978-1285770178 Case Printout Case CPC-25-07 Part 4

origin in a neighboring state rather than Vermont does not

negate its applicability to the Vermont ski industry; the

states are small and contiguous and have similar climates.

Insofar as the Plaintiffs have articulated relevant differ-

ences between Vermont and New Hampshire ski condi-

tions and industries, those differences affect the weight,

not the admissibility of Rock’s testimony.

Finally, the ‘302 plaintiffs have attacked Rock‘s testimony

as to the impact of warmer temperatures on Vermont’s fall

Master’s degree in Aerospace Engineering/Computer In-

formation and Control Engineering from the University of

Michigan; completed course-work as a doctoral candidate

Duleep has published more than ten articles in peer–

gy and Energy Consumption, presented at the In-

Potential Market and Fuel Economy Impacts of

Hybrid and Diesel Technologies (co-authored

Duleep frequently consults for various governmental enti-

91:4. Duleep served as the principal consultant to a Na-

tional Academy of Science (“NAS”) committee on the

future of CAFE standards in 2001 and 2002.FN29 The NAS

for DOE and the Department of Transportation (“DOT”),

Tr. vol. 12-A, 92:14-21 (Duleep, May 2, 2007).

fuel price, income, and other factors. Id. at

94:19-95:4, 97:17-98:4. During the 1980s and

102:12.

gines,” or were “very high performance Europe-

an sports cars” which are driven differently and

would require adjustments to the model. Id. ¶ 8.

The light-duty vehicles that Duleep modeled are

in neither category.

does not address the reliability of Duleep’s methods.

Duleep is not an academic, but a professional consultant,

See Amorgianos, 303 F.3d at 266.

for DOE, Duleep has submitted about twenty reports to

the agency, many regarding automotive technologies and

effects on fuel *333 economy. Tr. vol. 12-B, 37:3-7 (Du-

leep, May 2, 2007). DOE routinely checks the results of

his work by asking scientists at Oak Ridge National Lab

and Argonne National Lab to review it; in periods of high

interest they have also sent his reports for external review

by leading academics, and in a few instances he was

asked to defend his work to auto makers. Id. at 37:18–

38:19. This extensive review, while not taking place

4. Relevance of Duleep’s testimony

II. Discovery Violation

reasons therefor; the data or other information considered

in violation of that rule.

First, the ‘302 plaintiffs allege that Duleep “disclosed and

attempted to rely upon an entirely new methodology-his

dys-synergy theory-to support his opinion just days before

the start of trial.” Pls.’ Renewed Mot. for Sanctions 5

(Doc. 486). Essentially, they argue that they were una-

ware that Duleep uses the lumped parameter model only

to confirm the results of his initial estimate, reached by

eter] model. I’m not relying on this model; I‘m just us-

ing it to inform my opinion. So it’s not-this is not a

modeling exercise in the sense of the exercise that Mr.

Austin went through. So this is basically something that

I would use to check my intuitions on what multiple

technologies would do.

Id. at 627:10-628:9. This is a fair, though less detailed,

description of Duleep‘s methodology as he explained it at

trial. Certainly Duleep was clear at his deposition that the

his initial analysis, conducted by means of the simple

multiplicative method, which appears sufficiently docu–

mented and explicated.

In addition, Duleep testified that reviewing the sources for

his model is not necessary and is not the ordinary way of

ensuring the accuracy of his projections. A more usual

practice is to compare the results of a model to existing

vehicle data. Tr. vol. 12-B, 25:22-26:21 (Duleep, May 2,

2007).

my field, the reliability of a model’s results is typically

knowledge, and judgment of the modeler and therefore

tions. Duleep Decl. ¶¶ 13-14. It is not clear, then,

why there are obstacles to Austin’s use of this

method of validation in this case.

Finally, the ‘302 plaintiffs criticize Duleep’s failure to

retain notes from meetings with automakers and suppliers

that he attended both before and after the state of Califor-

nia hired him as an expert to defend the regulation. The

interviews at issue were not conducted pursuant to Du-

leep’s contract with California, but for an earlier project

he will not reveal their individual information, and will

upward revision in the cost of one automotive technology,

disclosed Plaintiffs’ witness, Dr. Patrick Michaels, who

declined to testify. Although the topics on which Christy

testified were the same as those on which Michaels was

scheduled to testify, their opinions differed on some de-

tails. In addition, Christy had different qualifications, pub-

lications, and connections than Michaels, which counsel

for Defendants had to explore prior to his testimony. Pre-

paring an effective cross-examination at essentially the

last minute was no small burden in a case of such tech-

nical complexity.

Second, the Court allowed Plaintiffs to add Patterson to

The Renewed Motion for Sanctions for Expert Discovery

Violations (Doc. 486) is denied.

California Air Resources Board (“CARB”) to adopt the

For its analysis CARB relied heavily on a study by North-

dict the emissions impacts of incorporating various tech–

nology combinations in new vehicles.” PX 767 at xiii.

NESCCAF concluded that “existing and emerging auto-

motive technologies can achieve substantial and cost–

effective reductions in motor vehicle GHG emissions in

the 2009 to 2015 timeframe. Specifically, GHG emissions

from light-duty vehicles can be reduced from 12-54 per-

cent in this timeframe.” Id. at 3-23.

FN41. At trial, Plaintiffs took issue with aspects

used blended engine maps. These criticisms are

limited in scope and are disputed by representa-

tives of CARB and workers on the NESCCAF

launch arising from the technologies chosen); id.

modeled in all turbo-charged models); id. at

period of the regulation. Record evidence dis-