I2M Associates logo

I2M Associates, LLC offers experienced engineers, geologists, hydrogeologists, and other scientists with many years in environmental assessments, including remediation management, mineral exploration and mining, project management, and mergers and acquisitions. Related areas of expertise include forensic and feasibility studies in the environmental and mining industries, and environmental site assessments, due diligence assessments, and impact assessments in addition to brownfield redevelopment and management (as well as grant application assistance) in the U.S, and for state and the U.S. governments, and the legal community around the U.S.

Case Histories

Contact I2M Associates, LLC

1810 Elmen Street, Houston, Texas 77019

Phone: 713.807.0021

Mobile: 713.248.1708

Fax: 713.807.0985

Michael D. Campbell, P.G., P.H. Case Summary

Michael D. Campbell, P.G., P.H. Case Summary 2016-10-20T01:29:09+00:00

Period Covered: 1976 to Present

Not all cases are listed below because some are confidential (in the early stages of litigation), and some are confidential in Mr. Campbell’s role as a consulting expert in support of I2M Associate cases (Bost) and other investigations. Mr. Campbell has been engaged in cases to assist counsel (and other experts) in managing the expert testimony during depositions and trial, and in assisting counsel in rehabilitating expert testimony if requested (more).

RECENTLY RESOLVED / SETTLED CASES / WORK STOPPED / SUSPENDED / WITHDRAWN:

Engaged: October 25, 2012

Potential Case: Engaged by Plaintiff’s Attorney (Michael D. Dortch, Kravitz, Brown & Dortch, LLC, Columbus, Ohio).

Function: I2MA conducted a limited Phase II investigation to assess whether contamination from a historical battery manufacturer has encroached client’s industrial property. The investigation included drilling for the purpose of sampling the soil and groundwater for arsenic, lead, cadmium, and other constituents on parts of client’s property, plus assessing historical documents, and aerial photography showing the industrial activities through time.

Status: Report completed and submitted to client with recommendations to proceed. Recommended case be referred to local consulting firm to address local issues.


Engaged: February 28, 2006

Case: Engaged by Plaintiff’s Attorney (Robert Anderson, Sorrell, Anderson, Lehrman & Ridulfo, L.L.P., Corpus Christi, Texas) in the matter of D. S. Williams, Texas Storage, Inc. and Texas Gulf Development, L.P. vs. Halliburton Energy Services, Inc. et al.; In the 133 District Court, Harris County, Texas, Cause No. 2005-32905

Function: The client, a commercial land owner was notified that the shallow ground water under an adjacent property was contaminated with solvents and had likely migrated below the land owner’s property. C&A personnel were engaged as part of litigation brought against the adjacent landowners to assess the subsurface conditions in the area surrounding the subject property to determine if other sources of contamination also exists. Other possible sources were identified and are being evaluated whether these sources also impact the subject property.

Status: Affidavits filed, Settled 2009.


Engaged: June 28, 2006

Case: Engaged by Defense Attorney (Santos Vargos, Esq., Cox, Smith Mathews, Inc., San Antonio, TX) in the matter of Rotary Exploration, Inc. v. Lone Wolf Operating Company; In U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, San Antonio Division; Cause: SA-05CA1194-FFB

Function: The client engaged an experienced drilling company to drill wells on producing acreage. Upon drilling to less than 1,000 feet, the ground below the rig became unstable and the rig overturned. The drilling company brought litigation against the operator to cover the cost of repairs on the grounds of insufficient warning of unstable ground, etc. C&A Associates personnel were engaged to evaluate the geological conditions present below the rig and to determine, if possible, the likely cause(s) of the incident.

Status: Discovery, Deposition, Settled 2007.


Engaged: June 2, 2006

Case: Engaged by Plaintiff Attorney (Jim L. Culpepper, Esq., Jim L. Culpepper & Associates) in the matter of Marcus J. Vondenstein, et al. v. MHI Partnership, Ltd.; In the 280 Judicial District Court of Harris County, Texas, Cause No. 2005-42002

Function: The Plaintiffs’ purchased a house in northwest Harris County area and consumed drinking water provided by a local M.U.D. for a number of years that contained radioactive contaminants in excess of the maximum allowable level permitted by U.S. EPA and by TCEQ. Plaintiff’s brought litigation against the developer who sold the house for not advising the prospective home-buyers of the posed threat to public health of the drinking water provided by the developer at the time of purchase. C&A Associates personnel were engaged to evaluate the source of the radioactive contaminants and to assess the role of the developer to advise material facts when conveying real estate.

