heavily on a
subset of documents from his bibliography. He testified that he created about 20 sub-files
containing specific documents that were “coded” or linked to certain opinions he rendered in his
report. But when asked to identify these specific documents on which he relied, and to link them
to specific opinions he rendered, he replied that he did not have the material with him and could
not recall it from memory. When plaintiffs asked DuPont to supplement the expert report to
identify the specific documents Dr. Duft referred to in his deposition to support his opinions,
Rule 26(a)(2)(B)(ii) requires that the expert’s report contain “the facts or data considered
by the witness in forming [his opinions].” When the expert is relying on specific records or
documents to render certain opinions, this Rule requires that the expert identify those specific
records or documents. Without that identification, the opposing party has no way of testing the
accuracy and reliability of the opinions. Here, Dr. Duft testified that he relied on a certain sub-
Memorandum Decision & Order - 2
set of documents taken from his bibliography to reach certain opinions, yet he has never
identified those documents. He is required to identify them, and the Court will so order.
The BLM served a subpoena on plaintiffs’ expert Cornelius Hofman seeking a wide
variety of material, including, among other things, prior articles, transcripts of testimony over the
last decade, and notes Hofman took during depositions of the BLM’s experts. The plaintiffs
refused to comply with the subpoena, arguing that the material sought was not discoverable
under Rule 26. Plaintiffs assert that if subpoenas are allowed to govern expert discovery, Rule
45 will swallow Rule 26, and the Rule 26 standards would cease to exist.
After the parties had submitted their argument to the Court, and after the parties took
Hofman’s deposition, the BLM’s counsel wrote an e-mail to the Court stating that “it appears
much of the material sought in our subpoena have been destroyed or otherwise do not exist. At
this time, we do not see the need to further pursue the particular items requested in the subpoena,
without waiver of our right to do so in the future.”
Because it appears that the issue regarding Hofman’s subpoena is no longer a live
controversy, the Court will not render a decision on the issue at this time.
In accordance with the Memorandum Decision above,
NOW THEREFORE IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, that DuPont produce to plaintiffs the
20 or so sub-files of documents created by Dr. Duft that he used to “code” or link his opinions in
his Rule 26 Report to the Bibliography attached to that report.
Memorandum Decision & Order - 3
DATED: August 26, 2011
Honorable B. Lynn Winmill
Chief U. S. District Judge
Memorandum Decision & Order - 4
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?