AI Case Brief
Generate an AI-powered case brief with:
📋Key Facts
⚖️Legal Issues
📚Court Holding
💡Reasoning
🎯Significance
Estimated cost: $0.10–$0.50 per brief, depending on opinion length and retries
Full Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
In re Flint Water Cases. Judith E. Levy
United States District Judge
________________________________/
This Order Relates To:
Bellwether III Cases
________________________________/
OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN
PART DEFENDANTS VEOLIA NORTH AMERICA, LLC, VEOLIA
NORTH AMERICA, INC., AND VEOLIA WATER NORTH
AMERICA OPERATING SERVICES, LLC’S MOTION TO
EXCLUDE OPINIONS AND TESTIMONY OF DR. AARON
SPECHT [2916]
Currently before the Court is Veolia North America, LLC, Veolia
North America, Inc., and Veolia Water North America Operating
Services, LLC’s (“VNA”) Motion to Exclude Opinions and Testimony of
Dr. Aaron Specht (“the Motion”). (ECF No. 2916.) Bellwether III
Plaintiffs Y.A., E.A., G.B., C.D., R.E., J.N., and J.S. (“Plaintiffs” or
“Bellwether III Plaintiffs”), who were all minor children at the time of the
Flint water crisis, oppose the motion. (ECF No. 3013.) VNA replied to
Plaintiffs’ submission. (ECF No. 3039.) For the reasons set forth below,
the Motion is granted in part and denied in part.
I. Background
The Court’s ruling on a similar motion from Bellwether I describes
Dr. Specht as follows:
Dr. Specht has a Ph.D. in medical physics and is a leading
expert on the use of portable x-ray fluorescence technology
(“pXRF”) to assess metal exposures. Dr. Specht has published
widely on the use of pXRF to measure bone-lead content in
adults, children, and animals. His qualifications as an expert
are not in dispute.
In re Flint Water Cases, No. 17-10164, 2021 WL 5356295, at *1 (E.D.
Mich. Nov. 17, 2021) (“Specht I”). Dr. Specht is currently an assistant
professor of health sciences at Purdue University. (ECF No. 3011-6,
PageID.101811.)
Plaintiffs retained Dr. Specht to evaluate their exposure to lead.
(ECF No. 3013, PageID.101933.) Dr. Specht testifies that the best way to
measure lead exposure over time is through bone lead testing. He states
that blood lead testing, which is a standard technique, is “incredibly time
sensitive” and only captures more recent exposures, especially for
2
children. (ECF No. 2913-31, PageID.97436–97437.) In Specht I, the Court
set forth:
Ordinarily bone lead measurements are taken by a large,
stationary “KXRF” device. It takes approximately 30 minutes
to get an accurate measurement using KXRF technology. Dr.
Specht pioneered the use of the alternative pXRF device.
Portable-XRF and KXRF devices measure bone lead in
substantially the same way. (ECF No. 330-48, PageID.15629–
15630.) Both are applied to the subjects’ tibia bone, and both
generate raw spectral data which is then processed by a
computer to generate a relevant measurement (in this case,
lead content) and an associated uncertainty value (the margin
of error). Portable-XRF devices are small, easily portable, and
require only 3 minutes to complete a measurement.
2021 WL 5356295, at *1. Based on bone lead testing using a pXRF device,
Dr. Specht found that Plaintiffs were exposed to lead in varying amounts.
(See, e.g., ECF No. 2913-31, PageID.97441.)
In Specht I, the Court denied VNA’s motion to exclude Dr. Specht’s
opinions, which was based on the following arguments:
VNA argues that [Dr. Specht’s use of pXRF] is not [reliable],
primarily because (1) Dr. Specht’s own research shows pXRF
measurements of bone lead to be less reliable in pediatric than
in adult [subjects] (ECF No. 330-7, PageID.14445–14455), and
(2) the lack of bone lead measurements in healthy control
populations makes it impossible to assign any significance to
the measurements Dr. Specht obtained (Id. at PageID.14461–
3
14474). VNA ultimately maintains that Dr. Specht’s use of
pXRF does not satisfy even a single Daubert factor.
VNA further argues that Dr. Specht’s testimony should be
excluded under Federal Rules of Evidence 401(a), 402, and
403, because it is irrelevant and would be more prejudicial
than probative. (ECF No. 330-7, PageID.14475–14479.)
Finally, VNA asserts that Dr. Specht’s opinion regarding the
higher reliability of bone lead measurements when compared
to blood lead measurements is unreliable and based on
“cherry picked” studies. (ECF No. 330-7, PageID.14480–
14481.)
2021 WL 5356295, at *3. Since the Bellwether I trial, the Court ordered
Dr. Specht to provide VNA with the MATLAB code1 used for calibrating
the pXRF device and for measuring lead content from the spectral data
the device produces. VNA presents new objections to Dr. Specht’s
testimony based on their experts’ review of that code. (ECF No. 2913-3,
PageID.96225.)
The Court has already decided two rounds of Daubert motions in
anticipation of the Bellwether I and the Issues Class trials, amounting to
1 Dr. Specht explains that “MATLAB [code] is a programming platform
designed specifically for engineers and scientists to analyze and design systems. The
MATLAB language is a high-performance language for technical computing.” (ECF
No. 3011-6, PageID.101781 n.1.) He uses MATLAB code to process the data generated
by the pXRF device.
4
seventeen rulings in total. It also considered Daubert challenges to
experts at the time it certified the Issues Class. See In re Flint Water
Cases, 558 F. Supp. 3d 459, 523–25 (E.D. Mich. 2021) (deciding two
Daubert motions out of over a dozen Daubert motions VNA filed at the
class certification stage). Additionally, when approving the partial
settlement, the Court denied objections to using the pXRF device as
evidence in the settlement. In re Flint Water Cases, 571 F. Supp. 3d 746,
794–812 (E.D. Mich. 2021). Given the Court’s familiarity with these
experts, it ordered the Parties not to repeat arguments already made and
instead ordered them to preserve arguments the Court had already
considered by reference to those arguments in earlier filings.2 (ECF No.
2901, PageID.95084.)
II. Legal Standard
Federal Rule of Evidence 702 governs the admissibility of expert
testimony and requires that: (1) the witness must be qualified, (2) the
testimony must be relevant, and (3) the testimony must be reliable. Fed.
