320 answertomotionkellyblakemendrop kmartcombine
-
Upload
milton-sandy -
Category
Documents
-
view
217 -
download
0
description
Transcript of 320 answertomotionkellyblakemendrop kmartcombine
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTNORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
ABERDEEN DIVISION
KMART CORPORATION,
PlaintiffCIV. ACT. NO. 1:11-CV-103-GHD-DAS
versus
THE KROGER CO., et al.
Defendants
REBUTTAL TO RESPONSE TO MOTIONTO EXCLUDE TESTIMONY OF KELLY BLAKE MENDROP
May It Please the Court:
Plaintiff, Kmart Corporation, respectfully submits this Rebuttal to the Response to its Motion
to Exclude Testimony of Kelly Blake Mendrop. Mr. Mendrop’s opinions regarding the effect of
debris blockage in Elam Creek under KCSR’s bridge at milepost 328.10 on the flooding at Kmart’s
store in Corinth, Mississippi on May 2, 2010 should be excluded because Mr. Mendrop’s opinions
are based on models that use insufficient and unreliable data that does not accurately reflect the
conditions of the KCSR bridge and the area between the bridge and the Kmart store at the time of
the flood. Mr. Mendrop’s opinions are, therefore, unreliable and inadmissible.
I. Law and Argument
Mr. Mendrop’s testimony should be excluded because the models on which his opinions are
based use insufficient and unreliable data. Federal Rule of Evidence 702 requires that there be
sufficient facts or data underlying proffered expert testimony. “[A]ny step that renders the analysis1
FED. R. EVID. 702.1
Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 320 Filed: 11/08/13 1 of 10 PageID #: 5940
unreliable . . . renders the expert testimony inadmissible.” Here, Mr. Mendrop’s analysis is2
unreliable because it is based on data that does not accurately reflect the conditions of the KCSR
bridge, the Kmart store, or the area between the bridge and the Kmart store as those conditions
existed at the time of the May 2010 flood event. Rather, as more fully explained in Kmart’s motion
to exclude Mr. Mendrop’s testimony, the data relied on by Mr. Mendrop to prepare his models
reflects those conditions as they existed over thirty years before the May, 2010 flood event.
Because Mr. Mendrop’s opinion is based on insufficient and unreliable data, his testimony is
inadmissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 702.
A. Mr. Mendrop’s analysis is unreliable because he did not use current data for theKCSR bridge in his models.
KCSR does not dispute that Mr. Mendrop did not conduct any surveying on the KCSR bridge
to obtain data on the current condition of the bridge to input into his HEC-RAS (“Hydraulic
Engineering Center - River Analysis System”) models. Indeed, Mr. Mendrop admitted that he did3
not do any investigation into any changes or additions to the bridge structure from the late 1970s and
early 1980s to the present and did not account for any alterations or changes in the bridge in his
report.4
Without conducting a current survey of the bridge, Mr. Mendrop could not have made an
accurate assessment of the impact of the bridge on the flooding at Kmart’s store because it is
unknown whether the bridge was exactly the same in May 2010 as it was over thirty years ago.
Paz v. Brush Engineered Materials, Inc., 555 F.3d 383, 388 (5 Cir. 2009) (citing Curtis v. M&Sth2
Petroleum, Inc., 174 F.3d 661, 671 (5 Cir. 1999)).th
See Deposition of Kelly Blake Mendrop, attached as Exhibit A, p. 54, ll. 2-4. 3
See id. at p. 79, l. 8 - p. 80, l. 21. 4
2
Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 320 Filed: 11/08/13 2 of 10 PageID #: 5941
KCSR’s argument that a current survey of the bridge was not necessary because Mr. Mendrop was
modeling the impact of a debris field under the bridge and not the impact of the bridge itself is
flawed. The testimony of Kmart’s expert, John R. Krewson, regarding his decision not to model the
impact of the KCSR bridge on the flooding at Kmart’s store is instructive because it demonstrates
both the necessity and complications of obtaining current survey data on the KCSR bridge to perform
the relevant study. Mr. Krewson explained that to model the impact would have required him to
make a number of assumptions regarding the KCSR bridge that might have resulted in an
unrepresentative and unreliable model. Mr. Krewson further explained that the problem with5
running a model to determine the impact of the debris field under the KCSR bridge is that the KCSR
bridge was a unique structure with two spans, two different elevations, and two different sets of piers
relatively close together. Moreover, according to Mr. Krewson, “[t]he problem with the railroad6
bridge is it didn’t match the model - - the computer model itself did not fit that type of configuration.
