PCHB099003129

PCHBPollution Control Hearings Board of the State of Washington

v. ) MOTION IN LIMINE RE WAC 371- ) 08-475(7) lO DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY and ) THE PORT OF SEATTLE, ) ) Respondents. ) I. INTRODUCTION Ecology, joined by the Port, has belatedly moved to prevent appearance in this case by Thomas R. Luster claiming that "The Board's rules of practice prohibit such testimony." Ecology's one-page (plus case caption) motion is based only on WAC 371-08-475(7), "Former Employee as an Expert Witness." It does not cite any case law or statute, nor does it offer any evidence that Mr. Luster's appearance falls within the scope of the regulation. 1 In fact, his appearance does not.19 Further, Ecology and the Port long ago waived any fight to claim otherwise. II. ARGUMENT AND AUTHORITY A. The Provisions of WAC 371-08-475(7) Do Not Apply to Mr. Luster's Role in This Case. AR 003129 If Ecology (or the Port) attempt to meet their burden for the first time on Reply, then ACC requests that the Board either deny Ecology's motion or order that ACC be given a further opportunity to respond. ORIC_I_AI OPPOSITION BY ACC AND CASE TO HELSELLFETTERMANLLP RachaelPaschalOsborn DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY'S MOTION IN 1500PugetSoundPlaza Attorneyat Law LIMINE RE WAC 371-08-475(7)- 1 1325FourthAvenue 2421WestMissionAve. Seattle, WA 98101-2509 Spokane, WA 99201 WAC 371-08-475(7) provides: Former Employee As An Expert Witness. No former employee of the Department shall3 at any time after leaving the employment of the Department appear, except when permitted by applicable state conflict of interest law, as an expert witness on behalf…
V V