Full opinion text
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER (1) GRANTING CERTAIN DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO EXCLUDE EXPERT OPINIONS OF EUGENE MEYER, (2) DENYING AS MOOT DEFENDANT PHAR-MACIA & UPJOHN COMPANY’S MOTION TO DISQUALIFY EUGENE MEYER, PH.D. FROM TESTIFYING AGAINST DEFENDANT PHARMACIA & UPJOHN COMPANY, (3) DENYING IN PART AND GRANTING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT, (4) GRANTING CERTAIN DEFENDANTS’ CROSS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, (5) DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT AGAINST DEFENDANT WILLIAM GREENWAY, (6) GRANTING DEFENDANT WILLIAM GREENWAY’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT, AND (7) GRANTING DEFENDANT B-B PAINT CORPORATION’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT GADOLA, District Judge. I. INTRODUCTION The above-entitled case is an action for contribution for environmental clean-up costs brought pursuant to the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA), §§ 101 — 405, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 9601-9675 and Michigan’s Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act (NREPA), M.C.L. § 324.3101 et seq. On August 27, 1998, plaintiff Freeport-McMoran Resource Partners Limited Partnership (hereinafter “Freeport”) filed a motion for partial summary judgment .against 15 defendants. These 15 defendants are as follows: (1) B-B Paint Corporation, (2) Bradford White Corporation, (3) Brunswick Corporation, (4) Chemical Recovery Systems Inc., (5) Chemetron Corporation, (6) Ciba Specialty Chemicals Corporation, (7) Eagle Ottowa Leather Company (8) International Harvester/Navistar, (9) Keeler Brass Company, (10) Knape & Vogt Manufacturing Company, Inc., (11) Knoll, Ine./Shaw Walker, (12) Motor Products-Owosso Corporation, (13) Rowe International, (14) U.S. Chemical Co., Inc., and (15) Pharmacia & Upjohn Co. See Plaintiffs Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, p. 2, n. 2. Discovery, however, was not scheduled to end until December 15, 1998. As a consequence, certain defendants filed a motion on September 8, 1998, seeking to hold plaintiffs motion for partial summary judgment in abeyance pending completion of discovery. In an order issued September 11, 1998, this Court granted certain defendants’ motion to hold plaintiffs motion in abeyance and also set a new deadline for close of discovery and for the filing of certain defendants’ response to the instant motion. On February 18,1999, these defendants filed a 104 page brief in opposition to plaintiffs motion for partial summary judgment. On March 18, 1999, plaintiffs filed their reply to certain defendants’ response brief. The following 12 defendants have responded as a group to plaintiffs motion for partial summary judgment. These 12 have also requested that their response be treated as a cross motion for summary judgment. These 12 (hereinafter “certain defendants”) are as follows:- (1) Bradford White Corporation, (2) Brunswick Corporation, (3) Chemetron Corporation, (4) Ciba Specialty Chemicals Corporation, (5) Eagle Ottowa Leather Company, (6) International Harvester/Navistar, (7) Keeler Brass Company, (8) Knape & Vogt Manufacturing Company, Inc., (9) Knoll, Inc./ Shaw Walker, (10) Motor Products-Owos-so Corporation, (11) Pharmacia & Upjohn, and (12) Rowe International. On January 29, 1999, defendant U.S. Chemical joined in certain defendants’ response to plaintiffs motion for partial summary judgment. Currently pending before this Court are seven motions. All motions are interrelated and may be divided into two groups. The first group consists of two motions and concerns requests to disallow the expert testimony of Eugene Meyer, to wit: (1)certain defendants’ motion to exclude expert opinions of Eugene Meyer, and (2) defendant Pharmacia & Upjohn Company’s motion to disqualify Eugene Meyer, Ph.D. from testifying against defendant Pharmacia & Upjohn Company. The second group consists of motions by both parties seeking either summary judgment or partial summary judgment, to wit: (3) plaintiffs motion for partial summary judgment, (4) certain defendants’ cross motion for summary judgment, (5) plaintiffs motion for partial summary judgment against defendant William Greenway, (6) defendant William Greenway’s motion for partial summary judgment, and (7) defendant B-B Paint Corporation’s motion for summary judgment. Oral argument on these seven motions was heard May 18, 1999. At the hearing, the parties stipulated on the record in open court that the following are the only parties still remaining in the instant case: (1) B-B Paint Corporation (2) Bradford