R. Evid. 702; In re Scrap Metal Antitrust Litig., 527 F.3d 517, 528–29 (6th
2 The Court has also already ruled on seven Daubert motions related to
Bellwether III. (See ECF Nos. 2959, 3007, 3034, 3043, 3078.)
5
Cir. 2008). As the Supreme Court explained in Daubert v. Merrell Dow
Pharmaceuticals, Rule 702 imposes a “gatekeeping” obligation on the
courts to ensure that scientific testimony “is not only relevant, but
reliable.” 509 U.S. 579, 589 (1993); see also Kumho Tire Co., Ltd. v.
Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137, 147 (1999).
In Daubert, the Supreme Court provided a non-exclusive list of
factors courts may consider when evaluating reliability: (1) whether the
theory or technique at the basis of the opinion is testable or has been
tested, (2) whether it has been published and subjected to peer review,
(3) what the known error rates are and whether there are standards
controlling the technique’s operation, and (4) whether the theory or
technique is generally accepted. Daubert, 509 U.S. at 593; see also In re
Scrap Metal, 527 F.3d at 529 (listing same factors). Not every factor
needs to be present in every instance, and courts may adapt them as
appropriate for the facts of an individual case. Kumho, 526 U.S. at 150.
“Rejection of expert testimony is the exception, rather than the
rule.” United States v. LaVictor, 848 F.3d 428, 442 (6th Cir. 2017)
(quoting In re Scrap Metal, 527 F.3d at 529–30)). The burden is on the
proponent of the testimony to show by a “preponderance of proof” that
6
the proffered expert meets the standards of Rule 702 as interpreted by
Daubert. Pride v. BIC Corp., 218 F.3d 566, 578 (6th Cir. 2000) (quoting
Daubert, 509 U.S. at 592).
Under Rule 403, the Court “may exclude relevant evidence if its
probative value is substantially outweighed by a danger of one or more of
the following: unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the jury,
undue delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative
evidence.” Fed. R. Evid. 403.
III. Analysis
VNA argues that Dr. Specht’s “report and opinions should be
excluded because his MATLAB code has not been shown to accurately
measure low levels of lead in children’s bones.” (ECF No. 2913-3,
PageID.96233.) It also argues that the Court should exclude Dr. Specht’s
estimate of bone lead half-life and related opinions, because they are
unreliable and more prejudicial than probative. (Id. at PageID.96246.)
A. Reliability
VNA asserts that Dr. Specht’s opinions should be excluded because
his MATLAB code has not been subject to peer review and publication, it
has high error rates, it has not been tested to verify its ability to detect
7
low bone lead levels in children, and it is not generally accepted by the
scientific community. These arguments based on reliability do not
support the exclusion of Dr. Specht’s opinions.
i. Peer Review
Because Dr. Specht’s MATLAB code has not been subject to peer
review and publication, VNA argues that it lacks “any indicia of scientific
reliability.” (ECF No. 2913-3, PageID.96234.) VNA argues that only Dr.
Specht and a VNA expert, Dr. William Huber, have seen the MATLAB
code, including Dr. Specht’s collaborators and the peer reviewers for his
published articles. (Id.)
Peer review—including publication in a peer-reviewed journal—is
considered under Rule 702 and Daubert, because it is a “measure of
reliability” indicating that an opinion has been “submitted to the scrutiny
of the scientific community.” United States v. Gissantaner, 990 F.3d 457,
464 (6th Cir. 2021) (quotation omitted). In Daubert, the Court explains
that “[t]he fact of publication (or lack thereof) in a peer reviewed journal
thus will be a relevant, though not dispositive, consideration in assessing
the scientific validity of a particular technique or methodology on which
an opinion is premised.” 509 U.S. at 594.
8
VNA argues that the peer review factor in the Daubert analysis
weighs against admission, in part because no one except for Dr. Specht
and Dr. Huber has tested the MATLAB code used to measure bone lead
levels in this litigation. (ECF No. 2913-3, PageID.96234.) Plaintiffs
respond that parts of the MATLAB code have been reviewed by and relied
upon by other researchers. (ECF No. 3013, PageID.101940.) Dr. Specht,
in a declaration, states that “the framework” for the relevant MATLAB
code has been shared with other researchers, some of whom use similar
code in their published work. (ECF No. 3011-6, PageID.101781.) While
Dr. Specht acknowledges that not every aspect of the code used in his
work in Flint has been shared, he asserts that the parts that have been
shared relate to “lead levels and uncertainty levels,” which is precisely
what VNA challenges. (Id. at PageID.101782; see also ECF No. 3011-7,
PageID.101839.) He explains:
The [] specific parts of the code [used in the Flint Water Cases]
have nothing to do with the methodology challenged by
[VNA’s experts] Dr. Huber and Dr. [Lambertus] Hesselink.
Rather, the parts of the code that are Flint specific are related
to instrument specific (meaning the specific pXRF being used)
numbers, related to the calibration of the instrument, and not
my methodology. In other words, the only parts of the code
that are unique are the portions of the code related to
9
calibrating the actual pXRF being used. Meanwhile, the
underlying methodology that the MATLAB code is applying
to calculate lead levels and uncertainty values is the same
across all devices.
(ECF No. 3011-6, PageID.101784.) That is, according to Dr. Specht, the
disputed part of the code has been used by other scientists, including in
publications he lists. (Id. at PageID.101782.)
VNA also points out that Dr. Specht did not share the MATLAB
code with peer reviewers when publishing his research. (ECF No. 2913-
3, PageID.96234.) Dr. Specht explains that there would be no reason to
submit MATLAB code for peer review during the publication process. He
asserts that in his field, submitting the code would make little sense,
because the core aspects of the MATLAB code are “known science and not
novel to the community as a whole.” (ECF No. 3011-6, PageID.101784.)
Based on the record before the Court, the peer-reviewed
publications that accepted Dr. Specht’s research, which relied upon the
pXRF device, did not request the underlying MATLAB code for
examination as a condition of publication. That provides support for Dr.
Specht’s statement that “the contention that the specific MATLAB code
itself needs to be peer reviewed is completely foreign in the field of XRF
10
research.” (Id.) According to Dr. Specht, experts in this field trust the
results of this methodology as capable of producing reliable scientific
results without peer review of the underlying MATLAB code.
