My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Colorado River Water Conservation District's Response to Motion in Limine Case No. 02CW38
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
DayForward
>
2001-3000
>
Colorado River Water Conservation District's Response to Motion in Limine Case No. 02CW38
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2010 4:41:46 PM
Creation date
7/30/2009 1:05:48 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
File Number
8230.2B2
Description
Discovery
State
CO
Basin
Colorado Mainstem
Water Division
4
Date
9/5/2003
Author
Peter C. Fleming
Title
Colorado River Water Conservation District's Response to Motion in Limine Case No. 02CW38
Water Supply Pro - Doc Type
Court Documents
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
6
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
District Court, Water Division 4, Colorado <br />Case No. 02CW38; Application of Upper Gunnison River Water Conservancy District, m Gunnison Coumty, Cobrado <br />Colorado River Water Conservation District's Response to Motion in Limme <br />Page 5 o f 6 <br />5. In People v. Shreck, 22 P.3d 68, 70 (Colo. 2001), the Colorado Supreme Court <br />declined to require the use of the Daubert test for admission of scientific evidence. <br />It held that Rules 702 and 403 should govem admissibility of all novel and non-novel <br />scientific evidence. Moraover, Mr. Kuhn's ecpert testimony does not involve <br />"scientific" evidence. Mr. Kuhn's expertise is more accurately characterized as <br />"specialized knowledge" that will assist the court to undestand the evidence or to <br />determine a fact at issue. As explained above, Mr. Kuhn's testimmy is adxnissible <br />under CRE 702. <br />6. The CWCB and Engineers also argues that Mr. Kuhn's testimony should be excluded <br />because the other experts will testify on the same subject matter and Mr. Kuhn's <br />testimony is therefore cumulative. Mr. Kuhn's anticipatedtestimony, as reflected in <br />the River DistricYs disclosure will provide a different view of the facts relevant to <br />the issues :in the case than the testimony likely to be elicited from the CWCB's <br />witnesses. Presumably, this is the precise reason that the CWCB and Engineers <br />would like to exclude Mr. Kuhn's testimony. In any case, the Court is fully capable <br />of limiting cumulative evidence at trial. <br />WHEREFORE, the River District respectfully requests that this Court deny theMotion in <br />Limine to exclude Mr. Kuhn's expert testimony. <br />Respectfully submitted on September 5, 2003. <br />/s/* <br />Peter C. Fleming, #20805 <br />Jill C. H. McConaughy, #26082 <br />Kirstin E. McMillan, #33989 <br />Attorneys for the Colorado River Water <br />Conservation District <br />*In accordance with C.R.C.P. 111 §I-26(9), this document has been electronically filed via www.lexisnexis.com. A <br />printed copy of this document with original signatures is maintain ed by the,filingparty and will be made available for <br />inspection by other parties or the Court upon request.
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.