Status: Discovery, Deposition. Case Transferred to Other Attorney Group.


Engaged August, 2001

Case: Gene Elison, et al. v. FPC Disposal, Inc., et al., Case No. CJ-99-151-01, District Court, Canadian County, OK. Engaged by Plaintiff Attorney (Oklahoma City, OK).

Function: C&A was engaged to investigate the likely impact of injection well operations since the early 1980s and to conduct investigations involving the installation and monthly sampling of monitoring wells and of nearby streams to develop opinions on the likely source, nature, and circumstances surrounding the occurrence of brine containing anomalous chlorides, metals, radiochemicals, and microbiological agents possibly originating from a brine and drilling-fluid disposal facility implicated as a possible cause of death of 20 calves and other fauna and flora within the area of influence of the stream draining the facility. Alexander Consulting, Inc., Tulsa, was engaged as local representation for the field investigations and supervision of drilling and sampling of the monitoring wells.

Status: Affidavits Filed; Appeals Court Found in Favor of Plaintiff Attorney. Expert Report Completed (Campbell, 2006). Rebuttal Completed (2007). Three-day Deposition but not completed (2008), subject to review of opposing expert witness’s late report and final report by plaintiff’s expert witness (Campbell). Expert went into the Deposition being owed approximately $38,000.00 of uncontested, unpaid invoices. After Deposition, Campbell assumed that he had been withdrawn from Case by Attorney’s expression of dissatisfaction after the deposition. Contract Dispute with Attorney (2009), Arbitration, but no settlement. Jury Trial found in favor of Attorney against Expert (2010), Appealed by Expert (Campbell). Alexander Consulting, Inc. refused to participate in the proceedings because of a previous personal conflict with the subject attorney on another case.

Three years later in mid-2013, Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals reversed the Jury findings in favor of Expert Witness (Campbell) on the basis that the judge committed errors in at least three areas, e.g., 1) no expert witness presented to opine on Defendant expert’s report (Campbell), 2) attorney testified for Plaintiff as an expert in hydrogeology, 3) certain testimony was not allowed by the judge, combined with the issue of incompetency demonstrated by the Plaintiff’s attorney before and during the underlying Deposition, etc.

In early 2014, the Plaintiffs’ attorney then filed a certiorari appeal on the OK Court of Civil Appeals’ findings to the OK Supreme Court, to which the Defendant Campbell responded with a pro se appeal to the OK Supreme Court to set aside the Plaintiff’s appeal on the basis of prejudice and other issues (more). After only two months, the OK Supreme Court reversed the OK Court of Civil Appeals findings in favor of the Plaintiffs. The judge in the underlying case had just been appointed to the OK Supreme Court while this case was being considered by the Supreme Court. She recused herself in this case. She was the first woman to serve on the OK Supreme Court, and it would appear that the Justice who provided the overly hostile opinion against the Defendant expert (Campbell) was more concerned with the rush to protect the reputation of the new Supreme Court Justice than to afford justice for the Defendant expert as initially ruled by the Civil Appeals Court.

In the expert’s opinion, this was a case driven first by greed and then by the vindictiveness of an inept client-attorney through legal bullying and rejection of the expert’s opinions permitted by errors committed by a judge who allowed such to continue and by a justice who was protecting the reputation of a newly appointed justice. On the basis of the prejudicial disregard of the expert’s rights, the expert is being encouraged to consider an appeal to the U.S. Federal Court System.


Engaged: October 28, 2004

Case: Engaged by Plaintiff’s Attorney (Houston, TX) in the matter of Benavides vs. Arias & Associates, District Court of Maverick County, TX.

Function: Plaintiff purchased land in South Texas following a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment conducted by a local consultant. Early construction excavated industrial waste materials and associated refuse which brought into question whether the consultant had performed the assessment according to the prevailing professional standard of care and associated standards. C&A personnel were engaged to assess the actions of the consultant in this matter.

Status: Expert Report Completed; Deposition Completed; Trial Scheduled for Mid-2006, Trial Continued. Settled.


