Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Valencia v. D. Merck & Co.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


November 1, 2010

ABARCA, RAUL VALENCIA, ET AL., PLAINTIFFS,
v.
D. MERCK & CO., INC., ET AL., DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Oliver W. Wanger United States District Judge

PARTIES QUESTIONS FOR FEDERAL RULE OF EVIDENCE 706 EXPERT DR. KENNETH SCHMIDT

The following questions are submitted by the Court to Federal Rule of Evidence 706 expert Dr. Kenneth Schmidt.

I. Assumptions and Construction of the Model.

1. Was the uniform release of hexavalent chromium over the 1969-91 period assumed in the Bartlett model in accordance with generally accepted ground water modeling standards and principles?

2. What is the significance, if any, of the Bartlett model's assumption of no continuing source of chromium after 1991?

3. Was Bartlett's use of the 1993 SUTRA model and the subsequent 2006 Arcadis model in compliance with generally accepted ground water modeling and hydrological standards and principles?

4. Was the Bartlett revision of the ARCADIS model in compliance with generally accepted ground water modeling and hydrological standards and principles?

5. Based on the construction and any other features of MWC-2, did the Bartlett model treatment of inflow comply with generally accepted standards and principles of ground water modeling and hydrology?

6. Does the lithological, hydrological and aquifer information used to develop the Bartlett model comply with generally accepted ground water modeling standards and principles?

7. Is there any impediment to transmissivity between the contaminant plume and MWC-2?

8. Did the Bartlett model assumption of hydraulic conductivity between the contaminant plume and MWC-2 comply with generally accepted standards and principles of ground water modeling and hydrology?

II. Calibration and Validation of the Model.

9. In water well modeling, what are the generally recognized standards and practices for the validation and calibration of modeling through the application and analysis of well data collected, maintained and reported in accordance with the regulations and practices of the State of California?

10. Was Bartlett's method for addressing flow calibration in compliance with generally accepted ground water modeling standards and principles?

11. Was Bartlett's method for addressing transport calibration in compliance with generally accepted ground water modeling standards and principles?

12. Did the Bartlett model evaluate all aquifer behavior in compliance with generally accepted ground water modeling and hydrological standards and principles?

13. What explanations are there for any variance between the Bartlett model and observed chromium concentrations in monitoring and extraction wells in the area?

III. Reliability of the Model.

14. Given all the available data and disputes over the data, was it in accordance with generally accepted standards and principles of ground water modeling to prepare a ground water flow and transport model?

15. Did the Bartlett model chromium simulations in MWC-2 accurately represent hexavalent chromium concentrations in compliance with generally accepted standards and principles of ground water modeling, geochemistry and ground water hydrology?

16. Did the Bartlett model's chromium transport simulations comply with generally accepted standards and principles of ground water hydrology?

17. Does the Bartlett model comply with generally accepted standards and principles of ground water modeling and hydrology?

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20101101

© 1992-2010 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.