This suggests that Dr. Specht’s methodology has been subject to
“the usual rigors of peer review.” Gissantaner, 990 F.3d at 465 (citation
omitted). The “usual rigors” of scientific practice do not require MATLAB
code to be submitted for review. That indicates that Dr. Specht’s
methodology, which includes at least some aspects of the MATLAB code
relied upon here, “is taken seriously by other scientists, i.e., that it meets
at least the minimal criteria of good science.” Id. VNA vastly overstates
its argument, then, when it claims that the MATLAB code “does not have
any indicia of scientific reliability.” (ECF No. 2913-3, PageID.96234.)
The peer review factor in the Daubert analysis overall favors
admission of Dr. Specht’s testimony. Dr. Specht’s broader methods have
been subject to peer review and publication. Scientists rely on pXRF
devices and publish research that relies upon it. His colleagues have
reviewed and adopted key elements of his methods, including reviewing
MATLAB code that is similar to Dr. Specht’s code. (See ECF No. 3011-6,
PageID.101784 (Dr. Specht stating that “the only parts of the code that
11
are unique are the portions of the code related to calibrating the actual
pXRF being used.”).) VNA is therefore incorrect that the peer review
factor indicates a lack of indicia of scientific reliability for the
methodology as a whole.
ii. Error Rates
VNA contends that Dr. Specht’s MATLAB code is so error prone
that the Court must exclude it as unreliable. VNA argues that the
MATLAB code “contains two fatal problems”: the way that it identifies
and quantifies lead in a sample and the way it generates “uncertainty
values.” (ECF No. 2913-3, PageID.96235–96238.) It asserts that these
flaws lead to “demonstrably false results that confirm that [the MATLAB
code] is unreliable”: detecting lead in samples known to contain “little or
no lead,” generating 85% false positive rates when presented with
random noise in a simulation created by VNA’s expert, reporting negative
lead levels in Flint children, and failing to generate results that correlate
with results generated by other XRF devices. (Id. at PageID.96238–
96241.)
12
a. The MATLAB Code and Lead “Fingerprints”
VNA argues that the MATLAB code functions improperly, because
the way the code processes data does not incorporate certain
requirements that must be satisfied for lead to be present. (Id. at
PageID.96235.) VNA invokes the laws of physics, stating that when
identifying the presence of lead or other atoms these laws dictate that
(1) [] peaks [in the spectral data] will always take the shape
of a Gaussian (or bell-shaped) curve; (2) the Gaussian curve
will always be at least as wide as a minimum width, known
as the “Fano limit”; and (3) the Gaussian curve will always be
centered around particular energies (colors) that are
characteristic of the atoms in the test specimen.
(Id. at PageID.96229.) According to VNA’s experts’ explanation of the
“fingerprint” of lead, the peak Dr. Specht seeks to identify is at 12.618
keV (the “L-beta (Lβ) peak”) and the Fano limit (the minimum width of
the curve) is 175 eV. (Id.) If the MATLAB code does not identify lead
based on the lead fingerprint described above, then it will be unable to
distinguish lead from background noise, according to VNA. (Id. at
PageID.96226.) VNA argues that the bone lead levels identified by Dr.
Specht’s MATLAB code do not fit the lead fingerprint, which means the
13
lead levels Dr. Specht identifies may be the result of noise and not lead.
(Id. at PageID.96236.)
Plaintiffs respond that VNA’s objections amount to nothing more
than a battle of the experts because Dr. Specht rejects the claim that lead
must appear in the form of a specific lead fingerprint. (ECF No. 3013,
PageID.101943.) Dr. Specht, in a declaration, offers an alternative
account of what is necessary for his pXRF device to properly identify and
measure lead in bones. (ECF No. 3011-6, PageID.101788.) Citing several
scientific articles, he discusses his approach in terms of “counting
statistics,” which he explains as follows:
Counting statistics, in the context of XRF detectors, refers to
the statistical analysis of data obtained from XRF
measurement experiments. It’s a subset of nuclear
instrumentation that deals primarily with the quantification
or counting of individual particles or quantum events. In XRF
we count the number of events at a certain energy in a certain
time. These events occur at a predictable average rate, which
is proportional to the intensity. The statistical fluctuations in
these counts are described by Poisson distribution, a
probability distribution that represents the number of events
in a fixed interval of time or space.
(Id. at PageID.101782 n.3.) Dr. Specht argues that lead counts trend in a
Gaussian shape, but “an increase in counts in the energy range
14
associated with lead” is what “delineate[s] lead.” (Id. at PageID.101788;
see also id. at PageID.101797 (“[T]he counts in the lead region for the
children identified are being compared within and outside of the lead
region to arrive at the given bone lead measurement and uncertainty
specific to each child.”).) He explains that various factors can shift the
center of a Gaussian curve formed by lead counts such that its center may
not always be 12.618 keV. (Id. at PageID.101788–101789.) He also denies
lead measurements must always be in the form of a curve wider than 175
eV. (Id. at PageID.101789–101790.)
In VNA’s reply, it argues that Dr. Specht’s declaration is in tension
with the assumption that lead forms a Gaussian curve, which it argues
is built into his code and is referenced in his research. (ECF No. 3037-1,
PageID.102709–102710.) VNA puts the issue as follows:
So either lead does not generate a Gaussian curve and Dr.
Specht’s MATLAB code is unreliable (because the code
assumes lead generates a Gaussian curve), or lead does
generate a Gaussian curve and Dr. Specht’s scans of Plaintiffs
do not show lead (because the curves fitted by Dr. Specht’s
code are far too narrow, and often in the wrong location, to
represent lead).
(Id. at PageID.102710.)
15
It is not clear why Dr. Specht’s use of Gaussian curves in his
MATLAB code requires him to accept VNA’s experts’ views about lead
fingerprints. Dr. Specht does not believe the curves he fits to his data are
too narrow or in the wrong location to identify lead, because his
methodological assumptions differ from VNA’s experts’ assumptions.
Whether the lead fingerprint described by VNA’s experts must guide Dr.
Specht’s analysis is in dispute. As a result, Dr. Specht’s discussion of
these issues does not create a contradiction, nor does it undermine his
methods. Cf. United States v. Smallwood, No. 5:08–CR–38, 2010 WL
4168823, at *5–6 (W.D. Ky. Oct 12, 2020) (excluding an expert’s opinion
and noting the contradiction between an expert’s published studies and
his opinion). Instead, VNA’s experts have presented what they believe
are core requirements for a proper analysis of these issues, and Dr.
Specht denies that these requirements apply.
