Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

United States v. Lightman

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY


June 30, 1999

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF,
v.
JEROME LIGHTMAN, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Simandle, District Judge:

HONORABLE JEROME B. SIMANDLE

OPINION

This matter is before the court on the motion of defendant Stepan Company ("Stepan") to strike the expert reports of Fluor Daniel GTI, Inc. ("FDGTI"), *fn1 which was retained by the members of the Joint Defense Group ("JDG") *fn2 "to analyze the potential impact of Stepan waste streams on subsurface conditions and to provide an evaluation of overall site environmental issues at the D'Imperio and Ewan Superfund Sites located in Hamilton and Shamong Townships, New Jersey, respectively." (Aronson Certification ("Aronson Cert."), Ex. B, at 3.) Also before the court is Stepan's motion to strike the July 20, 1998 letter of Dr. Maureen Leahy, one of the authors of the FDGTI reports, which the JDG submitted as part of its opposition to Stepan's motion to strike the FDGTI reports. For the reasons set forth below, the court denies both motions.

BACKGROUND

This is a civil action to identify the parties that should bear the cost of cleaning up environmental contamination at the Ewan and D'Imperio Superfund Sites caused by the illegal dumping of hazardous waste at the sites by the Lightman Drum Company ("LDC") during the mid- 1970's.

In connection with this litigation, the JDG retained FDGTI "to analyze the potential impact of Stepan waste streams on subsurface conditions and to provide an evaluation of overall site environmental issues" at the Ewan and D'Imperio Sites. (Aronson Cert. at 3.) In order to perform these tasks, FDGTI reviewed information provided by the JDG's counsel, including:

remedial investigation reports, site inspection reports, feasibility studies, design documents, monitoring reports, remedial activity documentation, site photographs, correspondence, regulatory documents, waste manifest documents, and laboratory reports prepared by various consultants and regulatory agencies. (Id. at 4.)

FDGTI also reviewed "documents relating to Stepan's manufacturing processes" and conducted a site inspection of both the Ewan and D'Imperio Sites on October 10, 1996. (Id.)

Based on its analysis, FDGTI formulated the following opinions:

1. Stepan waste constituents are present in the groundwater contaminant plume at both the D'Imperio and Ewan sites. These constituents include: benzene, ethyl benzene, chromium, sodium, and toluene. An additional Stepan waste constituent, cumene, has been identified in the Top of the Cohansey zone at the Ewan Site. Total xylenes and m-xylene have also been identified at the D'Imperio and Ewan sites, respectively. Sodium and ammonium xylene sulfonates were the primary hydrotropes produced by Stepan in the 1970's.

2. Surfactant, hydrotrope, and sulfone wastes originating from Stepan were either directly discharged in liquid form or as leakage from containerized waste at the D'Imperio and Ewan sites. Many of Stepan's wastes including drop acid, demister acid, and scrubber acid, were extremely acidic.

3. The presence of high iron levels (>50,000 ug/l) at both sites indicates that anaerobic conditions prevail in the source areas and further downgradient at both the Ewan and D'Imperio sites. Under such anaerobic conditions, within a reasonable degree of scientific certainty, biodegradation or mineralization of the surfactant, hydrotrope, and sulfone wastes generated by Stepan would not occur.

4. Furthermore, within a reasonable degree of scientific certainty, biodegradation of Stepan's wastes did not occur since upon release into the environment, the acidic nature of these wastes would have been extremely toxic to microorganisms. This toxicity would have suppressed and/or inhibited the natural biodegradation of the organic compounds within Stepan's wastes. In addition, the toxicity of the Stepan waste would have inhibited biodegradation of other organic compounds release at the two sites.

5. Stepan's acidic waste would not have been rapidly neutralized at the D'Imperio and Ewan sites since native soils are themselves acidic and would therefore have a low capacity for neutralizing acidic material. In addition the low clay content at both sites is indicative of low cation exchange capacities thereby providing little neutralizing capacity. Furthermore, free calcium and magnesium carbonates which do not provide neutralizing capacity are likely not prevalent at the two sites given the acidic nature of the native soils.

6. Waste streams generated by Stepan between 1974 and 1977 would be considered hazardous waste by the regulations enacted by EPA. The xylene sulfones waste stream would carry the hazardous waste codes of F003, D001, D002, and D007. The mixed sulfonic waste stream would carry the hazardous waste codes of D002 and D003. Also, minor waste streams may have been generated by Stepan including: toluene, sulfone/toluene distillation bottoms, and waste cumene.

