Unlock document.
This document is partially blurred.
Unlock all pages and 1 million more documents.
Get Access
origin in a neighboring state rather than Vermont does not
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.
© 2009 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.
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
© 2009 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.
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.
© 2009 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.
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
© 2009 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.
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-
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.
© 2009 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.
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
© 2009 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.
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.
© 2009 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.
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
© 2009 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.
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-
