Lower Susquehanna Riverkeeper Association v. Republic Services of Pennsylvania LLC

Summary

The court addressed three motions in limine filed by Republic Services of Pennsylvania LLC and a request for judicial notice filed by Lower Susquehanna Riverkeeper Association in a Clean Water Act citizen suit. The court denied the motion seeking to preclude injunctive relief requiring payment into a remedial fund and denied, without prejudice, the motion concerning the Shefftz expert report. It deferred ruling on evidence concerning TMDL water monitoring and denied, without prejudice, the request for judicial notice.

Holdings

1. Rule 54(c) does not preclude LSRA from seeking injunctive relief requiring payment into a remedial fund because the request changes the form of relief rather than asserting a new claim or theory of relief.
2. LSRA was not barred from pursuing the proposed injunctive relief because Rule 26(a)(1)(A)(iii)'s damages-computation disclosure requirement does not apply to the equitable remedy at issue, and any assumed nondisclosure was harmless under Rule 37(c)(1).
3. A civil penalty under the Clean Water Act must be paid to the United States Treasury, but a court may separately fashion injunctive relief requiring payment into a remedial fund when there is a nexus between the harm and the remedy.
4. The challenged portions of the Shefftz Expert Report were not excludable on the ground that they offered legal opinions because the opinions concerning economic benefit, financial deterrence, and probability adjustments were economic opinions rather than legal conclusions.
5. The court would not strike the challenged citations and quotation from the Shefftz Expert Report because Republic identified no authority establishing a per se bar and could respond through contrary authorities and cross-examination.
6. The court denied the request for judicial notice without prejudice because LSRA had not established that the proposed facts were relevant to the case, although information on government websites may qualify for judicial notice under Rule 201(b)(2).

Questions Presented

1. Whether LSRA could seek injunctive relief requiring Republic to pay money into a remedial fund even though that relief was not specifically demanded in the complaint.
2. Whether LSRA's failure to disclose the proposed equitable remedy earlier required exclusion of that remedy under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26(a) and 37(c)(1).
3. Whether the Shefftz Expert Report should be excluded because it allegedly offered legal opinions, policy advocacy, improper probability-adjustment theories, or improper credibility bolstering through citations to prior cases and an earlier expert report.
4. Whether the court should defer ruling on Republic's challenge to TMDL water-monitoring evidence pending questions to counsel at the final pretrial conference.
5. Whether the court should take judicial notice of six facts concerning TMDL water monitoring in Kreutz Creek.

Disposition

other