7. It is within a reasonable degree of scientific certainty that Stepan wastes have resulted in facilitated transport of other organic and inorganic compounds due to enhanced solubilization and migration caused by surfactant and hydrotrope dumping at the D'Imperio and Ewan sites. This is evidenced by the greater extent of groundwater contamination at both sites than that predicted by advective, retarded contaminant transport alone. Consequently, more extensive remediation is required to address the expanded size of the groundwater contaminant plumes at both the D'Imperio and Ewan site. (Id. at 1-2.)

On June 5, 1998, Stepan moved to strike the FDGTI Reports. Stepan argues that "[t]he opinions expressed in the FDGTI Reports are speculative because they are based on the assumed presence of Stepan wastes at the Sites and were developed without any consideration of the chemical nature, volumes, concentrations or impacts on the Sites of the co-disposed wastes generated by others." (Stepan's Br. In Support of Motion to Strike the FDGTI Reports at 4.)

In support of its argument that the FDGTI Reports should be struck because FDGTI failed to adequately evaluate and consider the co- disposed wastes generated by other defendants, including the members of the JDG, Stepan referred to and quoted extensively from the deposition testimony of Dr. Maureen Leahy, one of the authors of the FDGTI Reports. For example, Stepan claims that Dr. Leahy "testified that she did not review any information regarding any wastes generated by any member of the JDG." (Id. at 8)(citing Aronson Cert., Ex. F, at 49-52.)

Stepan also claims that Dr. Leahy "testified that she did not know whether the chemical nature of Stepan's wastes was different from wastes generated by members of the JDG, or whether the impact of Stepan's wastes on the transport of other chemicals in the environment was different from the impact of the wastes generated by members of the JDG." (Id.) In support of contention, Stepan quoted at length from Dr. Leahy's deposition testimony as follows:

Q: Was the chemical nature of the wastes generated at Stepan's Fieldsboro facility different than the chemical nature of the wastes generated from any of the facilities of member companies of the JDG?

A: I don't have the information to answer that question.

Q: Would the impact on the transport of chemicals in the environment at the D'Imperio site of Stepan's chemicals be different than the impact on the transport of chemicals in the environment of materials generated by another member of the [JDG]?

A: I don't have information on that. (Aronson Cert., Ex. F, pg. 62.)

Finally, Stepan also claims that because FDGTI "did not review any information describing the chemical nature, amounts, or concentrations of the co-disposed wastes generated by the JDG," Dr. Leahy testified that she "did not know whether the impacts attributed to the assumed presence of Stepan wastes at the Sites were, in fact, caused by other wastes." (Stepan's Br. In Support of Motion to Strike the FDGTI Reports at 9.) In support of this contention, Stepan again quoted at length from Dr. Leahy's deposition testimony as follows:

Q: Could materials, other than Stepan wastes, account for the conditions that you observed at the D'Imperio site today?

A: Yes. Chemicals with similar properties or waste streams with similar properties could have the same type of impact.

Q: You don't know whether chemicals with similar properties or waste streams with similar properties were deposited at the D'Imperio site?

A: No, I do not.

Q: Do you know whether the chemical nature of the Stepan waste disposed of at the Ewan sites were different than the chemical nature of other wastes disposed of at the Ewan site not generated by Stepan?

A: I don't have information on that.

Q: Do you know whether the impact on fate and transport that Stepan's chemicals would have is the same or different than the impact on the fate and transport of other chemicals that other materials disposed of at the site would have?

A: Without information about the other chemicals, I can't say that. (Aronson Cert., Ex. F, pgs. 62-65.)

As part of its opposition to Stepan's motion to strike the FDGTI Reports, the JDG submitted a July 20, 1998 letter from Dr. Leahy to the JDG's counsel in which Dr. Leahy attempts to "provide clarification" of her deposition testimony that Stepan relied upon in its brief. The letter, which was submitted under cover of an affidavit from Dr. Leahy, provides as follows:

I have reviewed the June 5, 1998 brief prepared by [Stepan's counsel] on behalf of Stepan Company in support of Stepan's motion to strike the expert report of [FDGTI]. I would like to provide clarification for my deposition testimony quoted in the brief.