White Corporation (3) Brunswick Corporation (4) Chemical Recovery Systems Inc. (5) Chemetron Corporation (6) Ciba Specialty Chemicals Corporation (7) Eagle Ottowa Leather Company (8) International Harvester/Navistar (9) Keeler Brass Company (10) Knape & Vogt Manufacturing Company, Inc. (11) Knoll, Inc./Shaw Walker (12) Motor Products-Owosso Corporation (13) Rowe International (14) U.S. Chemical Co., Inc. and (15) Pharmacia & Upjohn Co. (16) William Greenway, individually Since the motions relating to the disqualification of proposed expert Eugene Meyer impact issues addressed in the parties’ summary judgment motions, the Court will address the motions relating to expert testimony first, before embarking upon a discussion of the summary judgment motions. For the reasons stated hereinbelow, the Court will grant certain defendants’ motion to exclude expert opinions of Eugene Meyer, deny as moot defendant Pharmacia & Upjohn Company’s motion to disqualify Eugene Meyer, Ph.D. from testifying against defendant Pharmacia & Upjohn Company, deny in part and grant in part plaintiffs motion for partial summary-judgment, grant certain defendants’ cross motion for summary judgment, deny plaintiffs motion for partial summary judgment against defendant William Greenway, grant defendant William Greenway’s motion for partial summary judgment, and grant defendant B-B Paint Corporation’s motion for summary judgment. II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND GERMANE TO ALL PENDING MOTIONS A. THE FOREST WASTE SITE Plaintiff seeks contribution for costs incurred while conducting response actions at a hazardous waste disposal site near Otisville, Michigan. The site, known as the “Forest Waste Site,” is located in Forest Township, Genesee County, Michigan and consists of approximately 110 acres of real property. The operating portion of the site is composed of lagoons which receive bulk liquids and a landfill consisting of approximately 11 acres. See Exh. 1 to Plaintiffs Brief in Support of Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (hereinafter “Plaintiffs Brief’) ¶ 3. It appears undisputed that the Forest Waste Site was licensed to accept, and did accept, general refuse, municipal and industrial liquid waste, organic and inorganic hazardous waste, as well as industrial sludge waste from December 10, 1973 through September 1, 1978. See Exh. 1 to Plaintiffs Brief. At dispute are events which allegedly occurred during the period beginning January 30, 1975 through July 19, 1975. During that span of time, the Forest Waste Site allegedly received and accepted drummed waste containing hazardous substances from Berlin & Farro Liquid Incinerators (hereinafter “Berlin & Farro”). The drummed waste from Berlin & Farro was purportedly disposed of in the landfill area of the Forest Waste Site. See Exhs. 1, 2, 5, and 6 to Plaintiffs Brief. In 1982, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) placed the Forest Waste Site on the National Priorities List because of releases of hazardous substances on the site. EPA subsequently ordered response actions for the clean-up of the Forest Waste Site. See Exhs. 1 and 2 to Plaintiffs Brief. After issuance of the EPA order, a Forest Waste Coordinating Committee was formed by various companies which voluntarily organized to undertake investigative and remedial actions at the Forest Waste Site. See Exh. 1 to Plaintiffs Brief ¶ 6. None of the defendants in the above-captioned case is a member of the Forest Waste Coordinating Committee. Plaintiff admits that it participated in the landfill remediation activities of the Forest Waste Site due to the fact that plaintiff caused waste to be disposed at the site, specifically, the debris from a warehouse fire. According to plaintiff, this waste was placed in the landfill and not in the lagoons of the Forest Waste Site. See Exh. 1 to Plaintiffs Brief ¶ 7. With respect to the landfill portion of the Forest Waste Site, response actions have included excavation and offsite treatment of soil and drums, the installation of an RCRA cap, installation of a soil-benton-ite slurry wall, installation and maintenance of a dewatering system, and installation of groundwater monitoring wells. See Exhs. 1 ¶ 8 and Exh. 2 to Plaintiffs Brief. According to plaintiff, to date the response costs relating to the landfill portion of the site have totaled more than $10 million, of which plaintiff has paid $2.3 million. See Exhs. 1 ¶ 9 to Plaintiffs Brief. Plaintiff alleges that sampling and testing of the drums, soil and groundwater in the landfill area where the drummed waste was buried at the site in question reveals that the following