Bost, Magyar, and Campbell review environmental, health, and property damage issues raised by litigants opposing hydraulic fracturing and oil and gas production in Texas. The authors also review successful Daubert challenges that have barred speculative expert testimony in Texas. This paper provides an example of the kind of data presented by litigants as part of litigants risk assessment, identifies the flaws in the studies found by the court that barred similar testimony, and why experts opinions were barred. Oil and gas exploration and production companies are facing increased litigation, in which opponents to oil and gas development have claimed environmental, natural resource, health, and property damages based on speculative expert opinions.
Litigants are also suing parties in Texas courts for alleged damages associated with activities in Mexico. Some lower level district courts have barred speculative testimony. Other appeal courts have dismissed claims based on speculative testimony. In this paper we review the so-called Daubert criteria which the U.S. Supreme Court established so lower courts can serve as gate-keepers allowing only expert testimony based on facts and scientific methods. Understanding these criteria will help defendants prepare successful Daubert challenges to speculative and unfounded claims and, where claims are truly legitimate, help claimants prepare sound evidence and expert opinions.
Managed & Built by I2M Consulting, LLC | © 2010-
