Court schedules Daubert hearing after defense seeks to exclude plaintiffs' expert in Edenville Dam case

Judge Jim Redford convened a status conference in David Krieger et al. v. Department of Environment, Great Lakes and Energy et al. (Case No. 20-94MM) and set a Daubert hearing for Aug. 25 at 9:00 a.m. to address the defendants' motion to exclude the plaintiffs' proposed expert witness, William Sturdevant.

Why it matters: The hearing will determine whether key expert opinions the plaintiffs plan to offer will be admitted at trial. Defense counsel argued the contested opinions fail Michigan Rule of Evidence 702 and that Sturdevant’s report was effectively “ghostwritten” by attorneys; plaintiffs’ counsel said Sturdevant is a highly experienced dam-safety engineer whose opinions rest on hundreds of documents and long professional experience.

At the start of the conference, Redford identified the case by name: “This is the matter of the, David Krieger et al versus department of environment, Great Lakes and Energy et al. It's our case 20Dash94MM.” Defense counsel Nathan Gamble told the court that the defendants were “ready to argue the Sturtevant motion today,” referring to the June 6 motion to exclude the expert. Gamble urged exclusion on multiple grounds including that Sturdevant “did not draft his own expert report” and that, in Gamble’s view, several proffered opinions “are not based on sufficient facts or data” and thus fail the MRE 702 factors.

Plaintiffs’ counsel Christopher Desmond responded that the “ghostwriting” label mischaracterizes the record, saying Sturdevant reviewed and signed the report and was deposed at length. Desmond said the expert relied on “45 different exhibits” appended to his declaration and additional documents and argued that an experienced expert can help the trier of fact by placing technical evidence in context.

During argument, counsel for both sides debated whether Sturdevant’s expertise — developed primarily in other states — and the methodologies he used were sufficient under Michigan law. Defense counsel pointed to deposition testimony and documentary evidence they say show Boyce Hydro and the 4 Lakes Task Force independently planned operations for Wixom Lake, and urged the court that Sturdevant’s opinions ignore that record. Plaintiffs’ counsel countered that Sturdevant had reviewed Michigan statutory authorities and technical materials and that courts routinely rely on out-of-state dam-safety experts.

Redford said he would not rule on the motion at the status conference and announced he would hold a Daubert hearing. He instructed that the plaintiffs’ witness would go first and said the court will begin the hearing at 9:00 a.m. on Monday, Aug. 25. Redford also stated that the court would sign the plaintiffs’ proposed notice-plan order that afternoon, which will start the notice timeline the plaintiffs had proposed: “That issue that order will be signed this afternoon,” he said.

The judge described other scheduling matters related to the trial plan: he said he will amend the existing trial order to move the deadline for pretrial nondispositive motions (which were previously set at 30 days before trial) to Nov. 21, 2025, with responses due Dec. 1, 2025, and he tentatively set oral argument on nondispositive motions for Dec. 5, 2025, at 8:30 a.m. Redford also confirmed the trial is scheduled to begin Jan. 12 (as reflected in his calendar entries) and explained those calendar constraints as part of the reason for the revised motion deadlines.

The defense described the motion it filed under CR 2.116(c)(10) as another pending dispositive matter; the court and counsel discussed whether oral argument on summary-disposition motions should be set for Aug. 25 after the Daubert hearing or should be handled separately on Sept. 15. Redford said he would consult his staff and issue an order later in the week resolving scheduling details.

Context and next steps: The Daubert hearing will focus on five discrete expert opinions the defense identified in briefing; counsel agreed the hearing could be conducted in a single day but made contingency plans for supplemental briefing if needed. Redford told counsel to keep Sept. 15 available as a backup hearing date. At the close of the conference, the judge reminded counsel of logistics for Aug. 25 and said he expected to issue written orders addressing the scheduling and entry of the notice plan.

What was not decided: The court did not rule at the conference on the admissibility of the expert opinions or on the dispositive motions; Redford explicitly deferred ruling until after the scheduled Daubert hearing and any additional briefing he may order.