In the “classic battle of the experts,” it is up to the jury to weigh
what “weight and credibility” to afford each expert’s opinion. Phillips v.
Cohen, 400 F.3d 388, 399 (6th Cir. 2005) (citation omitted). Further,
“[t]he test set out in Daubert does not require that the Court look to one
expert to determine the credibility of another expert’s determination.”
16
Fox v. Mass. Bay Ins. Co., No. 2:13-cv-02567, 2015 WL 11017961, at *3
(W.D. Tenn. Mar. 12, 2015). On their own, these competing accounts of
what a reliable approach to lead detection in bone should look like cannot
be resolved by the Court. Disagreements over method alone do not create
a basis for exclusion, and VNA has not demonstrated that Dr. Specht’s
bone lead testing was the result of speculation, a contradiction, or a more
general lack of a reliable foundation. Instead, they have presented their
experts’ dispute with Dr. Specht about the importance of lead
fingerprints in properly determining the Bellwether III Plaintiffs’ bone
lead levels. See In re Scrap Metal, 527 F.3d at 529–30.
b. The MATLAB Code and Uncertainty Values
VNA also argues that Dr. Specht’s approach to determining
uncertainty values for his measurements is flawed. Dr. Specht’s
methodology generates an uncertainty value when the pXRF is used to
measure lead in bone. (ECF No. 3011-6, PageID.101788.) After
performing bone scans on the Bellwether Plaintiffs, Dr. Specht found that
lead was present when the amount of lead detected was greater than the
uncertainty value. (See, e.g., ECF No. 2913-31, PageID.97441
(calculating one Plaintiff’s bone lead level as 1.42 ug/g, calculating the
17
measurement uncertainty as 0.49 ug/g, and concluding that they were
exposed to lead).)
Daubert instructs courts to consider “the known or potential rates
of error” for a methodology. 509 U.S. at 594. If a method has “a high error
rate, if it has trouble avoiding false positives, and if there are no
standards or guidelines to avoid or lessen these risks,” then this factor
weighs against admission. Gissantaner, 990 F.3d at 465 (cleaned up). The
Sixth Circuit instructs that even when the calculation of an error rate
has “troubling” deficiencies, including the failure to conduct certain
important tests, error rate “is only one in a list of nonexclusive factors
that the Daubert Court observed would bear on the admissibility
question.” United States v. Bonds, 12 F.3d 540, 560 (6th Cir. 1993).
VNA argues that Dr. Specht’s MATLAB code calculates rates of
error in a manner that ignores important considerations and ignores
possible results. (ECF No. 2913-3, PageID.96238 (“[I]t does not employ
any statistical method to determine whether the peak it attempts to
measure was generated by noise or an actual lead signal, and it does not
account for the limit of detection of the device[.]”); ECF No. 3037-3,
PageID.102760 (Dr. Huber stating that the code “does not capture all the
18
uncertainty associated with Dr. Specht’s measurements”).) VNA also
argues that the MATLAB code used to measure lead in the Bellwether
Plaintiffs’ bones does not calculate error in the same manner as Dr.
Specht does in his publications and, if he had done so, it would have
shown that no lead was detected in these Plaintiffs. (ECF No. 2913-3,
PageID.96238; ECF No. 3037-3, PageID.102761.)
Dr. Specht denies this characterization of how the code produces
uncertainty values. Citing his publications, he asserts that the code
“inherently accounts for limits of detection and uses standard error
propagation to determine the uncertainty of the measurement.” (ECF No.
3011-6, PageID.101798–101799.) He also claims that Dr. Huber
mischaracterizes how the MATLAB code generates uncertainty values.
(Id. at PageID.101792–101793.)
If VNA’s experts are correct, and Dr. Specht’s MATLAB code cannot
calculate a proper error rate, this deficiency would weigh against
admission. But VNA does not establish such a deficiency. The parties’
disagreement about how the code accounts for uncertainty and error and
whether the code mirrors the equations in Dr. Specht’s publications are
not questions for the Court to decide. In re Scrap Metal, 527 F.3d at 529–
19
30 (ruling that under Rule 702 and Daubert courts should not decide
between contested versions of the facts and citing with approval Quiet
Tech. DC–8, Inc. v. Hurel–Dubois UK Ltd., 326 F.3d 1333, 1343–44 (11th
Cir. 2003), where testimony was admitted even though “the appellant
argued that the expert . . . used the wrong equations to run the analysis”).
The Court’s role is not to assess the credibility of the experts’ factual
statements about what computer code is doing when it processes data.
Phillips, 400 F.3d at 399; Fox, 2015 WL 11017961, at *3. The Court will
not resolve these factual disputes or weigh the credibility of experts with
competing accounts of how the computer code generates results. VNA
therefore does not establish any deficiency in error rate calculation or any
unreliability in Dr. Specht’s methods. See Gissantaner, 990 F.3d at 465.
Next, VNA argues that the alleged flaws related to error rate result
in “demonstrably false results that confirm that [the MATLAB code] is
unreliable.” (ECF No. 2913-3, PageID.96238–96241.) The Court
considers VNA’s additional arguments regarding error rate below.
c. Measurements of Lead in Phantoms as Evidence of Error
Dr. Huber points to the example of “phantoms” to show that Dr.
Specht’s methodology is error prone. Phantoms are plaster of paris
20
samples that are used for calibrating pXRF devices. Dr. Specht employs
this calibration process to account for “subtle differences” between
instruments used for lead measurement. (ECF No. 3011-7,
PageID.101833–101834.) Dr. Specht used phantoms “with known lead
level[s]” for this purpose. (ECF No. 2913-31, PageID.97441.) According to
Dr. Huber’s analysis, Dr. Specht’s code generates clear errors when
applied to data generated by such phantoms. (ECF No. 2913-29,
PageID.97258.) In his deposition, Dr. Specht stated that the phantoms
he used have 0.48 μg/g of lead. (ECF No. 2913-33, PageID.97542.) Dr.
Huber found that
the code reports detections as high as 12.37 μg of lead per
gram of bone mineral in these phantom bone control samples,
far higher than the bone lead concentrations reported in the
plaintiffs. 10/26/23 Report at ¶¶ 21-24. This illustrates that
the code can mistakenly interpret background noise as lead
and generate false positive readings exceeding 10 μg/g, even
when no lead is present.