hazardous substances, among others, are present: acetone, benzene, cadmium, chromium, copper, cyanide, ethylbenzene, lead, methyl isobutyl ketone, methyl ethyl ketone, methylene chloride, napthalene, nickel, potassium, sodium, 1,1,1-trichloroethane, tetrachloroethene, toluene, total xylenes, trichloroethene and zinc. See Exh. 1 ¶ 10 to Plaintiffs Brief. Plaintiff has produced evidence that during the period that the Forest Waste Site was in operation, it received at least 13,638 drums of waste from all sources. Of this total, according to plaintiff, at least 12,297 drums of waste were transhipped from or shipped by Berlin & Farro during the period January 30, 1975 through July 19, 1975. See Exhs. 1, 4, 5, & 6 to Plaintiffs Brief. B. THE ALLEGED ROLE OF BERLIN & FARRO, AS TRANSHIP-PER As mentioned, Berlin & Farro disposed of waste at the Forest- Waste Site. Berlin & Farro operated a liquid incinerator facility near Swartz Creek, Michigan where it allegedly incinerated liquid wastes and disposed of waste oils in the lagoons at the Forest Waste Site. During the period mentioned above from January 30, 1975 through July 19, 1975, plaintiff maintains that after free liquids from the drums were drained by Berlin & Farro, drums containing “sludges, solids or residues were placed in a selected area and subsequently loaded on trailers and transported only to the Forest Waste Site for disposal.” Plaintiffs Brief, p. 5 (citing Plaintiffs Exh. 5 ¶ 5 and Exh. 6, pp. 20-21). In addition, according to plaintiff, some drums received by Berlin & Farro during the period in question contained no liquids but only solid or sludge wastes. See Plaintiffs Exhs. 5, ¶ 7 & 6, pp. 16-19. These drums were also allegedly transported to the Forest Waste Site for disposal. Id. The crux of plaintiffs case against defendants centers upon each defendant’s relationship with the alleged transhipper Berlin & Farro. According to plaintiff, each of these defendants are responsible for transporting for disposal a specified number of drums of waste to Berlin & Farro from January 30, 1975 through July 19, 1975. Plaintiff then alleges that Berlin & Farro, in turn, disposed of hazardous substances, consisting of waste previously belonging to these defendants, at the Forest Waste Site. As more specifically discussed hereinbe-low, certain defendants dispute each of the following five allegations upon which plaintiffs case for contribution rests: (1) that each of the defendants arranged for the disposal of drummed waste at the Berlin & Farro Site in Swartz Creek, Michigan; (2) that each defendant’s drummed waste that arrived at the Berlin & Farro Site contained solid materials; (3) that each defendant’s drummed waste contained residual solids after processing (i.e., being decanted) at Berlin & Farro; (4) that each defendant’s drummed waste contained residual solids which were subsequently tran-shipped to the Forest Waste Site for disposal; and, finally, (5) that the residual solids in each defendant’s drummed waste that were allegedly sent to the Forest Waste Site contained hazardous substances similar to the hazardous substances present at the Forest Waste Site which caused plaintiff to incur response costs. See Defendant’s Brief in Opposition to Plaintiffs Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, p. 2. Plaintiff has produced no direct evidence that any defendant’s drummed waste was disposed of at the Forest Waste Site. Instead, plaintiff relies on the proposed expert testimony of Eugene Meyer. Meyer’s testimony, if admitted, would support the theory that defendants’ waste was tran-shipped after processing at the Berlin & Farro Site for ultimate disposal at the Forest Waste Site. As will be discussed, certain defendants reject plaintiffs transhipment theory and the proposed expert testimony upon which it is based. III. MOTION 1: CERTAIN DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO EXCLUDE EXPERT OPINIONS OF EUGENE MEYER The twelve certain defendants listed above have moved to exclude expert opinions of Eugene Meyer. The instant motion was filed on February 1, 1999. Plaintiff filed its response on March 18, 1999. A reply brief was submitted by certain defendants on April 8,1999. A. STANDARDS FOR THE ADMISSIBILITY OF EXPERT OPINIONS RELATING TO SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE Federal Rule of Evidence 702 provides that “[i]f scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education, may testify thereto in the form of an opinion or otherwise.” Fed.R.Evid. 702. An expert witness may base his opinion on facts or data “perceived by or made known to the expert at or before the hearing.” Fed. R.Evid. 