EME’s senior level staff and principals have years of experience working with our client’s legal counsel. EME has provided legal support on three levels: (1) As investigators and by definition, fact witnesses; (2) technical advisors and consultants; and (3) As expert witnesses, providing opinions on the significance of technical issues relative to the matter.
As investigators, EME’s technical staff is skilled in the collection of defendable site data. Site data that is collected for trial has to withstand assaults and questioning on all levels. That means that all aspects of the field activities must be performed to accepted standards. Often stringent field protocols and procedures are implemented during the collection of site data to protect the integrity of the data. EME has experience developing and implementing site-specific Work Plans, QA/QC Plans, Project and Data Management Plans and Sampling and Analysis Plans. Through the implementation of these types of plans, the representativeness and accuracy of the data is ensured.
Often environmental legal issues arise long after the initial site investigation activities have been completed. More often than not, the level of QA/QC that was performed was adequate for the task at hand, but is not adequate for trial. The data collection activities employed for most environmental investigations performed in response to regulatory requirements usually differ from the activities conducted in support of a legal case. Typically, environmental forensic investigation techniques are used during litigation-driven investigations and their objectives are usually limited to fairly specific issues, such as age and type of contamination, risk of exposure, impact to third parties and diminution of property value. This subtle, but important, difference between these two types of investigations can have a major impact on the sampling and analysis performed, the location of sampling points and the scope of investigation. As a consultant and advisor to our clients and their legal counsel, EME has experience reviewing available data as it might pertain to the legal matter, to validate the representativeness of earlier data, find critical data gaps, and to identify areas where additional data is required. When possible, EME has developed cost-effective and creative sampling programs that are designed to verify prior results without having to completely redo the original work. Being able to recover or use most of the original data can significantly reduce the cost of litigation and streamline the process. Conversely, EME can use those same skills to attack the technical arguments of the opposing side.
As experts, EME staff uses its technical expertise, knowledge of appropriate field sampling and project management techniques, as described above, to review the representativeness of the data and to develop an opinion of the site. Often, EME tries to build its technical opinions using multiple lines of evidence that support the overall facts of the case (see a hypothetical example to the below).
EME’s senior level staff has performed expert litigation support and is capable of performing at this level. Specifically, EME’s staff has provided factual testimony regarding their site investigation activities and findings, they have provided expert testimony regarding their opinions of fact, and they have prepared visual aids in preparation of commission hearings, depositions and trial. EME’s staff is well suited to provide technical support for geologic, hydrogeologic, indoor air quality, mold and engineering services.
For example, at a site where there is a dispute between two parties over when and whom may have caused a release, EME would likely pursue three parallel lines of evidence in support of its overall position. Those evidentiary lines may include:
- Documenting the work history of the Facility and genealogy of its operations, management practices, infrastructure, work practices and procedures and employee safety and waste handling training;
- Documenting the types of materials received by, used, or stored at the facility, the dates when the materials were used at the Facility or the dates when process changes occurred and another material was substituted for the original material, and identify the areas where each material was used, handled or stored; and
- Characterizing the nature and extent of contamination within the impacted media, determine the age of the contamination either through back-calculating the contaminant rate of transport and/or by performing detailed forensic chemistry to determine its genesis or origin. Looking at the technical issues in this fashion usually provides a fairly clear picture of the sequence of events.
|
EME’s staff has worked with attorneys from the following law firms:
- Baker, Donelson, Bearman, Caldwell & Berkowitz, PC
- Beveridge and Diamond, PLC
- Cabaniss, Johnston, Garner, Dumas and O’Neal
- Duane Morris & Heckscher, LLP
- Kelly, Drye and Warren
- Lassiter, Tidwell & Hildebrand, PLLC
- Miller and Martin
- Monroe, Johnston, Trippe & Brown
- Pepper and Hamilton, LLP
- Waller, Lansden, Dortch & Davis, PLLC
- Watkins Ludlam Winter & Stennis, P.A.
- Wyatt Tarrant and Combs
Some of the legal matters EME staff has been involved include:
Condere Corporation D/B/A Servis Fleet Tire D/B/A Fidelity Tire Manufacturing, Titan Tire of Natchez/Titan International, Inc. v Pirelli Tire, LLC filed in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Mississippi, Bankruptcy Case No. 97-02549-WEE.
First Tennessee Bank, N.A., et al. v. ARAMARK Uniform and Career Apparel Service, Inc. filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi, Jackson Division, 3:98CV494BN.
Southdown, Inc. and Southdown Environmental Treatment Systems, Inc. v. Leslie S. Allen, et al., filed in the United States District Court for the Northern Division of Alabama, Southern Division, CV-96-N-3300-S.
Gennette S. Normal et al v. Nixon Enterprises, Inc., et al., filed in Circuit Court for Davidson County, Tennessee Case No. 93C-577 (6th Circuit).
Andritz Sprout Bauer v. Beazer East, Inc. and Bridon-American Corp., filed in United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, 4:CV-95-1182.
|