Engaged: September 14, 2002

Case: Engaged by Defendant Attorney (Wooster, OH) in the matter of Crane, et al., vs. Ken Miller Supply, et al. Cause No. 02-CV-0243 in the Court of Common Pleas of Wayne County, OH.

Function: A service company dealing in oil and gas piping and associated equipment has applied brine over the past few years in a State-permitted activity to reduce dust on their property. Adjacent property owners have indicated that drinking water from their original, shallow water wells tasted salty and have brought suit against the company for contaminating their drinking water with brine. C&A personnel were engaged to conduct hydrogeologic investigations to determine and opine on the likely cause(s) of the elevated chlorides.

Status: Expert Reports Completed; Deposition Completed; Trial Scheduled for Late October, 2006; Case Settled.


Engaged: April 12, 2006

Case: Engaged by Defense Attorney (Oklahoma City, OK) in the matter of Foster, et ux. vs. ExxonMobil Corporation, et al., and Duke Energy Services, Inc.; In U.S. District Court in Western District of Oklahoma; Case No. CIV05-1228-M

Function: The client assumed ownership of a gas transmission plant in the Southwest U.S. but was subsequently sued by an adjacent landowner for allegedly contaminating the shallow ground water below the adjacent farmland. C&A personnel were engaged to observe the sampling programs conducted by the Plaintiff’s consultants and to assess these claims to determine, if possible, whether the contamination is present and likely to persist in the soil and ground water, if present.

Status: Discovery, Affidavits Filed. Case Settled.


Engaged: April 7, 2005

Case: Engaged by Plaintiff’s Attorney (Houston, Marek & Griffin, L.L.P., Victoria, TX) in the matter of Dianna Stranger and Wolf Point Ranch, L.L.C., vs. Nueces Petroleum Corp., In the 267th Judicial District Court of Jackson County, TX.

Function: Plaintiff made an agreement with a predecessor oil company to repair access road for usual traffic. Defendant oil company refused to comply on the basis of state and federal wetlands rules that allegedly prohibits the type of road construction desired by Plaintiff. C&A personnel were engaged to evaluate Defendant claims and the cost to rebuild road through area where a previous oil spill was reported.

Status: Expert Report Completed; Defendant Filed Bankruptcy.


Engaged: April 5, 2005

Case: Engaged by Defendant Attorney (The Fullenweider Firm, Houston, TX) in the matter of the industrial Property Value on West Mt. Houston Road, Houston, TX, leased to an Auto Auctions Firm, and Potential Cost of Remediation in preparation for a Civil Action anticipated but not yet filed.

Function: The Defendant industrial land owner, who has a long-term lease with a large car-parts operations in Texas, engaged C&A personnel to evaluate Phase I and II environmental site assessments conducted by local consultants. C&A personnel is focused on the completeness of the reports and on whether they met the prevailing standard of care and requirements of ASTM guidelines. The likely cost of remediation was also estimated. Follow-up work is anticipated to evaluate the previously indicated areas of concern for likely remediation.

Status: Case Settled.


Engaged: February 24, 2005

Case: Engaged by Defendant Attorney, (Strasburger and Price, LLP, San Antonio, TX) in the matter of Bettie J. Black vs. Kenan Transport Co. and Petrochemical Transport, Inc, in 27th Judicial District, Lampasas County, TX.

Function: C&A personnel were engaged to review the available documentation of previous conditions, conduct site investigations, and prepare a report of opinions on the surface and subsurface conditions before and after a diesel oil spill occurred during the unloading of fuel from a tanker into a storage tank located in Lampasas County, TX., and on the likely cost to remediate the subject property.

Status: Expert Report Completed; Settled.


Engaged: January 18, 2005

Case: Engaged by Defendant Attorney (Burch and Cracchiolo, P.A., Phoenix, AZ) in the matter of Duncan Pump adv. Luna and Stalls, et al., District Court, AZ.

Function: C&A personnel were engaged to conduct hydrogeological investigations and evaluations regarding the various influences on the ground water in the immediate area of a Phoenix area MUD and to evaluate conditions concerning disinfectants in the water system at various times before the deaths of the two children in this matter.

Status: Expert Report Completed; Settled.


