United States District Court, S.D. Mississippi, Southern Division
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS'
MOTIONS TO STRIKE THE OPINIONS OF EXPERT WITNESSES JIM MARTIN
, ANDY JOHNSON , CHRIS ROBERTSON, AND ANGIE HENDRIX
SULEYMAN OZERDEN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
THE COURT are Plaintiffs' Motions to Strike the Opinions
of Defendants' Expert Witnesses Jim Martin , Andy
Johnson , Chris Robertson, and Angie Hendrix .
These Motions are fully briefed. Having considered the
Motions, related pleadings, the record, and relevant legal
authority, the Court is of the opinion that Plaintiffs'
Motions    should be denied.
Facts and Procedural History
Jeffery Chad Palmer, Brenda and Mark Rody, Donald and
Jennifer Juan, David and Karen Taporco, Kimberly and Milton
J. Jacobs, Jr., Mary and Nicholas Sciambra, and Anthony
Pressley (“Plaintiffs”) are owners of houses in
the Ravenwood Subdivision (“Ravenwood”) located
in an “unincorporated section of Pearl River County,
Mississippi (“PRC”)[, ] just south of the city
limits of Picayune, Mississippi.” Am. Compl.  at 2,
6. Plaintiffs allege that at the time they purchased their
houses in Ravenwood, the land comprising Ravenwood together
with a larger parcel of land served as a watershed for the
Alligator Branch waterway and allowed the overflow of that
waterway to move “east and west away from”
Ravenwood. Id. at 6-7.
contend that beginning on February 23, 2012, their houses
began “vibrating violently” when Defendants began
driving pilings into the ground on a section of land
contained within the watershed. Id. at 8-9.
Plaintiffs complained to the Pearl River County Board of
Supervisors (the “Board”) and the contractors but
the construction or vibrations continued. Id.
Plaintiffs also questioned the Board about the dump trucks
that were coming and going from the property. Id.
Board allegedly did not respond to Plaintiffs' complaints
or inquiries until at a meeting held on March 5, 2012, when
the Board announced that Defendant Alliance Consulting Group,
LLC (“Alliance”), had previously been granted
permission to construct a “frac sand plant”
(“the Plant”) on a section of land contained
within the watershed that Alliance had leased from Defendant
AHG Solutions, LLC. Id. at 6, 8. Later in 2015,
“a multi-track railroad spur” was constructed at
the Plant. Linfield, Hunter & Junis, Inc., Mem. Summ. J.
 at 3.
February 5, 2015, Plaintiffs filed a Complaint  in this
Court against a number of Defendants, alleging they had
suffered damages to their houses and quality of life due to
the construction and operation of the Plant and the
associated rail spur. Plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint
on February 4, 2016, naming as Defendants Sun Coast
Contracting Services, LLC; Integrated Pro Services, LLC;
Ranger Contracting, LLC; H&H Trucking, LLC; AHG
Solutions, LLC; Linfield, Hunter & Junius, Inc.; Shale
Support Services, LLC; Drying Facility Asset Holdings, LLC;
and ELOS Environmental, LLC. Am. Compl.  at 2-4.
allege that vibrations from pile-driving during construction
caused “obvious and visible cracks in the brick veneer
of their homes, cracks in the stucco, separations of the
walls in comers (sic) and around doors and windows, windows
that would no longer open, and cracks” in the
foundations of the houses; that development of the land
increased flooding in their subdivision; that the Plant
produces continuous loud noises as it runs throughout the
night; that the Plant emits a “nauseating foul
smell;” and that dust from the Plant's operations
settles over their property. Id. at 9-13. The
Amended Complaint asserts claims against Defendants in four
separate counts, specifically for: (1) Negligence; (2)
Nuisance; and (4) a Declaratory Ruling. Id. at
Plaintiffs' Motion to Strike  Defendant Linfield
Hunter & Junis, Inc.'s Expert Jim Martin, Ph.D.,
March 21, 2017, Plaintiffs filed a Motion to Strike 
Defendant Linfield Hunter & Junis, Inc.'s
(“LH&J”) expert Jim Martin, Ph.D., P.E.