On page 8, the brief states that I testified that I:

"...did not review any information regarding any wastes generated by any member of the JDG."

This statement is incorrect. As stated on page 49, lines 6 through 22 of my deposition, I did review information about wastes generated by other members of the [JDG] including information in the USEPA Administrative Orders, Stepan Company's Responses to the [JDG] Supplemental Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents (1995) and documents sent to me by Counsel on July 29, 1996 on the manufacturing operations, general descriptions of their wastes and estimated number of drums from each JDG member. The amount of documentation on the wastes of the other JDG members was small in comparison to what I had been able to develop for Stepan's wastes; however, it was sufficient to reach conclusions about the general nature and volume of these other wastes.

Based upon my review of the information on the products of the facilities of the other members of the JDG, none of the other JDG members manufactured or generated surfactant or hydrotropes. Only one company Scott Paper Company was mentioned as having a waste material containing surfactants and analysis of the waste material had only identified "...traces of surfactants." None of the descriptions of the other JDG processes or waste streams specifically characterize materials as containing surfactants. Waste from USG/DAP was characterized as: "...wash water used to clean mixing apparatus..." However, the description does not indicate if the wash water consisted solely of solvents as the washing agent. A description of KIWI Blends Inc. production line states: "...specialty show pastes (e.g. saddle soap)..." material. In regards to the volume of wastes generated and allegedly picked up by Lightman, based upon the drum count provided in Appendix C of the July 29, 1996 transmittal from [the JDG's counsel], only one company USG Corp. generated more drums (3315 drums) than Stepan (2984 drums). Three others, Continental Can (2926 drums), Colonial Heights Pkg. (1993 drums) and Amchem Products (1804 drums), generated 98%, 67% and 60% of the drums, respectively, relative to Stepan. The remaining ten companies generated less than 1000 drums each, less than 30% individually of the drums relative to Stepan. The documentation of the nature of the wastes generated by these JDG member facilities indicated that Stepan's wastes, by far, would be more likely to cause facilitated transport due to the surfactant and hydrotrophic Stepan waste materials. Thus, by both nature (only Stepan wastes contained significant surfactant and hydrotrope waste products) and volume (Stepan was the second biggest drum generator), Stepan's wastes were the primary cause of facilitated transport at the D'Imperio and Ewan Sites due to surfactant and hydrotrope waste material.

The June 5, 1998 brief quotes my deposition testimony on page 62, line 21:

Q: Was the chemical nature of the wastes generated at Stepan's Fieldsboro facility different than the chemical nature of the wastes generated from any of the facilities of member companies of the JDG?

A: I don't have the information to answer that question.

In retrospect, I did not completely understand the question. My answer was in reference to the chemical nature of any specific waste stream. Having reviewed the information discussed above, I knew that none of the other JDG companies were surfactant or hydrotrope manufacturers and that, therefore, I knew that the overall composition of the waste streams from any of the other JDG companies were not similar to those of Stepan. However, I did not have sufficient information from which to know if there might have been a specific minor waster stream of one of the other JDG members that was similar to a specific Stepan waste stream. In retrospect, I should have said I did not have sufficient information to do a detailed comparison but I knew that no other JDG facility generated significant surfactant and hydrotrope manufacturing wastes.

Similarly, in my answers on pages 62 through 65, I should have clarified that I did not have sufficient information to make detailed comparisons between Stepan's wastes and those of the other JDG members. I did review all of the information on the wastes streams of the JDG members which was provided to me by [the JDG's counsel] including Exhibits B and C provided in an July 29, 1996 letter from [the JDG's counsel], Stepan's answers to interrogatories and the Administrative Orders. The information for the other JDG member facilities did not provide the same level of detail about the nature of the raw materials, products, process conditions, by-products and waste streams as did the information provide for Stepan wastes. For example, the descriptions for many of the other JDG companies included references to chemical groups or classes such as solvents, heavy metals, herbicides and/or pesticides, while others referred to several chemicals used on site and in some cases presents in the wastes streams. This information was insufficient to perform the detailed analysis on the waste streams such as was by [FDGTI] performed for Stepan Company.

