Oklahoma Chicken Litter Lawsuit

The poultry litter litigation in Oklahoma is still heading towards a trial date of September 21, 2009 in the Northern District of Oklahoma. This litigation has been contentious and complex, as evidenced by the docket sheet of over 2400 entries. (State of Oklahoma v. Tyson Foods, Inc. et al., Case Number 4:05-cv-329)

It appears that the last few weeks have been busy for Judge Gregory Frizell. He has reviewed various motions for summary judgement, and well as various Daubert motions filed by both sides. There is no written order as of yet on either the Daubert motions or the motions for summary judgement. I will check PACER later to see if Judge Fritzell issues written opinions. However, it is clear that the Defendants succeeded in blocking some of the experts the State of Oklahoma was planning to call. One of the excluded witnesses, Dr. Walerie Harwood, was going to testify about a biological fingerprint that could track bacteria to poultry. the defendants have claimed throughout the case that liability cannot be proven because there is no way to know of the true source of any bacteria found in water.

Daubert motions are filed by attorneys to block expert witnesses from testifying. Without going into too much detail, Daubert motions require the court to act as a gatekeeper, and to prevent untested scientific theories from influencing the outcome of the trial. When deciding a Daubert motion, the court looks at various factors to decide if the expert testimony is based on sound science. The factors include whether or not the methodology used by the expert has been published or otherwise subjected to peer review, the degree to which the technique or theory is generally accepted in the relevant scientific community, the potential rate of error, and the existence of standards of control concerning the operation of the method.

In practice, Daubert motions can be deadly. Having expert witness testimony excluded from trial can be devastating to a case. However, Ron Smith of Feedstuffs reports that the State is saying that their case "remains strong and intact." (Ron Smith, Feedstuffs, Aug. 10, 2009, pg. 3) We may have to wait until trial to see what affect, if any, the Court's order has on the State's case.