Engaged: March 4, 2004

Case: Engaged by Defendant Attorney (Eggleston & Briscoe, Houston) in the matter of Differential Development vs. Long Chau, Texas State Court, Houston, TX.

Function: Operator of dry-cleaners facility has been accused by property owner of contaminating subsurface soils and ground water. C&A personnel were engaged by defendant’s attorney to conduct subsurface hydrogeological investigations involving sampling of soil and ground water for DNAPL and associated constituents.

Status: Phase II Investigations Completed; Settled.


Engaged: October 20, 2003

Case: Engaged by Defendant Attorney (George W. Dana Associates, Houston, TX) in the matter of Vanguard Metal Technologies, Inc. vs. Bill Noles, Texas State Court, Houston, TX.

Function: A previous owner of an electroplating company sold the operations, and after 7 years, the new owner accused previous owner of major offsite spill of metal-rich wastewater. C&A personnel were engaged to investigate the available data and opine on the likely causes(s) of the cadmium, chromium, and cyanide contamination once present in the soil before removal operations were conducted by the present owner.

Status: Deposition taken, In trial. Plaintiffs Withdrew.


Engaged: August 25, 2003

Case: Engaged by Defendant Attorney (Adams and Reese LLP, New Orleans, LA) in the matter of Bryson Adams, et al. vs. EPAC, et al., New Orleans, LA.

Function: A Fortune 500 International company was a PRP in a Superfund project in Louisiana during the early 1980s. In subsequent litigation, C&A personnel were engaged to investigate the likely impact of past injection well operations on the local hydrogeology and possible contamination of the Bayou Sorrel area.

Status: Preliminary Investigations Completed; Settled.


Engaged: July 21, 2003

Case: Engaged by Plaintiff Attorney (Dombrowski LLP, Houston, TX) River Garden Farms vs. Calpine Natural Gas Company, Cause No. 2001-37351 in the 190th Judicial District Court, Harris County, TX.

Function: A prominent agricultural producer allowed a major natural gas company to drill, produce, and distribute natural gas from company lands. An ELA Principal was engaged to investigate the likely environmental impact to lands and associated ground water and surface water now that production has ceased if a network of pipelines is not removed from below sensitive agricultural soils according to an original agreement between the parties.

Status: Preliminary Investigations Completed; Settled.


Engaged: June 12, 2002

Case: Engaged by Defendant Attorney (Locke Liddell & Sapp, LLP, Houston, TX) in the matter of CHBP v. Comerica, et al., esp. AEC in Texas State Court, Houston, TX.

Function: C&A personnel to conduct a preliminary assessment on the positions taken by other experts in the case of PCE contamination from a specific dry cleaners and to assess the whether previous consultants committed errors and omissions on earlier investigations that could have limited the aerial extent of PCE contamination in the shallow ground water.

Status: Preliminary Investigations Completed, Settled.


Engaged: July 16, 2001

Case: Engaged by Plaintiff Attorney In the matter of No. 2001-025; Murray Marie and Margie Marie vs. Anadarko Petroleum Corporation, and its subsidiaries, RME Petroleum Corporation and RMW Oil and Gas Company; in the County Court at Law in and for Panola County, TX.

Function: C&A personnel engaged to conduct investigations to develop opinions on the likely source(s) of possible environmental contamination that may be adversely affecting the water quality of a rural resident’s water wells located near a major natural gas well with a history of mechanical problems.

Status: Preliminary Investigations Completed; Investigations Halted.


Engaged: September 14, 2001

Case: 8880 Bellaire LP vs. Dry Cleaners of Houston, et al., Texas State Court, Houston, TX. Engaged by Defendant Attorney (Houston, TX).

Function: C&A personnel engaged to conduct a preliminary review of a series of site investigation reports on a dry cleaning facility and on the associated contamination by PCE, TCE and TCA of soil and ground water, and to make recommendations for remediation and associated costs.

Status: Preliminary Investigations Completed, Settled.


Engaged: June 3, 2002

Case: Engaged by Defendant Attorney (Preston Gates & Ellis LLP, Los Angeles, CA) in the matter of Alaskan Cooper Works vs. Barbour Well Surveying Corporation in pre-case activities.