(ECF No. 2913-29, PageID.97265.) On its face, a measurement of 12.37
μg/g appears to be a highly inaccurate result. Some measurements were
closer to 0.48 μg/g, but it appears that there were several significantly
inaccurate readings. (See id. at PageID.97258–PageID.97261 (including
21
readings of 2.63 ± 1.03 μg/g, 3.78 ± 2.04 μg/g, 4.42 ± 1.42 μg/g, among
other readings, some of which were closer to 0.48 μg/g).)
While the code yielded incorrect measurements of lead
concentration when applied to the phantoms, Dr. Specht explains that
“the code is calibrated only for human bone measurements.” (ECF No.
3011-6, PageID.101799, 101801.) According to Dr. Specht, Dr. Huber has
not revealed a flaw in the code, because the code was never meant to
provide accurate measurements of lead in something like a phantom.
However, in VNA’s reply, it points out that Dr. Specht’s comments
in his published work imply that phantoms can be used for calibration,
because XRF spectra from bone and those from phantoms are not
significantly different. (See ECF No. 3037-1, PageID.102711.) At oral
argument, Plaintiffs explained that VNA misconstrues Dr. Specht’s
comments in his published work. (ECF No. 3081, PageID.105981 (“[T]he
way that the spectra comes out of pXRF is the same. . . across different
materials [but] is distinct from what the MATLAB code does with that
spectra[.]”); id. at PageID.105982–105983 (“[H]e’s explaining that there
are . . . similarities in the way the pXRF reads the spectra, but that
22
doesn’t mean that the MATLAB code calculation will be exactly the same
for the phantom versus wet bone versus dry bone[.]”).)
Plaintiffs explain that Dr. Specht’s code is not intended to perform
measurements of lead in phantoms, though the device can still be
calibrated using such phantoms. The fact that the MATLAB code is
unable to accurately perform a task for which it is not intended does not
show that it is unreliable or error prone. Nor do these results require the
Court to conclude that there are any problems with Dr. Specht’s
calibration of the device, given that calibration is apparently separate
from other data processing the device performs. (ECF No. 3011-6,
PageID.101784 (stating that the parts of the code that generate
measurements of lead and uncertainty values are different from the parts
of the code that address calibration of a specific instrument).)
d. Monte Carlo Simulation as Evidence of Error
Dr. Huber also tested the MATLAB code using a so-called Monte
Carlo simulation and found an 85% false positive rate.3 (ECF No. 2913-
3 The Fifth Circuit provides a brief explanation of the Monte Carlo method:
Monte Carlo measures the probability of various outcomes, within the
bounds of input variables . . . . Instead of simply averaging the input
values, Monte Carlo analysis uses randomly-generated data points to
23
3, PageID.96239.) VNA explains that “Dr. Huber fed the [MATLAB] code
spectra data consisting of random noise with no lead signals present,
modeled on actual noise from spectra generated by the pXRF device that
were produced in this litigation.” (Id.) Essentially, Dr. Huber generated
random noise that could not have indicated the presence of lead and
tested how Dr. Specht’s MATLAB code would respond to it. That random
noise is supposed to be realistic (i.e. it is the type of fluctuation that the
pXRF might encounter in the real world), because it was modeled on “the
random fluctuations observed in the 67 spectra Dr. Specht produced in
the case.” (ECF No. 2913-29, PageID.97266.) Dr. Huber obtained a wide
range of results in the test, but 85% were false positives, because the
measured concentration of lead did not exceed its measurement
uncertainty, meaning Dr. Specht’s method would have found lead to be
present despite the spectra being random noise. (Id.) VNA argues that
increase accuracy, and then looks to the results that those data points
generate. The methodology is particularly useful when reaching an
exact numerical result is impossible or infeasible and the data provide a
known range—a minimum and a maximum, for example—but leave the
exact answer uncertain.
Lyondell Chem. Co. v. Occidental Chem. Corp., 608 F.3d 284, 293 (5th Cir. 2010).
24
finding this level of lead when none was present shows that Dr. Specht’s
results cannot be distinguished from those based on random noise. (ECF
No. 2913-3, PageID.96240.)
Plaintiffs object to the way this simulation was carried out. Dr.
Specht argues that Dr. Huber did not actually use a Monte Carlo method,
because he did not generate the random data “within the bounds of real-
world parameters.” (ECF No. 3011-6, PageID.101799, 101802.) Also,
because actual data related to lead is not random, Dr. Specht asserts that
Dr. Huber’s method of “using random numbers for data is not going to
adequately identify the potential variation in methodology.” (Id. at
PageID.101800.) It will miss out on “complex interactions” that would
occur in real life. (Id. at PageID.101802.) Dr. Specht also insists that he
and his co-authors have verified this method via experiment. (Id. at
PageID.101800.) VNA responds that Dr. Specht’s code is supposed to
distinguish between noise and lead, and Dr. Huber’s simulation shows
that the code fails to do that. (ECF No. 3037-1, PageID.102711–102712.)
Dr. Huber expresses disagreement about whether he performed a valid
Monte Carlo simulation, but he does not elaborate beyond noting his
disagreement. (ECF No. 3037-3, PageID.102757 n.1).
25
If Dr. Huber’s simulation offered clear evidence that Dr. Specht’s
code was unable to distinguish noise from lead, that would speak to the
error rate factor in the Daubert analysis, but the significance of the
simulation is subject to disagreement. The dispute here appears to be
whether Dr. Huber’s test relies on data (i.e. the simulated noise) that is
adequately like real background noise to test the reliability of Dr.
Specht’s code. Experts retained by the parties offer differing opinions on
this question. Dr. Huber’s response to Dr. Specht is a conclusory
statement of his disagreement. (Id.) This record does not allow the Court
to resolve this issue without impermissibly weighing the credibility of
two competing experts’ testimony. See Jahn v. Equine Servs., PSC, 233
F.3d 382, 391 (6th Cir. 2000). As a result, the Court cannot determine
whether Dr. Huber’s results address the way Dr. Specht’s code functions
in real-world conditions, as opposed to the simulated conditions created
by Dr. Huber. This evidence therefore does not weigh in favor or against
the admissibility of Dr. Specht’s opinions.
e. Negative Lead Levels as Evidence of Error
VNA also argues that “the MATLAB code reported negative lead
levels for more than 200 of Dr. Specht’s bone scans of Flint children.”
