Plaintiffs are alleged owners of real property containing natural gas who have no leases with EQT covering their interests. Claiming that EQT has produced gas from Plaintiffs’ properties but not paid them for it, Plaintiffs brought this putative class action seeking to recover the alleged non-payment on behalf of all allegedly unpaid tenants-in-common who presently own property with a co-tenant who has a lease with EQT. Their complaint sought damages for the alleged non-payment on the non-contractual causes of action one might expect from those who are not parties to leases—quantum meruit, conversion, and unjust enrichment—and tacks on a purported claim under Pennsylvania’s Guaranteed Minimum Royalty Act (“GMRA”).
EQT filed motions to exclude and strike the opinions of two of Plaintiffs’ experts, Cara Davis and Christopher L. Haney.
Law And Legal Expert Witness
Cara C. Davis has had 15 years of experience, devoted entirely to the oil and gas title industry and has personally prepared and reviewed hundreds of title abstracts and rendered numerous certified title opinions based on both [her] own work and that of others.
Additionally, Davis is licensed to practice law in Pennsylvania and Ohio and her experience includes evaluating title defects, identifying and assisting with unknown heirs, and tracing mineral ownership, all of which are directly relevant to the identification and location of unleased co-tenants.
Accounting Expert Witness
Christopher L. Haney is a certified public accountant (“CPA”), a certified fraud examiner (“CFE”) and certified in healthcare compliance (“CHC”).
Haney is regularly retained as an expert and has testified in a variety of venues on topics including financial damages, data analysis, statistical sampling, and regulatory compliance.
Discussion by the Court
Cara Davis
EQT asserted that Davis did not adequately review and tailor [her opinions] to the record facts of the case, her opinions are not grounded in the facts, her opinions are unhelpful to the trier of fact on class certification and her opinions were offered in relation to a prior class certification definition that Plaintiffs have now abandoned.
Analysis
Based on Davis’ experience in the industry, along with the additional expert reports in the record, the Court found that Davis’ opinion is reliable. The methodology Davis described, both in her report and throughout her testimony, is a practice which she has employed throughout her career and is “generally accepted” in the industry. Davis also relied on several relevant sources in preparing her report.
There is a clear connection between Davis’ opinion and the facts at issue. Davis formed her opinion based on the facts provided in the record. She used testimony that led her to believe that EQT employs “standard title practices” and applied relevant data she obtained from excel sheets. She determined, in her “professional experience,” that the identities of the unleased co-tenants and their locations are ascertainable through “diligent title search,” which is an accepted method used throughout the industry.
EQT additionally challenged Davis’ opinions that EQT is obligated “to identify and locate unleased co-tenants in accordance with the requirements of the Pennsylvania Minimum Royalty Act, 58 P.S. § 33.3.” The Court agreed with EQT that Davis’ opinions, particularly regarding obligations stemming from § 33.3, shall be excluded.
Davis states in her deposition that she only “vaguely” remembers when the language of the 58 P.S. § 33.3 came out, she does not remember why the statute was passed, she has not read the legislative history, and she did not read the legislative intent behind the statute. As a result, Davis’ testimony that § 33.3 “imposes an obligation on EQT to identify unleased co-tenants” is inadmissible.
Christopher Haney
EQT filed a motion to exclude Haney’s expert opinions, asserting “they are unreliable, irrelevant, and misleading.”
Plaintiffs retained Haney, requesting that he (1) “organize and compile EQT’s data into a structured data set that can be efficiently queried based on select criteria,” (2) use that structured data set to evaluate whether select identifying information for Plaintiffs and other unleased owners (i.e., potential class members for this litigation) can be identified (3) “evaluate acceptable damages methodologies for this matter,” (4) “evaluate the methodology employed by EQT for calculating natural gas royalty payments,” and (5) “determine whether the data available in documents produced by EQT would enable the calculation of natural gas payments or royalties using EQT’s methodology.”
Analysis
Haney explained his process and conclusions throughout his report. He also identified an itemized list of sources and information that he relied upon in support of his methodology. Though Haney testified “that he was unable ‘to incorporate all of the data into the database’ from EQT’s records,” Haney was able to compile most of the data apart from the tax parcel identification numbers that were contained in EQT’s Setup Files.
Haney emphasized that he used “widely accepted statistical procedures and equations” when designing and executing his Statistically Valid Random Sampling method.
The Court found that Haney had good grounds to rely on the data and information provided by counsel when forming his opinions.
Haney used a reliable methodology. He used EQT’s established uniform method for calculating royalties owed to all owners regardless of whether they are parties to a lease.
Held
- The Court granted in part and denied in part Defendant EQT’s motion to exclude the expert opinions of Cara Davis.
- The Court denied Defendant EQT’s motion to exclude the expert opinions of Christopher Haney.
Key Takeaway
When an expert relies solely or primarily on experience, he must explain how that experience leads to the conclusion reached, why that experience is a sufficient basis for the opinion, and how that experience is reliably applied to the facts.
Case Details:
| Case Caption: | Ross V. EQT Corporation |
| Docket Number: | 2:21cv1585 |
| Court Name: | United States District Court, Pennsylvania Western |
| Order Date: | May 18, 2026 |
Leave a Reply