Texas Gas Transmission, LLC v. 18.08 acres +/- in Southeast quarter of Section 24, Township 30 North, Range 4 West, Coahoma County, Mississippi et al

Filing 78

ORDER denying 47 Motion to Strike ; granting in part and denying in part 58 Motion in Limine. Signed by Neal B. Biggers on 4/5/2012. (llw)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
DELTA DIVISION
TEXAS GAS TRANSMISSION, LLC

PLAINTIFF

V.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:08CV240-B-V

18.08 ACRES +/- IN SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF
SECTION 24, TOWNSHIP 30, NORTH, RANGE 4
WEST, COAHOMA COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI;
AND THE BOARD OF LEVEE COMMISSIONERS
FOR THE YAZOO-MISSISSIPPI DELTA

DEFENDANTS

ORDER
Presently before the court is the plaintiff’s motion to exclude testimony of defendant’s
expert Robert Crook and motion in limine to exclude testimony or evidence related to
speculative hazards and irrelevant income generated by the Levee Board. Upon due
consideration, the court finds as follows:
The plaintiff’s motion to exclude testimony of defendant’s expert Robert Crook shall be
denied. “As a general rule, questions relating to the bases and sources of an expert’s opinion
affect the weight to be assigned that opinion rather than its admissibility and should be left for
the [fact finder’s] consideration.” United States v. 14.38 Acres of Land, More or Less, Situated
in Leflore County, Miss., 80 F.3d 1074, 1077 (5th Cir. 1996). “This is especially true in an
eminent domain action, in which ‘expert opinion testimony acquires special significance . . .
where the sole issue is the value of condemned property.’” Id. (quoting United States v. 68.94
Acres of Land, More or Less, Situated in Kent County, Del., 918 F.2d 389, 393 (3rd Cir. 1990)).
The plaintiff does not appear to contest Mr. Crook’s qualifications but asserts that his
conclusions are based on speculation and are not reliable. The court will not allow a Daubert
inquiry to supplant a trial on the merits, as “[v]igorous cross-examination, presentation of

contrary evidence, and careful instruction on the burden of proof are the traditional and
appropriate means of attacking shaky but admissible evidence.” Daubert v. Merrell Dow
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 596 (1993). As the court will be the fact finder in the
bench trial of this case, the court will exclude the evidence from its consideration if it comes to
light that Mr. Crook has not “employed reliable principles and methods in reaching [his]
conclusions.” Guy v. Crown Equipment Corp., 394 F.3d 320, 325 (5th Cir. 2004). The
plaintiff’s motion shall be denied at this time, however.
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 403, the plaintiff seeks to exclude as unduly
prejudicial evidence or testimony of speculative hazards brought by the presence of the pipeline.
Rule 403 is inapplicable to a bench trial, and the motion shall be denied. See Gulf States
Utilities Co. v. Ecodyne Corp., 635 F.2d 517, 519 (5th Cir. 1981) (“The exclusion of this
evidence under Rule 403's weighing of probative value against prejudice was improper. This
portion of Rule 403 has no logical application to bench trials.”).
The plaintiff likewise moves pursuant to Rule 403 to exclude evidence of irrelevant
income generated by the Levee Board. Again, Rule 403 is inapplicable in this context. The
court will, however, grant the plaintiff’s motion and exclude this evidence not on the ground of
undue prejudice under Rule 403 but because the Levee Board has specifically acknowledged that
Mr. Crook did not incorporate the income at issue in his analysis.
It is, therefore, ORDERED AND ADJUDGED
that the plaintiff’s motion to exclude testimony of defendant’s expert Robert
Crook is hereby DENIED;
that the plaintiff’s motion to exclude evidence of speculative hazards is DENIED; and

2

that the plaintiff’s motion to exclude evidence of irrelevant income is
GRANTED.
This, the 5th day of April, 2012.

/s/ Neal Biggers
NEAL B. BIGGERS, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3