Function: A manufacturer of stainless steel casing engaged C&A personnel to conduct preliminary investigations and to review available information on the likely cause(s) of casing failures in two large-diameter, high-capacity water wells during completion activities of wells located in an agricultural district of the western U.S.

Status: Completed Preliminary Investigations.


Engaged: April 19, 2000

Case: Comas v. Gould Pumps, Inc. et al.; Case Index No. 6311/98; in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Orange. Engaged by Defendant Attorney for: Lee Brass USA, Inc., i.e., Squadron, Ellenoff, Plesent & Sheinfeld, LLP, New York, NY.

Function: C&A personnel engaged to develop opinions on the likely source, nature, and circumstances surrounding the occurrence of lead in a rural domestic drinking water supply. Conducted sampling in residence of water supply, of rural water well, and of soils surrounding resident’s house.

Status: Investigations Completed, Expert Report Prepared, Settled.


Engaged: May 11, 1998

Case: National City Bank of Evansville, Ind., Trustee of the Trust of Mabel K. Reichert, Plaintiff vs. Busler Enterprises, Inc., Cause No. 82D03-9612-CP-3161; State of Indiana, County of Vanderburgh Superior Court, IN. Engaged by Defendant Attorney: For Busler Enterprises, Inc., Evansville, IN.

Function: C&A personnel engaged to investigate and develop opinions on the likely source and nature of ground-water contamination by BETX and MTBE. Assessed available consulting reports and associated data and conducted contaminant transport modeling.

Status: Expert Report Prepared, Settled.


Engaged: August 21, 2002

Case: Engaged by Defendant Attorney (Bush Ross Garner Warren & Rudy, P.A., Tampa, FL) in the matter of Warehouse Associates, et al. vs. Celotex Corporation, et al. Cause No. 2002-11968 in the District Court of Harris County, TX, 127th Judicial District.

Function: A commercial real-estate transaction came under dispute on the basis of the identification of asbestos materials in the subsurface after the transaction had closed. C&A personnel were engaged to evaluate the environmental consultant’s activities during its Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, in light of the consultant’s responsibility, experience, staff capability, field procedures and associated ASTM guidelines and industry standard of care.

Status: Arbitration Testimony; Settled.


Engaged: June 3, 1997

Case: Vista Chemical Company and Conoco, Inc. vs. Geraghty & Miller, Inc., Cause 93-20313, 165th Judicial District Court of Harris County, TX. Engaged by Plaintiff Attorney: Haynes and Boone, LLP, Houston, TX.

Function: C&A personnel engaged to provide litigation support and expert witness testimony on soil and ground-water contamination by DCE, PCA, VC and other constituents and to estimate associated remediation costs over long term.

Status: Expert Reports Prepared, Depositions Completed, in Appeals Court, Settled.


Engaged: February 9, 2000

Case: Centrefund Acquisition Corp. et al. v. Mohamammedali B. Madhani, et al.; C.A. No. H-99-2879 & 80; In the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division, Engaged by Plaintiff Attorney, Locke Liddell & Sapp, LLP, Houston, TX.

Function: C&A personnel engaged to develop opinions on the activities and procedures employed by consultants during Phase I and II environmental investigations for a large real estate transaction.

Status: Investigations underway, Expert Report Submitted, Deposition Completed, Trial Completed., Found in favor of the Plaintiff, Settled.


Engaged: September 10, 1999

Case: Dysart Woods Association v. Southern Ohio Coal Company and Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Unsuitable Lands Permit Hearings, Columbus, OH. Engaged by Plaintiff Attorney for Ohio University, Athens, OH.

Function: C&A personnel engaged to investigate and opine on the likely damage to old growth trees resulting from underground mining of coal and the associated decline of the water table below the 3,000-acre area containing presently healthy old-growth trees in eastern Ohio.

Status: Case Settled.


Engaged: April 10, 1999

Case: Meadow Creek Utility District vs. Mid-Continent Casualty Company, Dispute Concerning Insurance Coverage on Water Well Failure. Engaged by Plaintiff Attorney, Mr. Michael Campana for: Meadowcreek M.U.D., Fort Bend County, TX.

Function: C&A personnel engaged to conduct investigations and develop opinions on possible cause(s) of water well failure.

Status: Preliminary Investigations and Expert Report Submitted, Addendum Report Submitted, Deposition Completed, Trial Pending, Settled.


