United States District Court, S.D. Mississippi, Southern Division
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND
DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO EXCLUDE
GUIROLA, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
THE COURT is the  Motion in Limine to Exclude Testimony
of Kevin S. Dillon filed by the defendant Oscar Renda
Contracting, Inc. The Motion has been fully briefed. After
due consideration, the Court finds that the Motion should be
granted in part and denied in part.
Clean Water Act case was initiated by Gulf Restoration
Network, which is “a coalition of environmental, social
justice, citizens' groups, and individuals committed to
protecting and restoring the valuable resources of the Gulf
of Mexico to an ecologically and biologically sustainable
condition.” (Am. Compl. 4, ECF No. 14). The Network
seeks 1) a declaration that the defendant, Oscar Renda
Contracting, Inc., violated the Clean Water Act and its
implementing regulations; 2) civil penalties for the
violations; 3) an injunction requiring Oscar Renda to
remediate the adverse impacts to aquatic resources; and 4) an
award of attorneys' fees and costs. (Id. at
Network retained as its expert Kevin S. Dillon, a coastal
sciences associate professor at the University of Southern
Mississippi. Dillon's report is a discussion of the
probable amount and movement of sediments created by Oscar
Renda's road construction project into Biloxi Back Bay.
Dillon reaches the following conclusions:
1) The sediment flows from the construction project in East
Biloxi to Biloxi Bay were substantial and conservatively in
the tens of millions of pounds.
(2) The area affected by this sediment flow is conservatively
the entire middle section of the bay.
(3) Sediment inputs have substantial and far reaching impacts
on marine species and habitats. The duration of these impacts
is variable, but are clearly extended by repeated
(4) In the case of the unnamed bayou depicted in the photos,
there are large sediment deposits directly adjacent to the
storm water outfall, that are clearly not natural deposits.
(Def. Mot. Exclude Ex. B 5, ECF No. 30-2).
Renda objects to introduction of Dillon's fourth opinion
above, because it concerns geology rather than his areas of
expertise - oceanography and environmental science. Oscar
Renda argues that the one photograph of the site supporting
Dillon's opinion, taken by someone else, is not adequate
evidence from which to draw any conclusions about sediment
deposits. Oscar Renda also objects that Dillon does not rely
on any facts or data in drawing any of his conclusions;
Dillon did not visit the site, conduct any testing, or rely
on any tests done at the site. Thus, Oscar Renda argues that
Dillon is not qualified to provide expert testimony in the
field of geology, and his oceanography/environmental science
opinions are not reliable because they are not supported by
certifying an expert and admitting his testimony, a district
court must ensure that the requirements of Federal Rule of
Evidence 702 have been met.” Roman v. W. Mfg.,
Inc., 691 F.3d ...