(“Martin”). LH&J designated Martin as an
expert in the field of hydrology to testify that
“LH&J's designed drainage and detention system
are adequately sized to reduce post-development peak runoff
to a level that is less than the pre-development peak runoff
for a 10 year design storm.” Martin Report [258-1] at
4. Plaintiffs assert that Martin is not qualified under
Federal Rule of Evidence 702 or Daubert v. Merrell Dow
Pharm., Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993), to offer his opinions
about Defendant LH&J's design of the retention pond
at the Plant because he did “no research on whether or
not the retention pond was built as designed or functions as
designed.” Mot. Exclude Martin  at 1; Mem. Exclude
Martin  at 2.
responds that Martin is “well qualified in the field of
hydrology, ” that he holds “a Bachelor of Science
degree in Civil Engineering from the University of Alabama
and a Master of Science in Environmental Engineering, ”
and that he obtained a Coastal Engineering Certificate from
Old Dominion University. Mem. in Opp'n  at 1-2.
LH&J attaches as Exhibit “A” to its Response
a copy of Martin's Curriculum Vitae [290-1] at 1-2.
LH&J asserts that Plaintiffs have proffered no basis for
striking the opinions Martin has offered, and that their only
argument is that Martin's opinions should be stricken
because he did not proffer further opinions on whether the
retention pond was built as designed or functions as
designed. Mem. in Opp'n  at 1-2.
Plaintiffs' Motion to Strike  Defendants Drying
Facility Asset Holdings, LLC, and Shale Support Service's
Expert Andy K. Johnson
also challenge Defendants Drying Facility Asset Holdings, LLC
(“Drying Facility”) and Shale Support Services,
LLC's (“Shale”) expert Andy K. Johnson
(“Johnson”). Johnson was designated as an expert
in the area of appraising residential real estate to offer
opinions on the estimated value of Plaintiffs' houses as
of May 13, 2016. Plaintiffs allege that Johnson is not
qualified to testify regarding his opinions on the 2016 value
of Plaintiffs' houses because Mississippi law requires
that an appraisal opinion of damaged but not destroyed
property must be “the diminution in value of the
Plaintiffs' property as a function of its before and
after value.” Mot. Exclude Johnson  at 1; Mem.
Exclude Johnson  at 2. In this case, Johnson purports to
opine only on the May 2016 value of Plaintiffs' houses,
not a value before and after the construction and operation
of the Plant and rail spur.
Drying Facility and LH&J maintain that Johnson is a highly
qualified appraiser who produces approximately 150
residential real estate appraisal reports a year. Resp. in
Opp'n  at 1; Mem. in Opp'n  at 1-4.
Johnson's Resume, Exhibit “B” [265-2] at 1,
reflects that from 1998-2007 he was a Mississippi State
Certified Licensed Appraiser, and that since 2007 he has been
a Mississippi State Licensed Certified Residential Appraiser.
Defendants contend that in forming his opinions, Johnson
utilized the “sales comparison approach to value,
” and that “[t]he methodology that Mr. Johnson
employed to arrive at his 2016 opinions of fair market value
of each of the Plaintiffs' homes is the same methodology
he uses in his appraisal practice.” Resp. in Opp'n
 at 1; Mem. in Opp'n  at 1-4.
Plaintiffs' Motion to Strike  Defendants Drying
Facility, LH&J, and Shale's Experts Chris Robertson,
MSPH, CIH, CSP (“Robertson”), and Angie Hendrix,
have also moved to strike Defendants Drying Facility,
LH&J, and Shale's “monitoring” experts
Chris Robertson (“Robertson”) and Angie Hendrix
(“Hendrix”) of Technical Environmental Services,
Inc., on grounds that neither are qualified to testify
regarding their opinions as to the “ambient levels of
noise, volatile organic compounds (“VOC”), and
dust” found in Ravenwood because “they only
provide an opinion for one twenty[-]four hour period since
the nuisance started in 2012.” Mot. Exclude Robertson
and Hendrix  at 1; Mem. Exclude Robertson and Hendrix
 at 2. Plaintiffs also maintain that their opinions are
not “reliable” because Hendrix, who allegedly has
minimal expertise in noise and dust, reviewed the data
collected by a technician and wrote the entire expert report,
while Robertson, who does have expertise in dust and noise,
simply reviewed the report. Mem. Exclude Robertson and
Hendrix  at 4-9.
Drying Facility and Shale respond that Plaintiffs did not
challenge either Hendrix or Robertson's “education
or training, their ‘data gathering' or their
methodology.” Mem in Opp'n  at 2. Defendants
point out that Hendrix has been an environmental consultant
for twelve years and holds a “Bachelor's of Science
in biology and a Master of Science in public health with a
focus in environmental toxicology and risk assessment.”
Id. at 3. Robertson holds a “Master of Science
of public health and is a certified industrial
hygienist.” Id. Defendants contend that it is
clear from both Hendrix and Robertson's deposition