And I would have had to trick the model or come up with some sort of composite section or
otherwise come up with something, and the result would be unreliable in this condition, in a legal
condition.” 7
Mr. Krewson’s testimony demonstrates that to determine the impact of the debris field would
have required obtaining current survey data of the existing KCSR bridge. Indeed, the complications
involved in obtaining the data and fitting the KCSR bridge in the HEC-RAS model led Mr. Krewson
to conclude that doing so might result in unreliable results. Mr. Mendrop, on the other hand,
See Depo. of John R. Krewson, attached as Exhibit B, p. 148, l. 1 - p. 149, l. 5.5
See id. at p. 147, ll. 10-19.6
See id. at p. 285, ll. 2-8.7
3
Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 320 Filed: 11/08/13 3 of 10 PageID #: 5942
conducted models without making any attempt to obtain data reflecting the current conditions of the
bridge, but rather relied on thirty-year-old data not reflective of the actual condition of the bridge.
Because this data was necessary, Mr. Mendrop’s models are unreliable and his opinion based on
these models should be excluded.
KCSR’s argument that Mr. Mendrop’s data was sufficient because the over thirty-year-old
HEC-2 data that he obtained from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (“FEMA”)
accounted for the KCSR bridge is erroneous. As Mr. Krewson explained, the KCSR bridge itself
does not fit the standard bridge profile in HEC-RAS model. The HEC-RAS system is the
predecessor to the HEC-2 system. Thus, it is not known what model FEMA used in the over thirty-
year-old HEC-2 data to account for the KCSR bridge. Mr. Mendrop, therefore, should have
conducted the necessary analysis to independently obtain the current and correct profile of the bridge
to prepare his HEC-RAS models and his failure to do so renders his opinion unreliable and
inadmissible.
B. Mr. Mendrop’s sole reliance on the FEMA data is flawed because the data doesnot account for topographical changes in the area that occurred between theorigination of the FEMA data and the date of the flood event at issue in thismatter.
KCSR further argues that because FEMA relied in part on over thirty-year-old data to create
the 2010 Flood Insurance Rate Map (“FIRM”) for the subject area, then Mr. Mendrop was also
justified in relying on the over thirty-year-old data. KCSR contends that the 2010 FIRM incorporates
the same model reflected in the 1981 FIRM and that FEMA’s use of the 1981 model to develop the
2010 FIRM indicates the 1981 model still represents current hydraulic conditions at the Elam Creek
location. But KCSR’s argument compares apples to oranges and ignores the purpose of FEMA’s
4
Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 320 Filed: 11/08/13 4 of 10 PageID #: 5943
Flood Insurance Study and FIRM maps. The 2010 FIRM relied on by Mr. Mendrop and KCSR was
designed for flood insurance purposes. The Flood Insurance Study for the 2010 FIRM explicitly
states that the “[f]lood elevations shown on the FIRM are primarily intended for insurance rating
purposes.” Mr. Mendrop acknowledged in his deposition that the Flood Insurance Study and the8
2010 FIRM were not made for the purpose of determining whether an obstruction in a floodway had
an impact on a structure upstream of that obstruction. 9
FEMA merely determined that it was not necessary, for flood insurance purposes, to change
the base flood elevations for the area from the 1981 FIRM to the 2010 FIRM. Even if the base flood
elevations did not change, however, as explained in Kmart’s motion to exclude Mr. Mendrop’s
testimony, the topography of the subject area did change significantly over the thirty-plus years
between the creation of the data relied on by Mr. Mendrop and the date of the flood. Yet Mr.
Mendrop made only minimal efforts (visual inspections) and conducted limited surveying to account
for these changes.
The relevant analysis here is whether obstructions in the underpass at KCSR’s bridge
contributed to flooding at Kmart’s store on May 2, 2010, which is wholly different from determining
base flood elevations. To make this determination, Mr. Mendrop should have conducted surveying
to determine the topography of the entire subject area as it currently exists. By his own admission,
Mr. Mendrop did not account for any alterations or changes in the bridge in his report. Mr.10
See Exhibit A to Kmart’s Motion to Exclude Testimony of Kelly Blake Mendrop, Report of8
Mendrop Engineering Resources, appendix A, Flood Insurance Study, at p. 6.
