BEFORE THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEW ORLEANS IN RE: APPLICATION OF ENTERGY NEW ORLEANS, INC. FOR APPROVAL TO CONSTRUCT NEW ORLEANS POWER STATION AND REQUEST FOR COST RECOVERY AND TIMELY RELIEF DOCKET NO. UD-16-02 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER On October 16, 2017, Deep South Center For Environmental Justice, Alliance For Affordable Energy, 350 Louisiana New Orleans, and Sierra Club (?Intervenors?) jointly ?led, inter alia, Pre-Filed Supplemental Testimony of Dr. Beverly Wright, (?Supplemental Testimony?). On November 16, 2017, the Advisors ?led a motion to strike (?Motion?) portions of said testimony, along with a Memorandum in Support of the Motion (?Memorandum?). In accordance with the Hearing Of?cer?s scheduling order, on November 22, 2017, Intervenors distributed, via electronic mail, their opposition to said motion1 (?Opposition?). DISCUSSION Advisors seek to strike portions of the Supplemental Testimony as follow: Section IV of the Table of Contents; Page 3, lines 5 - 9 and 17 - 25; Page 4, lines 1 - 28; Page 5, lines 1 - 22; and Intervenors state they will actually ?le the Opposition when the Clerk?s Of?ce reopens after the Thanksgiving holiday. Email from Monica Harden of November 22, 2017. Page 6, lines 1 - 19. Motion at 1. The testimony, which Advisors seek to strike, consists of Dr. Wright?s perceptions of various matters centered upon alleged due process problems associated with the instant docket. See Supplemental Testimony, pp. 3 - 6. In support of its motion to strike the above-stated portions, Advisors advance two arguments: (1) the offending testimony consists of legal conclusions and opinions that Dr. Wright is not quali?ed to reach or render; and (2) the conclusions and opinions are not supported by suf?cient facts, arguing essentially that the factual foundations of Dr. Wright?s perceptions are simply wrong. See generally Memorandum. Addressing these arguments in reverse order, the Hearing Of?cer notes, as correctly stated by Advisors, to be admissible, the opinions of any expert witness must, inter alia, be ?based on suf?cient facts or data.? La. Code of Evidence Ann. Art 702(2), Acts 1988, No. 515, eff. Jan. 1, 1989; Acts 2014, No. 630, Advisors expend considerable effort explicating the erroneous factual foundations of Dr. Wright?s conclusions.2 The Hearing Of?cer agrees that some of these conclusions, along with the factual foundations from which they ?ow, are obviously erroneous. But, a rigorous examination of all the facts and conclusions recited by Dr. Wright and disputed by the Advisors, could only be conducted within the context of an evidentiary hearing, a Daubert?style pre-trial hearing, see e. 509 US. 579 (1993), or at the scheduled hearing on the merits. And Intervenors vehemently disagree w1th Advnsors? characterizatlons. See Opposmon, pp. 7 8. Notwithstanding, the motion can be adequately disposed, and fully granted, based upon Advisors? ?rst argument. All of the testimony that Advisors seek to strike is clearly outside the expertise of Dr. Wright.3 According to her original direct testimony, ?led on January 6, 2017, Dr. Wright is the Founder and Executive Director of the Deep South Center for Environmental Justice in New Orleans, Louisiana, and she holds Doctorate of Philosophy and Master of Arts degrees in Sociology from the State University of New York at Buffalo, and a Bachelor of Arts degree in Sociology from Grambling State University in Louisiana. The primary focus of her research involves ?racial disparities in environmental conditions,? but also ?entails advising governmental agencies on policies pertaining to meaningful and effective public participation, industrial facility siting, climate change mitigation and resiliency, equity in disaster recovery, and environmental justice research methodologies.? Direct Testimony of Dr. Wright, pp. 1 - 2. Dr. Wright?s testimony at issue, to the extent it is to be deemed expert testimony at all (as contrasted with fact testimony or lay person opinion), consists of legal opinion. See Supplemental Testimony, pp. 3 - 6 (addressing the alleged undermining of fairness and due process). Legal opinion is generally not admissible even through the testimony of lawyers, because it rarely ?assists the trier-of?fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in [and is] proper for the purpose of assisting the court o_nly in those ?elds where the court lacks suf?cient knowledge to enable it to come to a proper conclusion without such assistance.? Morrison v. Johnson, 571 So. 2d 788 at 791-2 (l990)(emphasis added). And of course, here, Dr. Wright is not even a lawyer. 3 lntervenors declare that Dr. Wright?s expertise regarding the potential for disproportional impact by poor people and people of color is ?reliable and helpful,? Opposition at 9, but this non-legal portion of her testimony (Supplemental Testimonyissue in the instant Motion. Her interpretations of FERC proceedings, legal settlements, Council resolutions, and Council proceedings, are all clearly beyond her professed expertise. Intervenors attempt to invoke the time-honored principle established in ?Goose v. Gander,? by asserting that Dr. Wright merely attempts to ?explain? matters such as Council resolutions, just as did Entergy in responses to discovery requests and in television broadcast interviews. Opposition, pps. 5 7. But, there is a vast difference between discovery responses, not being offered into evidence (and, of course, media interviews outside the litigation process), and evidentiary testimony proffered as expert opinion. Moreover, the gravamen of Dr. Wright?s disputed testimony is a due process argument clearly a legal argument. If, as perhaps Intervenors are suggesting, Dr. Wright is merely commenting about the ?fairness? of the legal process from a non-legal perspective, such testimony must be deemed the perspective of a lay person. One can imagine that an entire array of articulate and erudite individuals might share that perspective. But such opinions are appropriately expressed in public forums; not as expert testimony in legal proceedings. To reiterate for the sake of precision, that part of Dr. Wright?s testimony that does not address the legal process is not at issue here. Accordingly, the motion is hereby granted in full, and, It is hereby ORDERED, that the following portions of the Supplemental Testimony of Dr. Beverly Wright, is hereby STRICKEN from the record: Section IV of the Table of Contents; Page 3, lines 5 - 9 and 17 - 25; Page 4, lines 1 - 28; Page 5, lines 1 - 22; and Page 6, lines 1 - 19. This 24th day of November, 2017. MM s. GULIN Hearing Of?cer