The State of Kentucky sued Marathon Petroleum and related parties for violating antitrust laws. Kentucky claimed that Marathon’s anticompetitive practices caused consumers to be overcharged.

Marathon asked the court to exclude the testimony of Kentucky’s expert economist. The court granted that motion and, since Kentucky could not prevail without the expert’s testimony, dismissed the case.

Antitrust Arguments

Marathon owns the largest refineries in the Midwest and the only refinery in Kentucky. It is also the largest supplier of gasoline in Northern Kentucky.

Kentucky argued that Marathon monopolized the wholesale market for Summer RFG, a kind of gasoline that some Kentucky retailers are required to sell during the summer months. A necessary ingredient of RFG is a petroleum product abbreviated as RBOB. Wholesalers purchase RBOB and add ethanol and other products to create RFG. They then sell the RFG from their terminals to retailers.

Kentucky argued that Marathon controls the influx of RBOB and thus monopolizes the downstream market for RFG. Kentucky alleged that Marathon used its market share dominance to manipulate the wholesale and retail price of gasoline. That price, according to Kentucky, was higher than the prices that prevail in competitive markets. Kentucky also alleged that Marathon uses anticompetitive supply agreements (known as exchange agreements) to maintain its market dominance.

Expert Testimony in Antitrust Cases

When a plaintiff alleges that a defendant has restrained trade or engaged in monopolistic pricing within a market, the plaintiff’s first task is to define that market.

The plaintiff must define a product market and a geographic market. The product market analysis asks whether there are readily available interchangeable substitute goods that consumers could purchase to serve their needs. A substitute is interchangeable if an increase in price for one product would cause an increase in demand for the substitute product.

A geographic market is the area in which sellers compete against each other to make sales to the same consumers. In simple terms, it is the market area in which the allegedly anticompetitive seller operates.

The relevant market is a fact question that must generally be determined by a jury. A judge’s disagreement with the plaintiff about the relevant market should not lead to a dismissal of the case unless no reasonable juror could agree with the plaintiff’s definition.

Courts usually require the relevant market to be proved by an expert opinion based on sound principles of economics. While a judge cannot dismiss a case simply because the judge disagrees with the expert’s view of the facts, a judge can exclude the expert’s testimony if the judge finds that the testimony is not based on a reliable methodology.

Kentucky relied on a single expert witness, Dr. Michael Sattinger. Marathon did not challenge Sattinger’s qualifications to render an expert opinion. Rather, it challenged the methodology he used to determine the relevant market, to determine the existence of an antitrust injury, and to calculate damages.

Relevant Market

Sattinger defined the relevant geographic market as the Kentucky terminals where RBOB is blended with other products and sold to retailers as RFG. The court decided that Sattinger failed to base that definition on a reliable methodology.

Economists usually use a “hypothetical monopolist” or “small but significant and non-transitory increase in price” (SSNIP) test to determine the relevant market. That test asks whether consumers would leave a market for competing goods if a supplier were to impose a 5{d61575bddc780c1d4ab39ab904bf25755f3b8d1434703a303cf443ba00f43fa4} price increase for at least one year. If consumers would not leave the market, the market is worth monopolizing. The smallest market from which consumers would not exit is the relevant market.

Courts have generally agreed that the SSNIP test is a reasonable methodology for defining a relevant market. Sattinger acknowledged that the SSNIP test is widely used but chose not to use it. The court noted that economists are not required to use the SSNIP test to define a relevant market, but are required to use some other reasonable methodology. The court faulted Sattinger for failing to explain why he limited the relevant market to terminals in Kentucky.

The court also concluded that defining Kentucky terminals as the relevant market did not reflect the economic realities of the wholesale RFG market. The court thought Sattinger should have asked whether there were other places wholesalers could look to buy RBOB. The court noted that Marathon’s only local competitor had RBOB transported by barge from other states, and that Marathon itself had met its need for RBOB by transporting it to Kentucky by truck.

Since Sattinger did not define a geographic market that included all reasonably available sources of RBOB, Sattinger did not base his opinion on a reasonable methodology. According, his opinion was inadmissible.

