Brashevitzky v. Reworld Holding Corporation
1:23-cv-20861
S.D. Fla.Nov 13, 2024Background
- Plaintiffs brought a putative class action seeking damages against Covanta/Reworld entities for failure to prevent and contain a substantial 2023 fire at the Miami-Dade County Resources Recovery Facility.
- Plaintiffs alleged significant air and soil pollution, seeking expert testimony regarding the environmental, health, and demographic impacts for class certification.
- Defendants moved to strike or exclude the opinions/declarations of four primary plaintiff experts: Dr. McAuley (air quality), Dr. Hoffman (medical/toxicology), Mr. Bowcock (water/resource sampling), and Mr. Safdie (demographics).
- Key arguments focused on whether the experts’ opinions met the reliability, helpfulness, and procedural disclosure requirements of federal rules and Daubert.
- The court conducted an evidentiary hearing and ultimately ruled to exclude all or portions of the challenged expert opinions for lack of reliability, foundation, or procedural compliance.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Reliability & methodology of Dr. McAuley’s opinions | McAuley’s wind/weather analysis is accepted science | No air/soil testing, no analytics, unfairly speculative | Partially excluded: Only weather findings allowed |
| Reliability of Dr. Hoffman’s opinions | Based on medical/toxicology expertise, literature | No exposure or risk assessment performed | Only general opinion on toxins admitted |
| Procedural compliance (Rule 26) of Bowcock/Safdie | Technical violations harmless, no prejudice | Missing required disclosures and untimely submissions | Bowcock excluded; Safdie’s second opinion excluded |
| Use of unreliable expert opinion as foundation | Inter-expert reliance is normal | McAuley’s unreliable area contaminated analysis taints dependent opinions | Dependent opinions excluded |
Key Cases Cited
- Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (establishes gatekeeping standard for reliability/relevance of expert testimony)
- Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (applies Daubert factors to all expert testimony, not just scientific)
- Gen. Elec. Co. v. Joiner, 522 U.S. 136 (courts may exclude expert opinion where analytical gap is too large)
- United States v. Frazier, 387 F.3d 1244 (11th Cir. 2004) (details requirements for expert qualification, reliability, and helpfulness)
- Hendrix ex rel. G.P. v. Evenflo Co., Inc., 609 F.3d 1183 (11th Cir. 2010) (describes burden/standards for admissibility of expert testimony)