26
(ECF No. 2913-3, PageID.96240 (emphasis in original).) Because having
a negative measurement of lead in a person’s bones is not possible, VNA
asserts that these results are further evidence of the code’s inability “to
distinguish between noise and a true lead signal.” (Id.) Dr. Specht does
not disagree that the code reported negative lead levels. He states that
such a result is “expected” and explains that if there were tests where
“bone lead [was] nearly zero” and a high level of uncertainty, that would
yield a negative value. (ECF No. 3011-6, PageID.101803.) Such a result
does not demonstrate lack of reliability. It is how the code expresses
results. Dr. Specht indicates that his published work includes such
negative results. (Id.)
VNA provides no substantive response to Dr. Specht’s explanation.
Further, insofar as this data was included in published work, that
suggests it is consistent with scientific practice and not something the
scientific community would view as evidence of a lack of reliability. VNA’s
argument that negative lead levels indicate a lack of reliability therefore
fails.
27
f. Lack of Correlation Between pXRF and KXRF as Evidence of
Error
VNA also contends that the pXRF is unreliable because of its failure
to correlate with more established KXRF technology. VNA refers to
KXRF as the “gold standard” in this context—an assessment Dr. Specht
shares. (ECF No. 2913-3, PageID.96226; ECF No. 2913-29, PageID.97268
(citing Dr. Specht referring to the KXRF as the “gold standard”).) VNA
focuses its critique on measurements at lower—but still substantial—
lead levels. Based on the data included in the papers, Dr. Huber
estimates that when lead concentrations are measured at “30 μg/g or less
by the pXRF device, the [correlation with the KXRF] was essentially
zero.” (ECF No. 2913-29, PageID.97269.) Rather than its measurements
correlating with the KXRF device, the pXRF device tends to overreport
lead levels relative to the KXRF device, according to VNA. (ECF No.
2913-3, PageID.96241.)
Plaintiffs respond that although one study found less of a
correlation between pXRF and KRXF than expected, another one found
significant associations between the measurements taken by the two
devices despite “all but one individual [having] bone lead results less
28
than 30 ug/g.” (ECF No. 3013, PageID.101948.) Dr. Huber found,
however, that the correlation identified in the study was the result of one
bone lead level that was at a much higher level than the others and that
measurements below 15 μg/g did not correlate at all. (ECF No. 2913-36,
PageID.97732.) His analysis leads him to conclude that the “pXRF is
biased high by 2.5 ppm.” (Id.)
Even if there is a lack of correlation between pXRF and KXRF as
Dr. Huber asserts, this failure to correlate to a different established
methodology goes to the weight of the evidence and not admissibility. See
Best v. Lowe’s Home Ctrs., 563 F3d 171, 181 (6th Cir. 2009)
(“Admissibility under Rule 702 does not require perfect methodology.
Rather, the expert must employ[ ] in the courtroom the same level of
intellectual rigor that characterizes the practice of an expert in the
relevant field.” (cleaned up)). Scientists, including Dr. Specht, use pXRF
for lead detection in published work, which indicates Dr. Specht’s
methods in this litigation have a similar level of rigor to the practice of
experts in this field. Any lack of correlation to KXRF challenges the
accuracy of this method, but it does not establish the device’s lack of
29
reliability. See In re Scrap Metal, 527 F.3d at 529 (distinguishing
accuracy from reliability).
g. The Evidence Related to Error Rates
VNA presents two general arguments about the flaws in Dr.
Specht’s MATLAB code. On their own, these objections—about how the
MATLAB code identifies lead and calculates uncertainty values—
amount to a battle of the experts that does not provide a basis for
exclusion. As further support for their position, VNA offers four
arguments, grounded in its experts’ analysis of evidence, to establish the
MATLAB code is flawed. As set forth above, while these arguments point
to possible flaws in Dr. Specht’s approach, they do not justify exclusion of
his opinions. Nor do they establish a high error rate or inability to avoid
false positives under the error rate factor of the Daubert analysis. The
error rate factor does not favor exclusion.
iii. Testability
VNA argues that Dr. Specht has not tested the code to confirm it
can identify low levels of lead in children’s bones. In support of this
argument, VNA points to studies considering the correlation between
pXRF and KXRF results, (ECF No. 2913-3, PageID.96241), and studies
30
that indicate potential limitations in the context of testing children’s
bones. (Id. at PageID.96241–96242.) It adds that no further studies have
been done to verify Dr. Specht’s methodology with respect to children and
that Dr. Specht has not published research based on his work in Flint.
(Id.)
The Court has already addressed related arguments from VNA.
Although the Court acknowledged that the available research was not
definitive on its own, it noted improvements to Dr. Specht’s process, as
well as research showing that longer measurement times and “altered
calibration settings [] improve accuracy.” Specht I, 2021 WL 5356295, at
*4. VNA argues that these studies do not “validate the MATLAB code for
measuring low levels of bone lead like those at issue in this case.” (ECF
No. 2913-3, PageID.96242.)
Plaintiffs point out that VNA’s entire argument here applies an
improper standard. As the Court has explained, the testability factor in
the Daubert analysis asks
whether a witness’ technique or technology could be falsified
or refuted through the scientific method. United States v.
Gissantaner, 990 F.3d 457, 464 (6th Cir. 2021) (citing United
States v. Bonds, 12 F.3d 540, 559 (6th Cir. 1993)). “An
31
untestable scientific theory is all theory and no science.” See
Gissantaner, 990 F.3d at 463.
Specht I, 2021 WL 5356295, at *3. VNA’s arguments are about whether
Dr. Specht’s methodology has been tested—not whether it is testable.
Arguments “about the adequacy of the [theory’s] testing . . . provide grist
for adversarial examination, not grounds for exclusion.” Gissantaner, 990
F.3d at 464 (cleaned up). Dr. Specht’s methodology is clearly testable and
Dr. Huber purports to have tested it.4 Accordingly, just like the last time
4 Putting to the side that VNA relies on the wrong standard, it also argues that
Dr. Specht’s claim that the pXRF device successfully detected lead in Plaintiffs is an
untested hypothesis and is therefore unsuited for admission due to being speculative.
(ECF No. 3037-1, PageID.102714.) VNA cites Tamraz v. Lincoln Elec. Co., which
involves an expert who admitted to speculating about brain damage that he had been
unable to detect in his examination of the plaintiff. 620 F.3d 665, 675–76 (6th Cir.
2010). Here, Dr. Specht references repeated experiments being used to verify his
methodology and grounds core elements of his methodology in established research,
among other things. (ECF No. 3011-6, PageID.101782–101783, 101800.) This
methodology is unlike the speculation at issue in Tamraz.
