TRC Environmental Corporation v. Quoddy Bay LNG LLC et al

Filing 145

ORDER denying 90 Defendants' Motion to Exclude Plaintiff's Expert Witnesses, Kenneth Sibley and Frank Norris; denying 100 Plaintiff's Motion to Exclude Testimony of Defendants' Expert. Signed by Honorable Robin J. Cauthron on 11/29/11. (lg, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
TRC ENVIRONMENTAL
CORPORATION, A Connecticut Corp.,

)
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
QUODDY BAY LNG, LLC an Oklahoma )
Limited Liability Company; and DONALD )
M. SMITH, an individual,
)
)
Defendants.
)

Case No. CIV-10-62-C

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
After a failed business relationship, Plaintiff filed the present action alleging breach
of contract and quantum meruit against Defendants. The parties have each filed motions
seeking to exclude the others’ expert witness.

Each motion is brought pursuant to

Fed. R. Evid. 702 and Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharms., Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993), and its
progeny. As this matter is now to be tried to the Court rather than the jury, the usual strict
standards applying to expert testimony are somewhat relaxed. See Attorney Gen. of Okla.
v. Tyson Foods, Inc., 565 F.3d 769, 779 (10th Cir. 2009). When an expert is challenged
pursuant to Rule 702 and/or Daubert, the Court’s task is to ensure the expert’s testimony is
reliable. After consideration of the parties’ briefs, the Court finds that the proper course is
to allow the experts to testify. The challenges raised in the briefs go primarily to the validity
of the conclusions reached by the experts rather than the methodology employed.
Consequently, they satisfy the basic premise of Rule 702. The Court will consider the

standards set forth by Rule 702 and Daubert when assessing the weight to be given to the
expert’s testimony. See Tyson Foods, Inc., 565 F.3d at 780.
The Court does offer one caveat – Defendants’ expert will only be permitted to refute
the conclusions reached by Plaintiff’s expert. No other conclusions, theories, or opinions
will be heard from Darrell R. Harris.
As set forth more fully herein, Defendants’ Motion to Exclude Plaintiff’s Expert
Witnesses, Kenneth Sibley and Frank Norris, Pursuant to Daubert and the Federal Rules of
Evidence (Dkt. No. 90) and Plaintiff’s Motion to Exclude Testimony of Defendants’ Expert
(Dkt. No. 100) are DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 29th day of November, 2011.

2