Antitrust Injury

To demonstrate that Marathon’s anticompetitive behavior caused a harm, Sattinger compared markets for RFG in Baltimore and St. Louis to the Kentucky market. He determined that market prices were lower in those cities and attributed the price differential to Marathon’s anticompetitive behavior. He calculated the price difference over the time period covered by the lawsuit and produced a damages calculation of about $173 million.

While the court recognized that Sattinger’s “yardstick method” of damages calculation can be appropriate in antitrust cases, the method must take account of other factors (such as market size, product demand, proximity to supply sources, and cost of operations) that might have an independent impact on prices. Economists generally use a regression analysis to account for those variables, but Sattinger failed to rule out other possible explanations for price differences that were unrelated to Marathon’s anticompetitive pricing.

Kentucky also considered Marathon’s use of exchange agreements to be anticompetitive. Competing refiners use exchange agreements to trade gasoline when a competitor has an insufficient supply. Sattinger did not determine whether exchange agreements are used in Baltimore or St. Louis and therefore failed to determine whether the supposedly anticompetitive agreements had an impact on price.

The court ultimately concluded that Sattinger’s methodology did not rest on sound economic principles. Accordingly, his opinions did not satisfy Daubert and were not admissible as evidence.

Lessons Learned

Different judges view Daubert in different ways, but precedent authored by some appellate judges supported the exclusion of Sattinger’s testimony. Part of case preparation should include a thorough review of Daubert precedent in the case at hand. In this case, a review of Daubert decisions in antitrust cases might have prepared Kentucky’s lawyers for Marathon’s challenges.

Experts should be urged to complete a first draft of a report for an attorney’s review well in advance of the disclosure deadline. If Kentucky’s lawyers had identified attacks that could be made on their expert’s methodology, perhaps those perceived flaws could have been corrected before a final draft was prepared.

Experts understand their field of expertise but lawyers understand precedent. Helping experts understand how a court might respond to Daubert challenges is a key role that lawyers must play after they hire expert witnesses.

Taking discovery from experts was fairly routine before the coronavirus pandemic. Under the federal rules in civil cases, an expert would write a report, the report would be disclosed to the opposing party, and that party would typically take the expert’s deposition. State rules generally track those procedures.

After the pandemic, taking a deposition is a more complicated issue. Social distancing is difficult in a conference room where the expert, at least two lawyers, a court reporter and a possibly a videographer all gather. Experts and lawyers may be reluctant to sit across from each other at a conference table. They might also have reservations about handing documents back and forth.

Wearing a mask muffles questions and answers and makes it difficult for a court reporter to produce an accurate transcript. Since depositions are typically recorded on video, the mask also interferes with the viewer’s opportunity to gain nonverbal cues about the expert’s credibility by watching the expert’s facial expressions.

Remote Depositions

Rule 30(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allows parties to stipulate, or the court to order, “that a deposition be taken by telephone or other remote means.” In the past, parties sometimes refused to stipulate to remote depositions because they wanted to drive up the opposing party’s cost of litigation.

The importance of social distancing during a pandemic, and the likelihood that precautions will be the “new normal” for an extended time, will likely make it easier to persuade federal judges to grant Rule 30(b) motions permitting remote depositions. Objecting to remote depositions during a pandemic is unlikely to curry favor with a judge who is truly neutral.

Platforms like Zoom and WebX allow people at multiple locations to participate in a meeting. Those platforms lend themselves to remote depositions. The court reporting service might suggest a different platform that offers helpful features, such as exhibit display and the ability to read real-time transcription.

Most companies that provide court reporters and videographers have experience with remote depositions. It makes sense to select a reporter shortly after the deposition is scheduled and to listen to the reporter’s suggestions to make the expert’s deposition proceed smoothly.

It is usually preferable for the court reporter to be in the same location as the expert witness. Errors caused by internet lags and equipment glitches are less likely when the reporter is present to hear the witness testify.

Practical Concerns

Taking or offering a remote deposition raises practical concerns that lawyers for both parties need to address. First, the party taking the deposition should assure that the reporter or videographer is “an officer authorized to administer oaths” as Rule 28(a) requires, unless the parties stipulate otherwise. A reporter or videographer who is also a notary will typically satisfy the requirement that the deposition be taken before an officer, although it may be possible to stipulate that a notary at a remote location will administer the expert’s oath.

