Laserfiche WebLink
49 <br /> 1 on -- specializing in hydrology, hydraulics, river 1 This is basically trial by ambush, and <br /> 2 systems, and fluvial geomorphology. Fluvial 2 it is generally not permitted. This Board should <br /> 3 geomorphology is basically how water interacts and 3 observe the principles often articulated in district <br /> 4 shapes geology. 4 courts that when a party fails to disclose expert <br /> 5 Q. Could you explain what an expert in 5 testimony such as this and a party is prejudiced in its <br /> 6 hydrology is able to express opinions about? 6 ability to defend against it, that testimony should be <br /> 7 A. Well, an expert in hydrology — 7 precluded. <br /> 8 hydrology is — 8 MR. STUTZ: Much -- sorry. <br /> 9 MR. JUSTUS: Objection. You're asking 9 MR. SINGLETARY: Go ahead just for a <br /> to for him to now express expert opinions. You have not 10 minute here. <br /> 11 certified him, nor did you disclose any potential 11 MR. STUTZ: Much of this is in response <br /> 12 expert. 12 to the testimony that's already been offered, and it's <br /> 13 MR. STUTZ: That's absolutely a 13 by way of rebuttal. We did not know what they were <br /> 14 misstatement. 14 going to present to the Board, and it's what we're <br /> 15 MR. SINGLETARY: I think he's just 15 addressing. <br /> 16 asking for information about the person. Carry on. 16 MR. JUSTUS: I object. That is a false <br /> 17 MR. JUSTUS: He's asking for an opinion 17 statement. <br /> 18 about what an expert may talk about. 18 MR. STUTZ: I'd like to — <br /> 19 MR. SINGLETARY: Carry on. 19 MR. SINGLETARY: Hold it. What we're <br /> 20 A. Hydrology is the science of the amount Ito going to do now is I'm going to seek counsel from my <br /> 21 of water -- the source of water, the amount of water, 21 colleagues here and see what their thoughts are in <br /> 22 and how it moves. 22 terms of this issue. <br /> 23 Q. (BY MR. STUTZ) And has your 23 MS. VAN NOORD: I'd like to hear fran <br /> 24 professional experience involved hydrology issues — 24 our counsel. <br /> 25 A. Yes. 25 MR. SINGLETARY: I think you guys can <br /> - 222 _ _ 224 <br /> 1 Q. — over time? 1 express sane thoughts, but go ahead. <br /> 2 A. Yeah. Absolutely. Hydrology is -- is 2 MR. ROBERTS: We are in an <br /> 3 one of the tenets of our expertise. 3 adninistrative process, which means the Rules of <br /> 4 MR. STUTZ: Okay. I would like, at this 4 Evidence and Civil Rules of Procedure are applied as <br /> 5 time, to offer Mr. Carey as an expert witness in 5 you dean appropriate, and it's your discretion to <br /> 6 hydrology, hydraulics, and fluvial geomorphology. 6 follow then or not as you wish. Done. <br /> 7 I would point out that in my prehearing 7 MR. RANDALL: I'll just say, so far I <br /> e statement I indicated that we intended to call him as 8 wasn't uncomfortable with the testimony being offered, <br /> 9 an expert witness. So I'm not sure I know what 9 and that was questions about what would an expert -- <br /> 10 Mr. Justus is talking about. to what can an expert testify about. I don't think he was <br /> 11 MR. JUSTUS: I think we have a couple 11 being asked for — for opinion that we would be <br /> 12 bases. First of all, your prehearing -- joint 12 expected to give the weight we might give an expert. <br /> 13 prehearing statement fails to identify Mr. Carey as an 13 If it gets into that territory, I agree <br /> 14 expert. He said he would provide lay witness 14 that there could be prejudice to both the Division and <br /> 15 testimony, was not identified as an expert, and was 15 to Snowcap. <br /> 16 also identified that his testimony would be limited to 16 MS. VAN NOORD: Agreed. <br /> 17 history of sinkholes, depressions, subsurface 17 MR. SINGLETARY: Okay. I'll rule that <br /> 18 conditions of the Carey tract, the basis of objection 1e he can be qualified as an expert witness. <br /> 19 of grout plugs in the Carey tract, including the Carey 19 MS. VAN NOORD: I'm not sure that's what <br /> 20 Pond and camunications. 20 Bob was saying. <br /> 21 No expert witness testimny was ever 21 MR. SINGLETARY: With those -- with <br /> 22 indicated or otherwise offered. Moreover, we have not 22 those guidelines, right? <br /> 23 been provided a report which would allow us to either 23 MR. RANDALL: Well, no. I guess — I <br /> 24 evaluate or refute any expert testimony that Mr. Carey 24 guess I was saying he wasn't offered as a -- as an <br /> 25 is now offering. 25 expert witness, and so -- <br /> 223 225 <br />