See Ex. A, Depo. of Mendrop, at p. 49, ll. 14-19. 9
See id. at p. 80, ll. 19-21. 10
5
Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 320 Filed: 11/08/13 5 of 10 PageID #: 5944
Mendrop did not conduct a survey of the area around the Kmart store to determine the actual existing
condition of that area prior to preparing his HEC-RAS models. He did not survey the parking lot
for the Fulton Shopping Center, the fill area behind the shopping center or the detention pond near
the shopping center. Mr. Mendrop also failed to survey the area between Fulton Drive and Elam11
Creek to obtain current and reliable data points for that area to use in his HEC-RAS modeling. 12
Moreover, aside from the creek and channel of Elam Creek, Mr. Mendrop did not perform any
surveying on any of the 2100-foot area between the KCSR bridge and the Kmart store. Indeed, he13
did not account for any alterations and changes in the topography from the late 1970s or early 1980s
to the current date. 14
FEMA’s decision not to change the base flood elevations for insurance purposes does not
change the fact that from the time FEMA created the data to the time of the May 2, 2010 flood, there
were major topographical changes that would impact the hydrology in the area. Indeed, KCSR does
nothing to refute that Mr. Mendrop relied on the over thirty-year-old data to model the area around
the Kmart store, despite the fact that the data was created more than ten years before the Kmart store
was even built. The Kmart store was constructed in 1991 and the conditions at the site were
significantly different prior to construction than the conditions of the area after construction of the
Kmart store. The relevant construction drawings indicate that prior to the construction of the Kmart
and Kroger stores in 1991, there were several buildings located in the area that is not the parking lot
See id. at p. 87, l. 1-11. 11
See id. at p. 87, l. 16-23. .12
See id. at p. 90, l. 20 - p. 91, l. 1. 13
See id. at p. 90, ll. 13-17. 14
6
Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 320 Filed: 11/08/13 6 of 10 PageID #: 5945
for the Fulton Shopping Center. The buildings were demolished to create a flat-surfaced lot. The
construction drawings reveal that the area of the Kmart store was altered dramatically after the store
was constructed. Mr. Mendrop’s models, however, necessarily assume that the area in front of the
Kmart and Kroger stores contains several buildings when in fact the area is a flat surface. This
change alone would impact the hydrology in and around the area of the Kmart store. Yet Mr.
Mendrop admittedly did nothing to account for these changes in his models.
KCSR’s statement that FEMA’s decision to rely on the 1981 FIRM data for creation of the
2010 FIRM because the data still represents the current conditions at the Elam Creek location is pure
speculation. There are several reasons that FEMA might have elected not to collect new data when
creating the 2010 FIRM, for example, budgetary reasons or the lack of available resources. Local
economic or political reasons could have come into play as changing base flood elevations can have
a big impact on local communities. KCSR and Mr. Mendrop do not know the motivations behind
FEMA’s decision to rely on the over thirty-year-old data to create the 2010 FIRM and KCSR cannot
represent that the data reflects the conditions of the subject area because Mr. Mendrop did not
conduct the surveying necessary to verify that the data did in fact represent current conditions.
Without this data, Mr. Mendrop’s models are unreliable and his opinions based on those models
should be excluded.
KCSR contends that because Mr. Krewson relied on the 2010 FIRM data to prepare his
report, he also necessarily used the same HEC-2 data Mendrop accessed and used. But Mr.
Krewson’s models did not rely solely on the 2010 FIRM. Mr. Krewson also requested and obtained
current as-built survey data of the area at issue. Indeed, this as-built survey data was readily15
See Ex. B, Depo. of Krewson, p. 146, l. 16 - p. 147, l. 4.15
7
Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 320 Filed: 11/08/13 7 of 10 PageID #: 5946
available to Mr. Mendrop. Mr. Mendrop acknowledged in his deposition that all available data is
relevant when running models to determine the effect of an obstruction on flooding at an area
upstream of the obstruction. Mr. Mendrop could have utilized the as-built survey data obtained by16
Mr. Krewson for his models, but he chose instead to rely on the thirty-plus-year old data that does
not accurately reflect the existing conditions of the subject area.