Engaged: September 17, 1999

Case: Joshua Vogel, and Stephen and Tina Vogel, Plaintiffs, vs. Costco Wholesale Inc., A Washington Corporation, Cause 98-2-24886-6 SEA, In the Superior Court of Washington in and for King County, Washington. Engaged by Defendant Attorney for: Costco Wholesale Inc., Lee Smart Cook Martin & Patterson, P.S., Inc., Seattle, WA.

Function: C&A personnel engaged to investigate and opine on the possible causes and likelihood of E. coli contamination of a rural water supply near Port Angeles, Washington. Aerial survey and samples taken.

Status: Deposition Completed; Trial found in favor of Defendant.


Engaged: September 9, 1999

Case: TXI Operations, LP, Texas Industries, Inc. vs Lazy M Ranch, Ltd.; Cause 55,594, In the 75th Judicial District Court of Liberty County, TX; Dispute Concerning the Action of a Lessee During an Exploration Program Assessing Sand and Gravel Resources on the Lazy M Ranch, Liberty County, TX.

Function: Engaged by Defendant Attorney for: Lazy M Ranch, Liberty County, Texas by Smyser Kaplan & Veselka, LLP, Houston, Texas to evaluate and opine on the actions of the Plaintiff during an Exploration Program assessing Sand and Gravel Resources on the Lazy M Ranch.

Status: Preliminary Investigations, Expert Report Submitted, Deposition Completed, Settled.


Engaged: July 1, 1997

Case: Marzell Ile Dumas, et al. vs. Angus Chemical Company, et al., Cause 92-1707, U.S. District Court, Western District of Louisiana.

Function: Engaged by Defendant Attorney: To Provide Litigation Support and Expert Witness Testimony on Potential Soil and Ground-Water Contamination.

% Kean, Miller, Hawthorne, D’Armond, McCowan & Jarman, LLP, Baton Rouge, LA.

and Bickel & Brewer, re: IMC Global, Dallas, TX

Status: Expert Witness Evaluations, Expert Report Prepared, Deposition Completed, Settled.


Engaged: January 25, 1999

Case: Ninth Avenue Remedial Group, et al. vs. Allis-Chalmers Corporation, et al., Civil Case Number 2:94 CV 0331 RL-1; U.S. District Court, Northern District of Indiana, Hammond Division, IN.

Function: Engaged by Co-Defendant Attorney: White Consolidated Industries, Inc. To Opine on Early National Contingency Plan ( NCP ).

% Squire, Sanders & Dempsey, L.L.P., Cleveland, OH

Status: Expert Report Prepared, Deposition Completed, and Case Settled in Favor of Defendant.


Engaged: September 16, 1997

Case: Mike Adalis, et al. Vs, Neighborhood Development Corp., et al (i.e. Exxon, Dannenbaum Engineering, and Waste District Management, Inc.) Cause 93-004644; 269th Judicial District Court of Harris County, TX.

Function: Engaged by Defendant Attorney: Waste District Management, Inc. To Investigate Potential Sources and Causes of Organics Present in Ground Water Supply.

% Gardere Wynne Sewell & Riggs, LLP, Houston, TX.

Status: Report Prepared and Submitted, Settled.


Engaged: April, 1997

Case: Buse, Evans, et al. vs. Reef Industries Inc. and Remedial Construction Services, Inc., C.A. 95-08842;189th Judicial District Court of Harris County, TX.

Function: Engaged by Plaintiff Attorney: To Provide Litigation Support and Expert Witness Testimony on Soil and Ground-Water Contamination, and Remediation Cost Evaluations.

Status: Expert Witness Evaluations, Expert Report Prepared, and Deposition, Settled.


Engaged: May, 1996

Case: Angus Chemical Company vs. Mallinckrodt, IMC Global, et.al., C.A. # 3-95-0295, U.S. District Court, Western District of Louisiana.

Function: Engaged by Defendant Attorney: To Provide Litigation Support & Expert Witness Testimony on Soil and Ground-Water Contamination, NCP Impact and Cost Evaluations.

% Bickel & Brewer, Dallas, TX.

Status: Expert Witness Evaluations, Report Prepared, Deposition, Settled.


