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

Filing 3691

DECLARATION of Jeremiah J. Anderson in Support re: (3636 in 1:00-cv-01898-SAS-DCF) MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment on Plaintiff's Nuisance Claims.. Document filed by Chevron USA Inc., Union Oil Company of California. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit 14, #2 Exhibit 15)Filed In Associated Cases: 1:00-cv-01898-SAS-DCF, 1:04-cv-04973-SAS(Anderson, Jeremiah)

EXHIBIT 15


Deposition of Marcel Moreau, pgs. 644, 650-651 (April 10, 2012)

Marcel G. Moreau
Page 432
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
IN RE: METHYL TERTIARY BUTYL
ETHER ("MTBE")
Products Liability Litigation

MDL No. 1358
(SAS)

This Document Relates to:
CITY OF FRESNO V. CHEVRON, U.S.A.,
INC., et al.,
Case No. 04 Civ 4973 (SAS)
_________________________________________/
-- -- -TUESDAY, APRIL 10, 2012
-- -- -Videotaped Deposition of MARCEL G. MOREAU,
Expert Witness, Volume III, held at the Law Offices
of Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton, LLP Four
Embarcadero, 17th Floor, San Francisco, California,
beginning at 9:07 a.m., before Sandra Bunch
VanderPol, FAPR, RMR, CRR, CSR #3032
--

--

--

_____________________________________________________
GOLKOW TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
877.370.3377 ph|917.591.5672 fax
[e-mail]

Golkow Technologies, Inc. - 1.877.370.DEPS

Marcel G. Moreau
Page 437
1

BE IT REMEMBERED that on Tuesday, the 10th day

2

of April, 2012, commencing at the hour of 9:07 a.m. in

3

the Law Offices of Sheppard Mullin Richert & Hampton,

4

Four Embarcadero, 17th Floor, San Francisco,

5

California, before me, Sandra Bunch VanderPol, a

6

Certified Shorthand Reporter in and for the State of

7

California, personally appeared
MARCEL G. MOREAU,

8
9

called as an expert witness herein, who, having been

10

duly sworn, was thereupon examined and interrogated as

11

hereinafter set forth.
--o0o--

12
13

THE VIDEOGRAPHER:

Today's date is

14

April 10th, 2012, and the time is 9:07 a.m.

This

15

video deposition is being held in San Francisco,

16

California, in regards MTBE, City of Fresno versus

17

Chevron USA, Incorporated, et al., for the United

18

States District Court, Southern District of New York.

19

The deponent is Marcel Moreau, Volume III.

20

Counsel will you please identify yourselves.

21

MR. ANDERSON:

22
23
24
25

Jon Anderson, of Latham &

Watkins, for ConocoPhillips.
MS. WINTTERLE:

Rachel Wintterle, LeClair

Ryan, for Nella Oil Products.
MR. MROZ:

Good morning.

Scott Mroz,

Golkow Technologies, Inc. - 1.877.370.DEPS

Marcel G. Moreau
Page 644
1

BY MR. CORRELL:
Q.

2
3

But you don't cite to any deposition

testimony in your Site Specific Reports, do you?
A.

4

We do not -- we did not review the

5

deposition testimony until after this report was

6

written.
Q.

7

So, therefore, you didn't rely on the

8

deposition testimony in issuing your expert opinions

9

in your reports?

10

MS. O'REILLY:

11

THE WITNESS:

Vague and ambiguous.
With regard to Fresno and this

12

particular case, I think it's fair to say that the

13

deposition testimony of owners and operators of these

14

facilities did not figure into the Site Specific

15

Report.

16

BY MR. CORRELL:

17

Q.

And you, sir, did not make -- in

18

looking at the site specific issues, did not reach

19

any opinions whether any specific owner or operator

20

would have changed his behavior based upon additional

21

warnings or instructions, correct?

22

MS. O'REILLY:

23

THE WITNESS:

24
25

Vague and ambiguous.
Sorry.

Can I hear that

question again.
(Record read as follows:

QUESTION:

Golkow Technologies, Inc. - 1.877.370.DEPS

And

Marcel G. Moreau
Page 650
1

We did discuss that with Mr. Stack at some

2

length in last week's deposition, if you want to

3

review that testimony.

4

BY MR. CORRELL:

5

Q.

I did review that testimony.

But in

6

reviewing that testimony, I don't recall seeing any

7

opinions about specific operators or owners.

8
9

A.

Ah, sorry.

Sorry.

into specific owners or operators.

We did not get
I was thinking of

10

the issue of a simple warning was probably not

11

enough; that you would also need to provide carrots

12

and sticks to actually sort of change behavior.

13

Q.

And so I don't want to replow any of

14

that old ground.

15

your rebuttal report, and everything else, is it fair

16

to say that you have no -- you are offering no

17

opinions in this case that any specific owner or

18

operator at any one of the 26 sites in issue would

19

have changed his or her behavior if the defendants

20

had provided additional warnings and instructions to

21

him or her?

22

But I -- so, now after reviewing

MS. O'REILLY:

23

Misstates testimony.

24

Asked and answered.

Argumentative.

25

THE WITNESS:

Vague.

Ambiguous.

Overbroad.

As I'm sitting here right now,

Golkow Technologies, Inc. - 1.877.370.DEPS

Marcel G. Moreau
Page 651
1

I don't have any opinions to offer as to whether any

2

owner/operators at any of the facilities at issue in

3

this case -- or that I have reviewed in this case,

4

would have changed their behavior had they received

5

an appropriate warning.

6

BY MR. CORRELL:
Q.

7

I'd like now, sir -- just a few more

8

questions, and go to the Expert Site Specific Report.

9

But before we get to the appendices.

10

specifically on page 4 at the bottom.

And I'm

11

A.

Okay.

12

Q.

And you say, "A California study

13

found that 92 percent of release incidents were

14

discovered because of the presence of subsurface

15

contamination rather than the use of commonly

16

utilized leak detection methods."

17

to the "Analysis of California in UST and LUST

18

Programs and the Impacts of MTBE and Ethanol,"

19

correct?
A.

20
21

And then you cite

That footnote got split up.

The rest

of that footnote continues on page 5.

22

Q.

Yes.

23

A.

Okay.

(Exhibit No. 25 was marked.)

24
25

I didn't realize that before.

///

Golkow Technologies, Inc. - 1.877.370.DEPS

1

CERTIFICATE OF REPORTER

2

I, SANDRA BUNCH VANDER POL, a Certified

3

Shorthand Reporter, hereby certify that the witness

4

in the foregoing deposition was by me duly sworn to

5

tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the

6

truth in the within-entitled cause;

7

That said deposition was taken down in

8

shorthand by me, a disinterested person, at the time

9

and place therein stated, and that the testimony of

10

the said witness was thereafter reduced to

11

typewriting, by computer, under my direction and

12

supervision;

13

That before completion of the deposition,

14

review of the transcript was requested.

15

requested, any changes made by the deponent (and

16

provided to the reporter) during the period allowed

17

are appended hereto.

18

If

I further certify that I am not of counsel or

19

attorney for either or any of the parties to the said

20

deposition, nor in any way interested in the event of

21

this cause, and that I am not related to any of the

22

parties thereto.

23

DATED:

24

APRIL 18, 2012
________________________________
SANDRA BUNCH VANDER POL, CSR #3032

25

GOLKOW TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
870.370.3377 | [e-mail]

703