Lewis v. FMC Corp.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• granting summary judgment on plaintiff’s RCRA claim where plaintiffs failed to demonstrate imminent and substantial endangerment
• granting summary judgment for lack of standing in part because plaintiffs “provided no expert opinion or factual evidence that would establish, or even suggest, an injury-in-fact”
• granting motion to exclude expert testimony where the moving party “[did] not address every opinion advanced by [the expert], but argue[d] that the totality of the deficiencies it identifie[d] invalidate[d] his opinions in their entirety”
• “[t]o the extent [the expert’s] declaration presents ‘additional’ and ‘new’ evidence and opinions[,] ... the declaration cannot be construed as a supplemental report under Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(e)”
• “[the expert] does not attest that the historical documents and data appended to his declaration were unknown or unavailable to him when he prepared his initial report and subsequent supplementations”
• “The duty to supplement arises when the expert subsequently learns of information that was previously unknown or unavaila- ble, and the new information renders the earlier report incomplete or inaccurate.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).