City of Pomona v. Sqm North America Corp.
2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 14491
9th Cir.2017Background
- Pomona sued SQM claiming SQM’s importation of perchlorate-containing Chilean fertilizer caused perchlorate contamination in Pomona’s public water wells; Pomona sought ~$32M for investigation and remediation.
- Key scientific dispute: Dr. Neil Sturchio used perchlorate isotope analysis to conclude ~90% of Pomona’s perchlorate matched an Atacama Desert (Chile) isotopic signature; SQM disputed methodology and source attribution.
- After an initial Daubert exclusion of Sturchio, this Court reversed (Pomona I) and remanded for trial; on remand Pomona sought to update Sturchio’s report to reflect post-2011 interlaboratory confirmations and larger databases.
- The district court denied Pomona’s motion to reopen discovery and excluded testimony about post-2011 scientific developments, citing potential delay and lack of materiality.
- SQM’s alternative-source expert, Dr. Richard Laton, testified at trial that hundreds of other sources could explain the perchlorate; the district court denied Pomona’s Daubert challenge to Laton with minimal explanation.
- The jury returned a defense verdict for SQM; on appeal the Ninth Circuit held the district court abused its discretion by (1) barring Sturchio’s updated testimony and (2) admitting Laton’s testimony without adequate Daubert findings; the errors were prejudicial and required a new trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether district court abused discretion by denying motion to reopen discovery to allow Sturchio to update his expert report | Sturchio’s updates (interlaboratory confirmation, larger databases) were material and timely after remand; court should permit update | Allowing updates would delay trial; updates were cumulative and non-material | Abuse of discretion—denial was illogical given remand timing and materiality of updates; reversal required |
| Whether exclusion of Sturchio’s post-2011 testimony was prejudicial | Exclusion prevented rebuttal of SQM’s 2011-focused attacks and harmed Pomona’s key causation evidence | Even with updated Sturchio, jury could still find SQM not the source (other importers, non-detect wells) | Prejudicial when combined with erroneous admission of Laton’s testimony; affected substantial rights |
| Whether district court abused discretion by admitting Laton’s alternative-source opinions without analysis | Laton’s opinions lack scientific basis tying alternative sources to Pomona’s isotopic signature and should be excluded under Daubert | Pretrial tentative ruling and trial management meant no further objection required; testimony admissible | Abuse of discretion—the court abdicated gatekeeping by issuing conclusory “DENY” without findings; Pomona preserved objection |
| Whether erroneous admission of Laton’s testimony was prejudicial | Laton’s testimony was critical and directly undercut Pomona’s experts on causation | Admission harmless because other evidence could negate SQM’s responsibility | Prejudicial—Laton’s testimony was central to SQM’s defense and, combined with Sturchio’s restricted testimony, likely affected the verdict |
Key Cases Cited
- Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., 509 U.S. 579 (establishes federal gatekeeping standard for expert admissibility)
- United States v. Hinkson, 585 F.3d 1247 (9th Cir. 2009) (abuse-of-discretion review framework for evidentiary rulings)
- Estate of Barabin v. AstenJohnson, Inc., 740 F.3d 457 (9th Cir. 2014) (district court must make findings assessing scientific validity under Daubert)
- Pyramid Techs., Inc. v. Hartford Cas. Ins. Co., 752 F.3d 807 (9th Cir. 2014) (conclusory denials of Daubert challenges are an abuse of discretion)
- City of Pomona v. SQM N. Am. Corp., 750 F.3d 1036 (9th Cir. 2014) (earlier reversal of exclusion of Sturchio’s testimony)