KRILEY v. XTO ENERGY INC.
2:20-cv-00416
W.D. Pa.May 30, 2025Background
- Plaintiffs are oil and gas leaseholders alleging that Defendant XTO Energy Inc. wrongfully deducted excessive post-production costs from their royalty payments.
- The case is proceeding as a putative class action seeking class certification.
- Plaintiffs retained John Burritt McArthur as an expert, whose reports addressed both industry practices and legal opinions relevant to class certification.
- Defendant XTO moved to exclude certain portions of McArthur’s expert report, specifically those offering legal opinions on whether the class should be certified under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23, contending such testimony is improper under Federal Rule of Evidence 702.
- The Court determined no hearing was necessary and addressed the motion based on the briefs.
- The Court found that while industry practice opinions are permissible, legal conclusions by McArthur regarding class certification are inadmissible and will not be considered.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether expert can testify to legal conclusions about class certification | McArthur includes some legal conclusions but also industry standards; only the latter should be excluded if improper | Legal conclusions on class certification usurp the Court’s role and must be excluded | Expert’s legal conclusions on class certification excluded; only industry standard opinions allowed |
| Extent of exclusion of McArthur’s expert reports | No basis to exclude McArthur’s entire report | Seeks exclusion of only improper legal opinions, not all opinions | Only legal opinions excluded; relevant industry standard opinions allowed |
| Admissibility under Fed. R. Evid. 702 | Industry practice opinions relevant, jury should decide weight | Testimony must assist trier of fact and not infringe on legal determinations | Court will consider only opinions based on industry standards, not legal conclusions |
| Appropriateness of handling as a non-dispositive matter | Not contested | Not contested | Magistrate’s decision to exclude testimony is non-dispositive and appropriate |
Key Cases Cited
- Berckeley Inv. Group, Ltd. v. Colkitt, 455 F.3d 195 (3d Cir. 2006) (Experts may opine on industry customs but not offer legal conclusions, which are the court’s role.)
- U.S. v. Leo, 941 F.2d 181 (3d Cir. 1991) (Expert testimony allowed on business customs/practices, but not on legal compliance.)
- U.S. v. Schiff, 602 F.3d 152 (3d Cir. 2010) (Expert testimony admissible only if qualified, reliable, and assists the trier of fact.)