Tulalip Tribes et al v. Smith et al
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS' AND DEFENDANTS' DAUBERT MOTIONS re: 146 150 , 151 , 154 , 156 , 157 and 158 . Furthermore, having reviewed the proposed content of witness Ian Smith as presented in plaintiffs' briefing, the Court is of the opinion that his testimony would best be proffered in written format not to exceed 20 pages. Any reply should not exceed 20 pages. Signed by Judge Barbara J. Rothstein. (PM) (PM)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
THE TULALIP TRIBES, and THE
CONSOLIDATED BOROUGH OF QUIL
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’
AND DEFENDANTS’ DAUBERT
THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
THE STATE OF WASHINGTON,
Washington State Governor JAY INSLEE,
Washington State Department of Revenue
Director VIKKI SMITH, SNOHOMISH
COUNTY, Snohomish County Treasurer
KIRKE SIEVERS, and Snohomish County
Assessor LINDA HJELLE,
This matter comes before the court on several motions brought by the parties seeking to
exclude each other’s witnesses pursuant to Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509
U.S. 579 (1993). The plaintiffs, consisting of the Tulalip Tribes and the Consolidated Borough of
Quil Ceda Vlillage (“Tulalip”) and the Plaintiff-Intervenor, the United States (“Plaintiffs”) move
to exclude the testimony of Dr. Justin Marlowe (ECF 157), Michael Hodgins (ECF 158), and
Mukesh Bajaj (ECF 156).
Defendants, the State of Washington and Snohomish County
(“Defendants”), not to be outdone, move to exclude the testimony of Jason Bass (154), Dr. Joseph
Kalt (ECF 150), Dr. James Hines, Jr. (ECF 146), and Ian Smith (ECF 151). The Court has
reviewed the briefing of the parties and concludes that the motions will be DENIED.
Although Daubert refers to the “trier of fact,” it is evident from the opinion and subsequent
cases that the concerns about expert testimony and the need for a court review in order to assure
that only qualified experts testify are most relevant in jury cases. This case being a bench trial, the
court will be able to hear the testimony of the parties’ experts and, with the benefit of cross-
examination, ascertain whether the testimony meets Daubert requirements and also ascertain the
weight to be given to each expert’s testimony.
The Court will take this occasion to remind counsel that the court will allow only one expert
on any given subject. Repetitive testimony will not be permitted. Counsel shall reexamine their
witness lists to make sure that repetitive testimony does not occur.
Furthermore, having reviewed the proposed content of witness Ian Smith as presented in
plaintiffs’ briefing, the Court is of the opinion that his testimony would best be proffered in written
format not to exceed 20 pages. Any reply should not exceed 20 pages.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated this 27th day of November, 2017.
Barbara Jacobs Rothstein
U.S. District Court Judge
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?