In Re: Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether ("MTBE") Products Liability Litigation

Filing 2586

OPPOSITION BRIEF Objections to Defendant's Witness List for Phase II. Document filed by The City of New York.Associated Cases: 1:00-cv-01898-SAS-DCF, 1:04-cv-03417-SAS(Williams, Lesley)

Download PDF
In Re: Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether ("MTBE") Products Liability Litigation Doc. 2586 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK -------------------------------------------------------------------- x In Re: Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether ( MTBE ) Products Liability Litigation -------------------------------------------------------------------- x This document relates to the following case: City of New York v. Amerada Hess Corp., et al. Case No. 04 Civ. 3417 -------------------------------------------------------------------- x PLAINTIFF CITY OF NEW YORK S OBJECTIONS TO DEFENDANT S WITNESS LIST FOR PHASE II Plaintiff the City of New York (the City ) hereby submits its objections to Defendant s Witness List for Phase II. Master File No. 1:00-1898 MDL 1358 (SAS) M21-88 ECF Case Dockets.Justia.com Plaintiff the City of New York ( the City ) hereby objects to Defendant s witness list for Phase II as follows: 1. Plaintiff objects to Defendant calling witness Elizabeth Anderson in Phase II because she is irrelevant to and outside the scope of the issues in Phase II. See Fed. R. Evid. 401-403 (as to Phase II). 2. Plaintiff objects to Defendant calling witness Marcia Williams in Phase II because the content of her expert testimony, which consists of legal conclusions and opinions about the meaning of the law, is improper and inadmissible. Expert testimony that consists of legal conclusions, or of speculation as to lawmakers motives, is especially prone to create unfair prejudice, confuse the issues, or mislead the jury, and is therefore inadmissible under Fed. R. Evid. 403. See Fed. R. Evid 403. Expert testimony that offers legal conclusions is also inadmissible under Fed. R. Evid. 704(a). See Fed. R. Evid. 704(a). An expert may neither testify about the meaning of the law nor provide legal conclusions. See Highland Capital Management, L.P. v. Schneider, 379 F.Supp.2d 461 (S.D.N.Y. 2005). Plaintiff notes that it has a motion in limine pending to exclude Marcia Williams. 3. The City does not waive (and expressly reserves) the right to make any additional or further objections that may become evident at trial or after service of these objections. Dated: San Francisco, California June 29, 2009 MICHAEL A. CARDOZO Corporation Counsel of the City of New York Attorney for Plaintiff City of New York 100 Church Street New York, New York 10007 (212) 788-1568 /s/ LESLEY E. WILLIAMS 2 VICTOR M. SHER (pro hac vice) TODD E. ROBINS (pro hac vice) JOSHUA G. STEIN (pro hac vice) LESLEY E. WILLIAMS (LW8392) NICHOLAS G. CAMPINS (pro hac vice) MARNIE E. RIDDLE (pro hac vice) SHER LEFF LLP 450 Mission Street, Suite 400 San Francisco, CA 94105 (415) 348-8300 Attorneys for Plaintiff City of New York 3

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?