In conclusion, I did consider the other wastes generated by the other members of the JDG in rendering my opinions. Based on the overall nature and volume of these wastes as compared to the nature and volume of the surfactant and hydroptrope Stepan wastes, a more detailed analysis of the non-Stepan wastes was not required. The nature and volume of the Stepan wastes was sufficient to draw the conclusion that the Stepan wastes have resulted in facilitated transport of chemical contaminants at the D'Imperio and Ewan sites.

Please call me with any questions. (Bernardo Certification ("Bernardo Cert."), Ex. E.)

On September 18, 1998, Stepan moved to strike Dr. Leahy's July 20, 1998 letter, which it characterizes as an untimely supplemental expert report.

DISCUSSION

A. Standard for Admissibility of Expert Testimony

"Under the Federal Rules of Evidence, it is the role of the trial judge to act as a `gatekeeper' to ensure that any and all scientific testimony or evidence is not only relevant, but also reliable." Kannankeril v, Terminix Int'l, Inc., 128 F.3d 802, 806 (3d Cir. 1997)(citing Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 589 (1993)). "The Rules of Evidence embody a strong and undeniable preference for admitting any evidence which has the potential for assisting the trier of fact." Id. (citing Holbrook v. Lykes Bros. S.S. Co., 80 F.3d 777, 780 (3d Cir. 1996)). Thus, "Rule 702, which governs the admissibility of expert testimony, has a liberal policy of admissibility." Id. (citing Holbrook, 80 F.3d at 780; In re Paoli R.R. Yard PCB Litigation, 35 F.3d 717, 741 (3d Cir. 1994), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 1190 (1995)).

"Rule 702 has three major requirements: (1) the proffered witness must be an expert; (2) the expert must testify about matters requiring scientific, technical or specialized knowledge; and (3) the expert's testimony must assist the trial of fact." Id. (citing Paoli, 35 F.3d at 741-42). With regard to the second requirement, "`an expert's testimony is admissible so long as the process or technique the expert used in formulating the opinion is reliable.'" Id. (quoting Paoli, 35 F.3d at 742). To be deemed reliable, an expert's testimony must be based on "methods and procedures of science" rather than on "subjective belief or unsupported speculation." Id. (quoting Paoli, 35 F.3d at 744). To be admissible, however, an expert opinion "need not be so persuasive as to meet a party's burden of proof or even necessarily its burden of production." Heller v. Shaw Indus., Inc., 167 F.3d 146, 152 (3d Cir. 1999). Indeed, expert testimony may be admissible even when it is "shaky" or "provides only a `scintilla' of support for a claim or defense." Id. (quoting Daubert, 509 U.S. at 596). "`Vigorous cross-examination, presentation of contrary evidence, and careful instruction on the burden of proof are the tradition and appropriate means of attacking'" such evidence. Id. (quoting Daubert, 509 U.S. at 596).

"The evidentiary requirement of reliability is lower than the merits standard of correctness." Paoli, 35 F.3d at 744. "The grounds for an expert's opinion merely have to be good, they do not have to be perfect." Id. Thus, "[a] judge frequently should find an expert's methodology helpful even when the judge thinks that the expert's technique has flaws sufficient to render the conclusions inaccurate." Id. at 744-45. "The ultimate touchstone is helpfulness to the trier of fact, and with regard to reliability, helpfulness turns on whether the expert's technique or principle [is] sufficiently reliable so that it will aid the [factfinder] in reaching accurate results." Id. at 744 (citation and internal quotes omitted).

B. Stepan's Motion to Strike Dr. Leahy's July 20, 1998 Letter

Before addressing Stepan's motions to strike the FDGTI Reports, the court must address Stepan's motion to strike Dr. Leahy's July 20, 1998 letter, which the JDG submitted as part of its opposition to Stepan's motion to strike the FDGTI reports.

The court does not regard Dr. Leahy's July 20, 1998 letter as an untimely supplemental expert report. The court regards Dr. Leahy's letter as precisely what it purports to be - an attempt "to provide clarification for [her] deposition testimony." (Aronson Cert., Ex. C.) Generally, courts will disregard a deponent's attempt to clarify earlier deposition testimony relied upon by another party in support of a motion for summary judgment when the deponent "was carefully questioned on the issue, had access to the relevant information at the time, and provided no satisfactory explanation for the later contradiction" of his or her prior sworn deposition testimony. Martin v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 851 F.2d 703, 706 (3d Cir. 1988). That is not the situation before the court on the instant motion, however.

