Tulalip Tribes et al v. Smith et al

Filing 179

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
AT SEATTLE

1
2
3
4
5

THE TULALIP TRIBES, and THE
CONSOLIDATED BOROUGH OF QUIL
CEDA VILLAGE,

No. 2:15-cv-00940-BJR
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’
AND DEFENDANTS’ DAUBERT
MOTIONS

6
Plaintiffs,
7
8

and
THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

9

Plaintiff-Intervenor,

10
v.
11
12
13
14
15

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,

16

Defendants.

17
18

This matter comes before the court on several motions brought by the parties seeking to

19

exclude each other’s witnesses pursuant to Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509

20

U.S. 579 (1993). The plaintiffs, consisting of the Tulalip Tribes and the Consolidated Borough of

21
Quil Ceda Vlillage (“Tulalip”) and the Plaintiff-Intervenor, the United States (“Plaintiffs”) move
22
23

to exclude the testimony of Dr. Justin Marlowe (ECF 157), Michael Hodgins (ECF 158), and

24

Mukesh Bajaj (ECF 156).

Defendants, the State of Washington and Snohomish County

25

(“Defendants”), not to be outdone, move to exclude the testimony of Jason Bass (154), Dr. Joseph

1

1
2

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.

3

Although Daubert refers to the “trier of fact,” it is evident from the opinion and subsequent

4

cases that the concerns about expert testimony and the need for a court review in order to assure

5

that only qualified experts testify are most relevant in jury cases. This case being a bench trial, the

6

court will be able to hear the testimony of the parties’ experts and, with the benefit of cross-

7
examination, ascertain whether the testimony meets Daubert requirements and also ascertain the
8
9

weight to be given to each expert’s testimony.

10

The Court will take this occasion to remind counsel that the court will allow only one expert

11

on any given subject. Repetitive testimony will not be permitted. Counsel shall reexamine their

12

witness lists to make sure that repetitive testimony does not occur.

13
14

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

15
format not to exceed 20 pages. Any reply should not exceed 20 pages.
16
17

IT IS SO ORDERED.

18
Dated this 27th day of November, 2017.
19
20
21
22
Barbara Jacobs Rothstein
U.S. District Court Judge

23
24
25

2