Engaged: Mid-1995

John Wright Interests, Caprock Ranch, Rockwall, Texas, Dawson County, TX
v. State of Texas
v. Tx. Railroad Commission
v. Bechtel Corporation
v. Brown Exploration

Function: Engaged by Plaintiff Attorney: Technical Support & Potential Expert Witness Testimony on Brine Contamination of Ranch and Stock Water Supply Wells Resulting from Evaporation Pits of Unknown E & P Company.

Status: Expert Witness Report Prepared, Settled.


Engaged: April, 1995

Case: D.I. Chance, et al. vs. Phillips Petroleum Sweeny Refinery & Petrochemical Complex Old Ocean, Texas, U.S. District Court of the Southern District of Texas, Galveston Division, TX.

Function: Engaged by Defendant Attorney: To Provide Technical Support & Expert Witness Testimony Preparations on Ground-Water Contamination, Water Supply Contamination, Local Hydrogeology, & Contaminated Soil, Report of Investigations.

% Kleberg and Head, Attorneys

Status: Expert Witness Evaluations, Report Prepared.

Pre-Trial Settlement, Late, 1995.


Engaged: Late, 1994

Case: Plaintiffs: Hawks, Meehan, U.S.A. vs. Halliburton (Defendant) and APTUS Facility, Coffeyville, KS

Function: Engaged by Defendant Attorney: Technical Support & Expert Witness Testimony Preparations on Project Cost Allocations & Ground-Water Contamination Issues.

% McKinney, Stringer & Webster, P.C
Oklahoma City, OK

Status: Expert Witness Evaluations, Report Prepared.

Settled in Pre-Trial July, 1995.


Engaged: Early 1994

Norse Minerals, Inc. v. Vinning Construction
Eureka Ventures Project, NV

Function: Engaged by Plaintiff Attorney: Technical Support & Possible Expert Witness. Testimony on Mining Issues:
Lead: Robert Steelhammer,
% Steelhammer & Miller, P.C.,
Houston, Texas,
(713) 960-1001

Status: Expert Witness Evaluations, Report Prepared.

Settled in Pre-Trial, September, 1994.


1991
Houston Lighting & Power, La Porte, TX. Co-Generation Project Litigation v. State of Texas

Function: Technical Support & Possible Expert Witness Testimony.

Status: Settled with Texas Water Commission.


1990
Koppers Company/ South Cavalcade Superfund Project. Merchants Trucking, Houston, Tx v. U.S. EPA, Region VI

Function: Technical Support (Cost Analyses of Remedy) & Possible Expert Witness Testimony.

Status: PRP settled with EPA


1990
Tribble & Richardson, Inc. Hancock Co. Landfill , Macon, Georgia v. State of Georgia

Function: Technical Support & Expert Witness Testimony

Status: Settled in Pre-Trial.


1989
Amoco Corporation, Chicago, Ill. Greensboro, N.C. Facility North Carolina v. EPA Region IV

Function: Technical Support & Expert Witness Testimony

Status: Settled with EPA.


1989
Coats and Clark, Inc. Toccoa, GA, Newport News, VA Facility v. EPA Region III

Function: Technical Support

Status: Settled with EPA.


1989
City of Oak Ridge, Emory Valley Road Bulk Oil Facility, Oak Ridge, TN v. Lightning Contractors

Function: Technical Support & Expert Witness Testimony

Status: Settled in Pre-Trial.


1989
BFI Waste Systems, Whispering Pines Landfill, Houston, TX v. State of Texas

Function: Technical Support & Possible Expert Witness Testimony

Status: Settled in Pre-Trial.


1983
Keplinger & Associates, Houston, TX, Dirty Devil Coal Mining Project, Hanksville, UT (Defendants) v. Midland Marine Bank, New York

Function: Facts Witness, Technical Support and Testimony

Status: Settled in Pre-Trial.


1983
BancOhio National Bank, Hartman Farm Sand & Gravel Project, Columbus, OH v. City of Columbus, OH

Function: Technical Support for Insurance Companies

Status: Settled in Pre-Trial.


1978
Lawrence Livermore Labs, Livermore, CA, Bayou Choctaw Strategic Petroleum Reserve Site, LA v. EPA Region VI

Function: Technical Support

Status: Settled in Pre-Trial.

Leave A Comment