First, Dr. Leahy does not entirely contradict her prior deposition testimony in the July 20, 1998 letter. Indeed, she confirms the primary point in support of which Stepan cited her deposition testimony: that FDGTI did not analyze the waste streams of members of the JDG as thoroughly as it analyzed Stepan's waste stream.

More importantly, Dr. Leahy's July 20, 1998 letter is not being offered by the JDG in a last ditch effort to create a genuine issue of material fact to avoid the entry of summary judgment in Stepan's favor in this case. The JDG offers Dr. Leahy's July 20, 1998 letter in opposition to Stepan's motion to strike the FDGTI Reports Dr. Leahy co-authored. In this context, the court's consideration of the July 20, 1998 letter is governed by Federal Rule of Evidence 104(a), which generally provides that the court "is not bound by the rules of evidence" in making its determination whether or not to admit challenged evidence. See Paoli, 35 F.3d at 739, n.4 ("Rule 104(a) generally allows a trial court conducting a pre-trial hearing to consider evidence that would not be admissible at trial"). Had the court chosen to hold a Daubert hearing under Rule 104(a) on Stepan's motion to strike the FDGTI Reports, the court certainly would have permitted Dr. Leahy to "clarify" her earlier deposition testimony by testifying along the lines of her July 20, 1998 letter, subject to Stepan's right to impeach her with her prior inconsistent testimony on cross-examination.

In the present instance no testimonial hearing under Rule 104(a) is necessary because the papers in support and opposition together demonstrate that Dr. Leahy is attempting to correct her misrecollection regarding various documents that she had actually reviewed but failed to recall at her deposition. She is not amending her opinions but is instead buttressing them by supplemental reference to analysis she had performed but had not mentioned when questioned at her deposition.

In sum, the court finds that Stepan's objection to the court's consideration of Dr. Leahy's July 20, 1998 letter goes to the weight of the evidence, not its admissibility. Accordingly, the court denies Stepan's motion to strike Dr. Leahy's July 20, 1998 letter.

C. Stepan's Motion to Strike the FDGTI Reports

Stepan advances two principal arguments in support of its motion to strike the FDGTI reports. First, Stepan argues that the FDGTI reports are inadmissible because there is no factual support for FDGTI's assumption that Stepan waste was disposed of at the Ewan and D'Imperio Sites. Second, Stepan argues that the FDGTI reports are inadmissible because FDGTI did not conduct a thorough examination of the waste streams generated by the members of the JDG and other defendants in this action or consider alternative causes for the effects FDGTI attributes to Stepan's waste stream. The court finds no merit in either argument.

1. The Presence of Stepan Waste At the Sites

The record evidence relating to the alleged disposal of Stepan waste at the Ewan and D'Imperio Sites is discussed in detail in the accompanying Opinion addressing the JDG's motion for partial summary judgment declaring Stepan liable to the members of the JDG under § 113 of CERCLA for past and future response costs associated with the Ewan and D'Imperio Sites and Stepan's cross-motion for summary judgment dismissing the JDG's claim. Although the court determined that there are genuine issues of material fact precluding the entry of summary judgment for either party on the § 113 claims, the court finds that there is more than sufficient record evidence that Stepan waste was disposed of at the Ewan and D'Imperio Sites during the relevant time period to support FDGTI's assumption that Stepan waste was disposed of at the sites. As noted in the Opinion denying the JDG's motion for partial summary judgment against Stepan, the JDG has come forward with ample, robust evidence, through testimony of eyewitnesses, through documents, and through site studies, which if accepted at trial will prove that Stepan's hazardous wastes were disposed of at both sites. Summary judgment was denied because the summary judgment procedure does not permit a court to resolve genuine disputes of material fact once such a dispute has been identified. Stepan may attack the foundation for FDGTI's assumption at trial, but FDGTI's reliance on the assumption that Stepan waste was disposed of at the sites is not a methodological problem that renders the FDGTI Reports unreliable under Rule 703.

2. FDGTI's Failure to Closely Examine JDG Waste Streams or Consider Alternative Causes of Facilitated Transport

As noted above, FDGTI was retained by the members of the Joint Defense Group ("JDG") "to analyze the potential impact of Stepan waste streams on subsurface conditions and to provide an evaluation of overall site environmental issues at the D'Imperio and Ewan Superfund Sites." (Aronson Cert., Ex. C at 3.) FDGTI employed the following methodology in accomplishing that task.

