Credible, experienced testimony grounded in federal enforcement standards. Available for depositions, trial testimony, regulatory interpretation, and case strategy support.
Discuss a CaseIn pipeline litigation, the strength of expert testimony depends less on credentials than on method. The 2023 amendment to Federal Rule of Evidence 702 clarifies that the proponent must demonstrate to the court that it is more likely than not that the testimony rests on sufficient facts, uses reliable principles and methods, and reflects a reliable application of those methods to the facts of the case. Many state courts apply comparable standards.
Opinions that cannot be traced to their evidence will not survive scrutiny, regardless of who offers them.
A regulation, an operator's written procedure, an industry standard, and an expert's conclusion carry different weight. Testimony should label each, and cite the regulatory text that was in effect on the date of the event, not today's version.
Pipeline incidents rarely turn on one error. A sound analysis identifies each safeguard that could have prevented the event or reduced its consequences, who controlled it, what that party knew or could access, and how it failed. An opinion that focuses on a single party while ignoring other failures in the record is vulnerable.
Federal and state law place certain duties on the pipeline operator, such as carrying out a written damage prevention program. The operator remains responsible for those duties when it uses contractors, and courts in some jurisdictions treat them as nondelegable. Contractors, including excavators and locators, carry their own duties under federal rules, state one-call laws, and their contracts. Testimony should identify which party held each obligation and how the parties were related, and leave the legal effect of that relationship to the court.
49 CFR 192.614 · Part 196Where the record conflicts, the expert should say so, explain which way the evidence points, and state whether the opinion depends on how the conflict is resolved. Credibility determinations belong to the trier of fact.
A reliable opinion explains the strongest competing interpretation of the evidence and why it was or was not adopted.
Clearpath supports plaintiff and defense counsel in natural gas and hazardous liquid matters. Our analysis draws on federal enforcement experience: knowing how PHMSA and state programs evaluate operator compliance, and what adequate compliance looks like in practice.
We apply the same published methodology regardless of which side retains us.
Confidential initial consultations. Nationwide availability.