Jones Brothers, Inc. v Secretary of Labor and Secretary of Labor v. Jones Brothers, Inc.

Plain-English summary

The Secretary asked the judge to limit testimony from six Jones Brothers witnesses before a hearing on Mine Act jurisdiction and the underlying violations. Judge Priscilla Rae allowed all six to testify as fact witnesses but barred Steve Wright from offering expert testimony because his proposed opinions would not assist with the case-specific jurisdiction question and included legal conclusions. The judge also directed both sides to narrow or properly use proposed exhibits. Jones Brothers was ordered to state whether it accepted the violations as written or was prepared to litigate them at the hearing, because the jurisdiction and violation issues would not be split into separate proceedings.

Decision snapshot

• Cited standard(s): None
• Outcome: The Secretary's motion in limine was granted in part, all six witnesses could give fact testimony, and Wright could not testify as an expert.
• Key point: Industry experience did not qualify a witness to give expert legal conclusions about Mine Act jurisdiction in this case.

Full text (FMSHRC public release)

FEDERAL MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH
REVIEW COMMISSION

OFFICE OF
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGES

1331 PENNSYLVANIA
AVE., N.W., SUITE 520N

WASHINGTON, DC
20004-1710

TELEPHONE: 202-434-9956
/ FAX: 202-434-9949

January 13, 2021

JONES
BROTHERS INC.,

Contestant,

v.

SECRETARY
OF LABOR

MINE
SAFETY AND HEALTH       

ADMINISTRATION
(MSHA),

Respondent.

SECRETARY
OF LABOR

MINE
SAFETY AND HEALTH       

ADMINISTRATION
(MSHA),

Petitioner,

v.

JONES
BROTHERS INC.,

Respondent.

CONTEST
PROCEEDINGS

Docket
No. SE 2016-0218-RM

Citation
No. 8817595; 04/06/2016

Docket
No. SE 2016-0219-RM

Citation
No. 8817596; 04/06/2016

Mine:
S.R. 141 Project, Dekalb Co.

Mine
ID: 40-03454

CIVIL PENALTY PROCEEDING

Docket
No. SE 2016-0246

A.C.
No. 40-03454-410595

Mine:
S.R. 141 Project, Dekalb Co.

ORDER GRANTING
IN PART THE SECRETARY’S MOTION IN LIMINE

AND INSTRUCTIONS
FROM THE COURT

On January 11, 2021, the Secretary of
Labor (“Secretary”) filed an Objection to the Scope of Expected Testimony and
Motion in Limine (“Secretary’s Motion”) where the Secretary objected to the
expected testimony of Respondent’s witnesses Martin McCullough, Kevin Hinson,
Anthony Williams, Joey Odom, Ben Coleman, and Steve Wright as “irrelevant and
impermissibly exceed[ing] the scope of testimony permitted by lay witnesses,”
and further objected to the expected testimony of Wright as not expert
testimony. Sec’y Mot. at 2.

After reviewing the filing and
Respondent’s list of witnesses, the court will permit McCullough, Hinson,
Williams, Odom, Coleman, and Wright to testify as fact witnesses. However,
Wright will not be permitted to testify as an expert.

Respondent has described the scope of Wright’s
proposed testimony as follows:

For nearly 40 years [Wright] has seen
and operated borrow pits similar to what Jones Bros. did at the SR-141 job to
produce solid graded rock in Tennessee and other states and although MSHA would
be aware of these borrow pits, on both private land near a road project right
of way or on the right of way itself, MSHA never sought to exercise
jurisdiction over them unless the rock was being processed substantially more
than by use of a slotted bucket. Mr. Wright may offer both factual and expert
testimony concerning how the Interagency Agreement has been interpreted and/or
applied.

Witness
List for Jones Brothers, Inc. at 3. Wright does not qualify as an expert, per
Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, which states:

A witness who is qualified as an expert
by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education may testify in the form
of an opinion or otherwise if:

(a) the expert’s scientific, technical,
or other specialized knowledge will help the trier of fact to understand the
evidence or to determine a fact in issue;

(b) the testimony is based on sufficient
facts or data;

(c) the testimony is the product of
reliable principles and methods; and

(d) the expert has reliably applied the
principles and methods to the facts of the case.

Fed. R. Evid.

702. Wright’s purported knowledge of borrow pits unrelated to this matter and prior
     MSHA enforcement practices will not help this Court “understand the evidence or
     determine a fact in issue”—specifically whether Respondent’s operation falls
     under the jurisdiction of the Mine Act in this specific instance. Further,
     Wright’s proposed testimony consists of legal conclusions, including that “MSHA
     never sought to exercise jurisdiction . . . unless the rock was being processed
     substantially more than by use of a slotted bucket” and testimony regarding “how
     the Interagency Agreement has been interpreted and/or applied.” Witness List
     for Jones Brothers, Inc. at 3. “Expert testimony that consists of legal
     conclusions” is not admissible under Rule 702 because it “cannot properly
     assist the trier of fact” in “understand[ing] the evidence” or “determin[ing] a
     fact in issue.” Burkhart v. WMATA , 112 F.3d 1207, 1212 (D.C. Cir. 1997).
     Therefore, this Court will not permit Wright to testify as an expert.

Additionally, the parties have submitted
proposed exhibits in this matter. The Court has reviewed the documents and
issues the following guidelines with respect to introduction of exhibits at
trial. The Secretary has submitted what is identified as exhibit S-26, which is
the 86-page contract between the Tennessee Department of Transportation and Respondent.
The document contains many pages of information pertaining to the hiring of
illegal immigrants, prevailing wage pay scales and classification of workers,
fuel adjustment worksheet forms (blank), non-discrimination provisions,
certificate of liability insurance forms, surety bond forms (unsigned),
information regarding traffic control, road markings and signage, and other
extraneous information. The Secretary is directed to redact any extraneous
pages not intended for use at trial from the exhibit before offering it into
evidence. Similarly, any drawings contained in exhibit S-27 that the Secretary
does not intend to rely on shall be redacted from the exhibit when offered at
trial.

Respondent has submitted exhibit R-1,
which is a copy of responses provided by the Secretary to propounded discovery.
My Prehearing Order specifically states that discovery responses shall not be
submitted to the Court. Additionally, the Court finds, as it did with respect
to the Secretary’s proffer of deposition transcripts, that it is not proper to
offer the document as an exhibit in the Respondent’s case in chief. It may be
used by the parties for refreshing recollection, past recollection recorded,
and for impeachment.

The Court recognizes that the Respondent
has not submitted any proposed witnesses to testify to the underlying
violations cited against it. The Court informed the parties at the inception of
this matter that the hearing would encompass the jurisdiction issue as well as
an adjudication of all related violations. The Respondent is directed to either
inform the Court whether it intends to accept the violations as written, or
confirm that they are prepared to litigate the violations at the January 26,
2021 hearing. This matter will not be bifurcated.

It is so ORDERED this thirteenth
day of January 2021 .

/s/
Priscilla M. Rae

Priscilla
M. Rae

Administrative
Law Judge

Distribution:

Willow
Eden Fort, Attorney, Office of the Solicitor, 618 Church Street, Suite 230
Nashville, TN 37219 ( [email protected] )

Michael
D. Oesterle, Esq., KING & BALLOW, 1100 Union Street Plaza 315 Union Street
Nashville, TN 37201 ( [email protected] )

Douglas
R. Pierce, Esq., KING & BALLOW, 1100 Union Street Plaza 315 Union Street
Nashville, TN 37201 ( [email protected] )