Further, many of the arguments offered by VNA relate to application of the
methodology to low blood levels. (ECF No. 3037-1, PageID.102714.) Arguments about
application are rarely a basis for exclusion. See Specht I, 2021 WL 5356295, at *6. As
the Court set forth:
The pXRF technology itself is widely accepted in the scientific
community. Recent publications likewise validate the use of pXRF to
measure bone lead in human subjects specifically. Defendants may cast
doubt on the application of this technology to the children in this case—
but the trial is the appropriate place for such arguments, and a jury the
appropriate audience.
32
the Court considered the admissibility of Dr. Specht’s opinions, “the
testability factor weighs strongly in favor of admission.” Specht I, 2021
WL 5356295, at *3.
iv. General Acceptance
VNA argues that Dr. Specht’s methodology has not been generally
accepted, which weighs against admission. (ECF No. 2913-3,
PageID.96245.) General acceptance is one of the factors outlined in
Daubert:
“general acceptance” can [] have a bearing on the inquiry. A
“reliability assessment does not require, although it does
permit, explicit identification of a relevant scientific
community and an express determination of a particular
degree of acceptance within that community.” United States
v. Downing, 753 F.2d, at 1238. See also 3 Weinstein & Berger
¶ 702[03], pp. 702–41 to 702–42. Widespread acceptance can
be an important factor in ruling particular evidence
admissible, and “a known technique which has been able to
attract only minimal support within the community,”
Downing, 753 F.2d, at 1238, may properly be viewed with
skepticism.
Id. Insofar as VNA’s focus is on application that is a further reason its arguments
fail.
33
509 U.S. at 594. The Sixth Circuit has explained that “[o]nly when a
theory or procedure does not have the acceptance of most of the pertinent
scientific community, and in fact a substantial part of the scientific
community disfavors the principle or procedure, will it not be generally
accepted.” Bonds, 12 F.3d at 562.
To show that Dr. Specht’s methodology is not generally accepted,
VNA makes several arguments. It suggests that pXRF testing and the
MATLAB code discussed in this motion have not been independently
evaluated. (ECF No. 2913-3, PageID.96244.) VNA points out that Dr.
Specht references peer-reviewed publications that he co-authored rather
than those authored by other people and that others (including
government agencies) have not adopted the pXRF. (Id. at PageID.96244–
96245.) It also notes that Dr. Specht has not sought FDA approval, which
would require review of the MATLAB code for safety and efficacy. (Id. at
PageID.96245.)
Plaintiffs point out that the Court has considered many of these
arguments already. The Court explained that
while Dr. Specht is the pre-eminent figure in the development
of pXRF in in vivo studies, he is hardly the only researcher in
this field. Indeed, in each of the studies to which both parties
34
refer, Dr. Specht has several collaborating co-authors. E.g.,
(Specht (2014), Specht (2019a)). And the large-scale Zhang
study of subjects in Indiana and Chicago was completed
largely without Dr. Specht’s involvement, by a separate group
of researchers. Zhang (2021).
In addition, the pXRF technology at issue in this case is not
as novel as VNA suggests. Portable XRF devices have a long
history of use in non-medical contexts. . . . Dr. Specht’s own
methods have been subjected to almost a decade of peer
review, and they have not come under attack as unscientific
or otherwise lacking.
Specht I, 2021 WL 5356295, at *5. In Dr. Specht’s deposition, he also
explains that his research—undertaken with co-researchers—continues
to use pXRF technology very similar to what he used to test Plaintiffs.
(See ECF No. 3011-7.)
Dr. Specht’s status as co-author on peer-reviewed publications that
rely upon pXRF is evidence of general acceptance. The fact that other
scientific researchers have worked with Dr. Specht on past and current
research using his methods weighs in favor of finding that they are
generally accepted. Even if he worked on this research entirely on his
own, the general acceptance factor is not reducible to the number of
people who use a methodology. See United States v. Jones, 965 F.3d 149,
35
156, 160, 162 (2d Cir. 2020) (finding that although a laboratory was the
only one that used a methodology, it was still generally accepted based
on peer review and other approvals from the scientific community).
VNA has not provided evidence that this methodology is disfavored,
Bonds, 12 F.3d at 562, nor does it point to evidence that the scientific
community views Dr. Specht’s work as “unscientific or otherwise
lacking.” Specht I, 2021 WL 5356295, at *5. Rather, there is evidence this
methodology has been evaluated and adopted by members of the
scientific community. The general acceptance factor therefore favors
admission. To the extent VNA intends to attack this methodology’s
applicability to children or to certain bone lead levels, those arguments
relate to applicability and are appropriate for presentation to a jury. Id.
at *6. They do not justify exclusion of this evidence. Accordingly, VNA’s
arguments based on general acceptance fail.
Overall, the Daubert analysis favors admission of Dr. Specht’s
opinions. While some of VNA’s arguments regarding the error rate may
expose flaws in Dr. Specht’s methodology, even that factor does not favor
exclusion. These factors are not “a definitive checklist or test” but are
instead intended to guide courts in “strik[ing] a balance between a liberal
36
admissibility standard for relevant evidence on the one hand and the
need to exclude misleading ‘junk science’ on the other.” Best, 563 F.3d at
176–77 (cleaned up).
Dr. Specht’s opinions and methodology are not junk science. He is
qualified to offer his opinions, and he draws on his peer-reviewed and
published research to do so. VNA’s experts’ competing scientific theories,
its experts’ criticisms and objections, and its views on the proper
application of Dr. Specht’s methodology may be raised at trial, but they
do not provide a basis to exclude this testimony. Accordingly, VNA’s
arguments for excluding Dr. Specht’s testimony in its entirety are denied.
B. The Half-Life of Lead in Children and Related
Opinions
VNA also objects to Dr. Specht’s opinion that bone lead levels in
children have a five-year half-life. (ECF No. 2913-3, PageID.96246.) It
further objects to several opinions Dr. Specht offers on the basis of this
assumption, some of which are included in the following portion of Dr.
Specht’s report:
The lead exposure results from Flint were drastically higher
than comparable community studies. The bone lead of the
children in Flint had an average measure of 4.1 ± 6.6 ug/g.