Second, it makes sense to mark and circulate exhibits ahead of the deposition. The expert report will likely be an exhibit that everyone will have in advance, but marking exhibits on the fly and then showing them to a witness — a common practice during in-person depositions — is problematic when the witness is asked to view an exhibit on a screen.

While attorneys might still try to surprise an expert with a “gotcha” exhibit, the effective use of document discovery prior to an expert’s deposition and good witness preparation should limit the likelihood that an expert will be asked about an exhibit the expert has not seen in advance. Marking exhibits and circulating them by email or through a shared link will make a remote deposition proceed more smoothly. Depositions conclude more quickly when the expert witness is familiar with the exhibits and can consult a hard copy rather than squinting at a screen.

Apart from providing faithful companionship, dogs have a variety of useful skills that they gladly contribute to humans. But are dogs reliable expert witnesses? They might possess relevant expert knowledge, but they are handicapped by an inability to express their thoughts in human language. And since no human can read a dog’s mind, the human filter through which a dog’s knowledge must pass is inherently suspect.

The Florida Court of Appeals recently considered a murder conviction that was based almost entirely on dog handlers’ opinions that their cadaver dogs alerted on the defendant’s vehicle. Although no body was ever found, the court affirmed the admission of the expert testimony and thus affirmed the conviction.

Facts of the Case

Cid and Vilet Torrez were married. They separated in September 2011 after Torrez abused Vilet. Vilet remained in the home with their children while Cid moved to an apartment.

The home was in a gated neighborhood. Surveillance footage showed Vilet driving her car through the gate in the early morning. She had returned home after spending the night with a co-worker. The children were with Torrez.

Vilet was not seen again. Days later, Torrez called 911 to report that he had not heard from Vilet and believed her to be missing.

Police officers found Vilet’s car parked on the street. A search of the home found small blood stains at various locations. The police found no evidence that Vilet traveled or made telephone calls after the morning when she was last seen.

Suspecting that a homicide had occurred, the police summoned a cadaver dog named Jewel to the scene, along with her handler, Officer Gregory Strickland. Jewel alerted to several spots on the lawn near the front door. Strickland interpreted the alerts to mean that Jewel detected the odor of a dead body in those locations. No physical evidence supported that interpretation.

Five months later, having made no progress in determining Vilet’s location, the police did a “line-up” of cars in their parking lot. Torrez’ vehicle was one of the cars. Jewel sniffed each car and, according to Strickland, alerted on the trunk and back seat of Torrez’ car. Strickland interpreted the alert to mean that Jewel detected the scent of a dead body.

The local police then asked for the assistance of Palm Beach Sheriff’s Detective Juliana Martinez and her dog Piper, who was also trained as a cadaver dog. Martinez had Piper sniff Torrez’ vehicle and interpreted Piper’s response as an alert to the odor of human remains in the trunk and back seat.

Vilet’s body has never been found. On the strength of human interpretations of “alerts” given by two dogs, Florida charged Torrez with murder. A jury convicted him. Torrez appealed, challenging the expert testimony given by the dogs’ handlers.

Challenge to Dog Handling Expert

Most people are familiar with the story of the horse that could do arithmetic. When asked “What is two plus three?” the horse would stamp its hoof five times. It was eventually determined that the horse could only perform the trick when its owner was present. The horse was reacting to visual cues from its owner, not to any understanding of numbers.

During the car “line-up,” Strickland claims not to have known which vehicle belonged to Torrez. Whether Jewel was able to see other officers in the parking lot who did know which vehicle belonged to Torrez is unclear. Perhaps both dogs alerted to Torrez’ car because they were responding to visual cues rather than scents.

Prior to trial, Torrez challenged the admissibility of the expert testimony that Strickland and Martinez proposed to give. Strickland testified that Jewel had hundreds of hours of training in the detection of human remains. She was certified as a cadaver dog by a police association that certifies police dogs. Strickland testified that he was only aware of one instance in which Jewel alerted in the absence of human remains. On that occasion, she apparently detected the odor of a bucket of shrimp.

