ELR Citation: ELR 20020
No(s). Civ.01-2012 SEC JA (D.P.R. Jan 20, 2005)

A district court granted an oil company's motion to strike a report submitted by individuals' expert witness and denied the individuals' motions for reconsideration of the court's previous summary judgment decision concerning liability for response costs the company incurred cleaning up environmental contamination at a gas station in Puerto Rico. Given the failure to comply with the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 26(a)(2)(B), and because of the witness' attempt to extort from the company an exorbitant amount in exchange for his testimony at the deposition, the court granted the company's motion to strike the expert report. Additionally, the individuals are precluded from calling the expert to testify at trial. In addition, the individuals' motions for the court to reconsider or correct its previous decision lack merit. The only issue not addressed below concerned a state immunity statute, and the court determined that the law was preempted by the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act.