These results from the Flint children were 6.5 times higher
37
than Ontario children from the McNeil study (McNeill, Fisher
et al. 2017). Using a conservative estimate of 5 years for the
bone lead half-life in children, we calculate the bone lead
values to be 8.2 ± 13.1 ug/g at the start of the Flint water
crisis. With these distributions, the population overlap with
Chinese children from Specht et al., which had blood lead
values of >25 ug/dL, would be greater than 66% (Specht, Lin
et al. 2016). This means that 66% of the children from Flint
had bone lead and lead exposure profiles most similar to
severely poisoned children that were prescribed chelation
therapy (Specht, Lin et al. 2016).
(ECF No. 2913-31, PageID.97440.)
VNA makes three arguments opposing the admission of these
opinions. First, it argues that Dr. Specht does not cite any scientific
literature in support of his opinion about five-year half-life of bone lead
in children nor does he otherwise disclose the basis of this estimate. (ECF
No. 2913-3, PageID.96246–96247.) Second, VNA argues that that his
estimates of bone lead values of Flint children in 2014 are based on
unfounded assumptions about when their exposure to lead occurred. (Id.
at PageID.96247) Third, VNA contends that Dr. Specht makes an
illegitimate comparison to “severely poisoned children in his China
study.” (Id.) In addition, VNA argues that these opinions should be
excluded under Rule 403 as unfairly prejudicial.
38
Dr. Specht provides citations for his estimate of the half-life of lead
in children. Dr. Specht, in his declaration, states that he calculated a five-
year half-life “based on known bone turnover markers identified in
previous studies.” (ECF No. 3011-6, PageID.101807.) In his deposition,
Dr. Specht explains that “there is not literature specific to lead in bones,
but there is literature specific to the bone turnover rates.” (ECF No. 2913-
32, PageID.97513.) He cites a source in his declaration that gives bone
remodeling rates for subjects at different ages. Basic Anatomical and
Physiological Data for Use in Radiological Protection: The Skeleton,
ANNALS ICRP, 1995, at 35. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177
/ANIB_25_2. Dr. Specht provided his calculations related to this opinion
to VNA after his deposition. (ECF No. 3011-6, PageID.101807 n.14
(noting he provided the calculation to counsel).)
Experts are permitted to make reasonable scientific inferences from
data. See Jahn, 233 F.3d at 390. However, under Rule 702, the burden is
on Plaintiffs to show by a preponderance of the evidence that testimony
is based on sufficient facts or data. Fed. R. Evid. 702. Further, there must
not be “too great an analytical gap between the data and the opinion
proffered.” Gen. Elec. Co. v. Joiner, 522 U.S. 136, 146 (1997). Plaintiffs
39
did not provide the basis for Dr. Specht’s inference from bone remodeling
rates at different ages to his estimate of the half-life of bone lead in
children. (See ECF No. 3081, PageID.106006.) It is unclear how and
whether the source Dr. Specht cites, which relates to bone remodeling
rates, allows him to estimate the half-life of lead in bones. Plaintiffs also
do not provide support for Dr. Specht’s claim that his estimate for bone
lead half-life is “conservative.” (ECF No. 2913-31, PageID.97440.)
Further, it is unclear how he accounts for the differing ages of Flint
children in calculating a five-year half-life. The Court therefore cannot
conclude that Dr. Specht’s estimate is more likely than not based on
sufficient facts and data. Dr. Specht may not offer testimony about his
five-year estimate for bone lead half-life.5
5 Although Dr. Specht’s testimony about his estimate of bone lead half-life is
inadmissible, that does not prevent him from testifying about the significance of
Plaintiffs’ bone lead levels based on other evidence in the record. For example, the
Court’s ruling does not preclude Dr. Specht from providing the following sort of
opinion, which is stated in his report:
since bone turnover is faster at younger ages, [] the initial lead exposure
from the water crisis is higher than what we are seeing here. Thus,
[Plaintiff] has a measurable exposure to lead that had accumulated in
[Plaintiff]’s bones, and the exposure was at a level that the natural bone
turnover rate did not dissipate the lead prior to our XRF measurement.
(ECF No. 2913-31, PageID.97441.)
40
Because Dr. Specht’s extrapolations of average bone lead levels for
children in Flint and his comparison to his study of children in China are
based on his estimate of a five-year bone-lead half-life, those opinions
must be excluded, as well.
Exclusion of his comparison of children in Flint with children in his
study in China is also necessary to prevent unfair prejudice and
confusion. Fed. R. Evid. 403 (“The court may exclude relevant evidence if
its probative value is substantially outweighed by a danger of one or more
of the following: unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the
jury, undue delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative
evidence.”) The probative value of this comparison is weak because Dr.
Specht states that this comparison “only refer[s] to the potential
cumulative, chronic exposure distribution overlap in the Flint children
versus the children that were lead poisoned in China.” (ECF No. 3011-6,
PageID.101808 (emphasis added).) He offers an opinion about a
potentially valid comparison, which suggests a lessened likelihood that
this testimony will assist the jury. See Fed. R. Evid. 702(a). In part
because the probative value of this comparison is weak, it is substantially
outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice and confusion. Specifically,
41
there are serious risks that the comparison to the study of Chinese
children could lead jurors to conclude that Plaintiffs required chelation
treatment to remove lead from their bodies like the children in China
that Dr. Specht compares them to. Old Chief v. United States, 519 U.S.
172, 180 (1997) (“Unfair prejudice . . . means an undue tendency to
suggest decision on an improper basis. . . .”). Yet there is no evidence the
Bellwether III Plaintiffs required or other children in Flint obtained
chelation for lead poisoning. These problems compound the issues with
Dr. Specht’s estimate of bone-lead half-life set forth above. As a result,
these opinions must be excluded.
Accordingly, as set forth above, VNA’s motion is granted in part
with respect to Dr. Specht’s opinions related to his estimate of bone lead
half-life.
IV. Conclusion
For the reasons set forth above, the Motion is GRANTED IN PART
and DENIED IN PART.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: September 9, 2024 s/Judith E. Levy
Ann Arbor, Michigan JUDITH E. LEVY
United States District Judge
42
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned certifies that the foregoing document was served
upon counsel of record and any unrepresented parties via the Court’s
ECF System to their respective email or first-class U.S. mail addresses
disclosed on the Notice of Electronic Filing on September 9, 2024.
s/William Barkholz
WILLIAM BARKHOLZ
Case Manager
43 Case Information
- Court
- E.D. Mich.
- Decision Date
- September 9, 2024
- Status
- Precedential