Martinez and Piper’s trainer testified about the training and certifications that Piper received. They agreed that Piper is a reliable cadaver dog. Martinez explained that when Piper isolates the source of the odor of human remains, she “snaps her head, sometimes closes her mouth, sniffs certain areas, slows down and then sits as a final response.”

Kenneth Furton, a professor of chemistry, testified about the scent molecules that cadaver dogs are trained to detect. He contended that scent molecules can linger for “a very long period,” particularly in an enclosed area. He opined that Piper and Jewel, in combination with their handlers, were reliable teams because of their certifications.

Furton did not believe that the absence of a body in Torrez’ back seat or trunk invalidated the alerts. He speculated that the dogs may have alerted to bodily fluids that leaked into materials and were not detected by other means, or they may have alerted to residual odors that remained after the body was removed. Furton admitted that dogs, like humans, can make mistakes.

The trial court purported to apply Florida’s newly established Daubert standard. It determined that the dogs were trained and accurate in detecting human remains and that their handlers were qualified to interpret the dogs’ alerts. Vilet’s disappearance was circumstantial evidence of her death that, in the court’s view, corroborated the handlers’ conclusions that her body had been transported in Torres’ car.

Appellate Analysis

The Florida Court of Appeals noted that the United States Supreme Court has approved determinations of probable cause based on alerts given by properly trained drug dogs. But probable cause to search for evidence is not itself evidence. The question on appeal is whether a handler’s expert interpretation of a dog’s alerts is sufficient to satisfy the Daubert standard for the admissibility of expert evidence in a trial.

The court nevertheless concluded that the opinions of the cadaver dogs’ handlers satisfied the Daubert standard. The court held that the reliability of dog sniff evidence can be based on the handler’s experience with the dog. The court must be satisfied that the handler is “qualified to work with the dog and to interpret its responses.” But since no handler can read a dog’s mind, it is difficult to imagine any circumstances that qualify a handler to “interpret” a dog’s actions reliably.

The dog must also be “proved successful and reliable” and be “sufficiently trained.” There must also be evidence that corroborates the dog’s opinion as interpreted by its trainer. Finding an actual body would presumably be corroborative, but “corroborative evidence need not be evidence which, standing alone, links the defendant to the crime.” That holding is unfortunate for Torrez, given that there was precious little evidence linking him to the crime beyond the handlers’ opinions that their dogs were smelling evidence that a body had been in Torrez’ car and trunk almost five months earlier.

Remarkably, the appellate court held that “courts need not consider the science underlying testimony relating to cadaver dog evidence.” In civil cases, Daubert hearings are almost entirely devoted to the adequacy of the underlying science that supports an expert’s opinion. Why should a lesser standard be applied in a criminal case, where the evidence may lead to a deprivation of liberty?

The court held that it is common knowledge that dogs can distinguish different kinds of odors. But it isn’t common knowledge that dogs can distinguish the scent of a decaying body several months after the body could have been present in the location that the dog sniffed, or that they can reliably explain what they smelled to a human.

This case cries out for scientific evidence, but the court pointed to no peer-reviewed studies suggesting that scent molecules can be detected by a cadaver dog almost five months after the cadaver was no longer present. Nor did the court point to peer-reviewed studies suggesting that the scent molecules associated with cadavers can be reliably distinguished from the scent molecules associated with shrimp or other substances.

Finally, the court held that challenges “to an expert’s measurements, methods and determinations do not render inadmissible an expert opinion based on them but goes to the weight of the evidence, raising factual questions to be determined by the jury.” The court cited only pre-Daubert criminal cases for that proposition. After Daubert, expert opinions have been routinely excluded because an expert’s methods were unreasonable and because an expert’s determinations were not founded on the application of a reasonable methodology to adequate facts.

The appellate court said that it was applying Florida’s new Daubert standard to dog sniff evidence, but its shoddy opinion rests entirely on pre-Daubert understandings of whether expert evidence is admissible. The unfortunate result for Torrez is that his conviction was affirmed based largely on the opinions of police officers about what their dogs might have smelled in his car.