First, FDGTI conducted a detailed review of the backgrounds of the Ewan and D'Imperio Sites, including a general description of each site and its history, geology and hydrogeology, the extent of soil and groundwater contamination at each site, the chemical conditions that affect the fate and transport of site contaminants at each site, and the remedial actions undertaken to date at each site. (Id. at 4-38.) FDGTI then performed a thorough analysis of Stepan's manufacturing processes, focusing on Stepan's batch manufacturing process for hydrotropes and its continuous sulfonation manufacturing process for surfactants. (Id. at 39-50.) FDGTI then engaged in a lengthy discussion of general principles relating to the fate and transport of hydrotropes and surfactants in the environment, drawing heavily on published scientific literature. (Id. at 50-68.) Based on its knowledge of the site conditions, the nature of Stepan's wastes, and its general knowledge of fate and transport of hydrotropes and surfactants, FDGTI then calculated the advective flow rate/groundwater seepage velocity at the Ewan and D'Imperio Sites and modeled the groundwater plumes at the sites and determined that xylene and toluene were migrating at least two times faster than would be expected. (Id. at 68-78.) FDGTI then evaluated the environmental conditions at the sites, devoting particular attention to the evidence of Stepan wastes at the sites, the fate of those wastes, and their likely facilitated transport effect on other contaminants at the sites. (Id. at 79-96.) Finally, FDGTI offered its conclusions. (Id. at 96-101.)

Stepan does not take issue in this motion with FDGTI's review of the site backgrounds, its analysis of Stepan's manufacturing processes, its discussion of general principles relating to the fate and transport of hyrdrotropes and surfactants, or its calculations and modeling of the groundwater plumes at the sites. Instead, Stepan focuses its criticism on FDGTI's admitted failure to analyze the waste streams of JDG members as thoroughly as it analyzed Stepan's waste stream. In the court's view, however, FDGTI's failure to thoroughly examine the waste streams of JDG members may detract from the weight to be given FDGTI's opinion regarding facilitated transport at the Ewan and D'Imperio Sites, but it does not render the FDGTI Reports methodologically unreliable so as to require their exclusion under Rule 702.

FDGTI's concentration on the potential of Stepan's wastes to promote facilitated transported of other contaminants at the Ewan and D'Imperio Sites to the exclusion of the waste streams of JDG members may provide grist for the cross-examination mill. For example, because FDGTI's conclusions are based on the belief that the presence of surfactants Stepan's waste stream was unique to Stepan, Stepan's assertion that JDG members Air Products, Amchem, Croda, DAP and Scott Paper each "either generated wastes that contained surfactants and/or used surfactants as raw materials" could undercut the validity of FDGTI's conclusions if proven at trial. (See Stepan's Reply Br. In Support of Motion to Strike FDGTI Reports at 11.) Stepan's argument, however, goes to the weight to be given the FDGTI Reports, not to their admissibility.

CONCLUSION

For these reasons, the court denies Stepan's motions to strike the July 20, 1998 letter of Dr. Maureen Leahy and the FDGTI Reports. The accompanying Order is entered.

JEROME B. SIMANDLE U.S. District Judge

Dated: June 30, 1999

ORDER

THIS MATTER having come before the court on the motion of defendant Stepan Company ("Stepan") to strike the expert reports of Fluor Daniels GTI, Inc. ("FDGTI"), which was retained by the members of the Joint Defense Group ("JDG") to analyze the potential impact of Stepan waste streams on subsurface conditions and to provide an evaluation of overall site environmental issues at the D'Imperio and Ewan Superfund Sites, and on Stepan's related motion to strike the July 20, 1998 letter of Dr. Maureen Leahy, one of the authors of the FDGTI reports, which the JDG submitted as part of its opposition to Stepan's motion to strike the FDGTI reports, and the court having considered the submissions of the parties, and for the reasons set forth in the accompanying Opinion;

IT IS on this 30th day of June, 1999, hereby ORDERED that Stepan's motion to strike the July 20, 1998 letter of Dr. Maureen Leahy is DENIED; and

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Stepan's motion to strike the FDGTI Reports is DENIED.

JEROME B. SIMANDLE U.S. District Judge


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.