---
title: "Environmental Engineering Expert Witness’ Testimony About the Source of H2S is Not Fully Admissible"
meta:
  "og:description": "Testimony of environmental engineering expert witness is not fully excluded despite his failure to calculate the total H2S generated at the landfills"
  "og:title": "Environmental Engineering Expert Witness’ Testimony About the Source of H2S is Not Fully Admissible"
  author: "Expert Witness Profiler"
  description: "Testimony of environmental engineering expert witness is not fully excluded despite his failure to calculate the total H2S generated at the landfills"
---

# Environmental Engineering Expert Witness’ Testimony About the Source of H2S is Not Fully Admissible

Posted on August 1, 2024 by Expert Witness Profiler

This case concerns the operation of the Jefferson Parish Landfill in Waggaman, Louisiana (the “JPLF”), and the resulting odors emitted from the JPLF between July 1, 2017, and December 31, 2019 (the “relevant time period”). Plaintiffs, who are Jefferson Parish residents, filed several individual lawsuits that were consolidated into a mass action, _Addison v. Louisiana Regional Landfill Co._, which contains over 500 individual Plaintiffs.

The Defendants asserted several “alternative source arguments,” including that: (1) Plaintiffs’ alleged damages were sustained in whole or in part as a result of intervening or superseding causes, including noxious odors originating from sources other than the JPLF; and (2) Plaintiffs’ claims are barred or diminished to the extent their injuries were caused by their own comparative fault or the comparative fault of third parties or sources of odors for which the Defendants are not responsible.

#### **Motion to preclude**

The Defendants engaged [Matthew Stutz, P.E.](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/expert-witness/Matthew-Stutz/1559846)—represented to be an expert in “landfill design, engineering, management, and operations”—to offer opinions about modeled emissions and emission rates of landfill gas and hydrogen sulfide (“H2S”) from the JPLF and two neighboring landfills, the River Birch Landfill (the “RBLF”) and the Highway 90 construction and demolition (“C&D”) Landfill (the “Hwy 90 Landfill” or “Hwy 90”).

Stutz is also offered as a rebuttal expert to rebut the opinions of Plaintiffs’ experts, specifically regarding: (1) the generation and emissions of landfill gas and hydrogen sulfide; (2) the design, operation, and maintenance of the JPLF, including its cover, leachate, landfill gas, and odor control systems; and (3) the acceptance of nonhazardous industrial waste at the JPLF. Stutz expressed several opinions in his expert report (the “Stutz Report”) related to modeled gas generation and emissions estimates for the JPLF, the RBLF, and the Hwy 90 Landfill.

Plaintiffs filed their Motion in Limine seeking to preclude Stutz from offering testimony related to certain opinions expressed in the Stutz Report under the law-of-the-case doctrine and [Federal Rule of Evidence Rule 702](https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_702#:~:text=Rule%20702%20sets%20forth%20the,is%20a%20relatively%20narrow%20inquiry.).