Moreover, FEMA’s Flood Insurance Study relied on by Mr. Mendrop did contain updated
flow rate information different from the data used for the 1981 FIRM that Mr. Mendrop ignored in
favor of the outdated, thirty-plus-year old flow rate data. In his analysis, Mr. Mendrop used 4,900
cubic feet per second as the flow rate for Elam Creek in a 100-year flood event, which he obtained
from the thirty-plus-year old HEC-2 data. But the 2010 Flood Insurance Study lists the flow rate at
Elam Creek for the 100-year flood event as 3,702 cfs. Thus, Mr. Mendrop used outdated data in17
favor of the current data in the Flood Insurance Study that he allegedly relied on in conducting his
models.
The Elliot v. Amadas Industries, Inc. and Coffey v. Dowley Manufacturing Inc. cases18 19
discussed in Kmart’s motion to exclude Mr. Mendrop’s testimony are instructive because in those
cases, as here, the expert testimony was unreliable because it was based on insufficient facts and
data. Mr. Mendrop relied on data that is not relevant to the current conditions of the KCSR bridge
and the topography of the area between the bridge and the Kmart store. Mr. Mendrop used
See Ex. A, Depo. of Mendrop, p. 82, ll. 13-21. 16
See Exhibit A to Kmart’s Motion to Exclude Testimony of Kelly Blake Mendrop, Report of17
Mendrop Engineering Resources, appendix A, Flood Insurance Study, at p. 5.
796 F.Supp.2d 796 (S.D. Miss. 2011).18
187 F. Supp. 2d 958 (M.D. Tenn. 2002). 19
8
Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 320 Filed: 11/08/13 8 of 10 PageID #: 5947
unreliable and outdated data regarding the condition and configuration of the KCSR bridge and
topography of the area between the bridge and the Kmart store. Mr. Mendrop has presented expert
testimony relying on what is, for all practical purposes, a completely different site than what existed
at the time of the May 2010 flood. Mr. Mendrop’s opinion relies on insufficient and unreliable data,
and accordingly it should be excluded by this Court, pursuant to Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of
Evidence.
II. Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, and for the reasons explained in Kmart’s Motion to Exclude the
Testimony of Kelly Blake Mendrop, Kmart requests that this court grant its motion and exclude the
testimony of Mr. Mendrop.
This the 8th day of November, 2013.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Ryan O. Luminais____________________________________JAMES M. GARNER (La. Bar. No. 19589)JOHN T. BALHOFF, II (La. Bar. No.24288)RYAN O. LUMINAIS (Miss. Bar. No. 101871)SHER GARNER CAHILL RICHTER KLEIN & HILBERT, L.L.C.909 Poydras Street, Twenty-eighth FloorNew Orleans, Louisiana 70112Telephone: (504) 299-2100Facsimile: (504) 299-2300ATTORNEYS FOR KMART CORPORATION
9
Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 320 Filed: 11/08/13 9 of 10 PageID #: 5948
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that a copy of the above and foregoing has been served on all known counsel
of record with the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF system which will automatically send-email
notification to all known counsel of record, this 8th day of November, 2013.
/s/ Ryan O. Luminais_________________________________________RYAN O. LUMINAIS
10
Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 320 Filed: 11/08/13 10 of 10 PageID #: 5949
Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 320-1 Filed: 11/08/13 1 of 10 PageID #: 5950
Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 320-1 Filed: 11/08/13 2 of 10 PageID #: 5951
Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 320-1 Filed: 11/08/13 3 of 10 PageID #: 5952
Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 320-1 Filed: 11/08/13 4 of 10 PageID #: 5953
Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 320-1 Filed: 11/08/13 5 of 10 PageID #: 5954
Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 320-1 Filed: 11/08/13 6 of 10 PageID #: 5955
Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 320-1 Filed: 11/08/13 7 of 10 PageID #: 5956
Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 320-1 Filed: 11/08/13 8 of 10 PageID #: 5957
Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 320-1 Filed: 11/08/13 9 of 10 PageID #: 5958
Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 320-1 Filed: 11/08/13 10 of 10 PageID #: 5959
Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 320-2 Filed: 11/08/13 1 of 7 PageID #: 5960
Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 320-2 Filed: 11/08/13 2 of 7 PageID #: 5961
Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 320-2 Filed: 11/08/13 3 of 7 PageID #: 5962
Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 320-2 Filed: 11/08/13 4 of 7 PageID #: 5963
Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 320-2 Filed: 11/08/13 5 of 7 PageID #: 5964
Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 320-2 Filed: 11/08/13 6 of 7 PageID #: 5965
Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 320-2 Filed: 11/08/13 7 of 7 PageID #: 5966