703. Such facts or data need not be admissible in evidence so long as they are of “a type reasonably relied upon by experts in the particular field in forming opinions or inferences upon the subject.” Id. In a case such as the present one involving proposed expert testimony concerning scientific evidence, a district court must exercise a “gatekeeping role,” applying several factors to determine the admissibility of such evidence. See Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 587, 113 S.Ct. 2786, 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993). In Daubert, the United States Supreme Court set forth several non-exhaústive factors or “general observations” that a district court should apply in determining the admissibility of scientific evidence under Rule 702. As the Supreme Court stated, [fjaced with a proffer of expert scientific testimony ... the trial judge must determine at the outset, pursuant to Rule 104(a), whether the expert is proposing to testify to (1) scientific knowledge that (2) will assist the trier of fact to understand or determine a fact in issue. This entails a preliminary assessment of whether the reasoning or methodology underlying the testimony is scientifically valid and of whether that reasoning or methodology properly can be applied to the facts in issue. We are confident that federal judges possess the capacity to undertake this review. Many factors will bear on the inquiry.... Id. at 592-93, 113 S.Ct. 2786 (footnotes omitted). The Daubert Court enumerated the following “general observations” to be utilized in determining the reliability of scientific evidence: (1) whether a “[scientific] theory or technique ... can be (and has been) tested”; (2) whether it “has been subjected to peer review and publication”; (3) whether, in respect to a particular technique, there is a high “known or potential rate of error”; (4) whether there are “standards controlling the technique’s operation”; and (5) whether the theory or technique enjoys “general acceptance” within a “relevant scientific community.” Id. at 592-94,113 S.Ct. 2786. The Sixth Circuit, commenting upon the application of the Daubert factors, has provided further guidance to trial courts: These factors are to assist the court in determining “whether the analysis un-dergirding the experts’ testimony falls within the range of accepted standards governing how scientists conduct their research and reach their conclusions.” Daubert (on Remand), 43 F.3d at 1316. The Ninth Circuit (in Daubert) has added another factor to assist the court in its inquiry: “whether the experts are proposing to testify about matters growing naturally and directly out of research they have conducted independent of the litigation, or whether they have developed their opinions expressly for purposes of testifying” because the former “provides important, objective proof that the research comports with .the dictates of good science.” Id. at 1317. Smelser v. Norfolk Southern Railway Co., 105 F.3d 299, 303 (6th Cir.1997). The Ninth Circuit’s decision in Daubert (on remand) explains this additional factor adopted by the Sixth Circuit in Smelser: [o]ne very significant fact to be considered is whether the experts are proposing to testify about matters growing naturally and directly out of research they have conducted independent of the litigation, or whether they have developed their opinions expressly for purposes of testifying. That an expert testifies for money does not necessarily cast doubt on the reliability of his testimony, as few experts appear in court merely as an eleemosynary gesture. But in determining whether proposed expert testimony amounts to good science, we may not ignore the fact that a scientist’s normal workplace is the lab or the field, not the courtroom or the lawyer’s office. ;¡t sf; s-: :¡í % If the proffered expert testimony is not based on independent research, the party *1318 proffering it must come forward with other objective, verifiable evidence that the testimony is based on “scientifically valid principles.” Daubert v. Merrell Dow Phamaceuticals, Inc. (on remand),, 43 F.3d 1311, 1317-18 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 869, 116 S.Ct. 189, 133 L.Ed.2d 126 (1995) (emphasis added). B. ANALYSIS Proposed expert Meyer has submitted an “Expert Report and Affidavit,” attached as Exhibit 7 to plaintiffs motion for partial summary judgment. In this report, Meyer testifies that he has based his opinions on “[his] review of records and information, including deposition testimony, relating to the drummed wastes of each Defendant ... as well as [his] personal knowledge and expertise relating to hazardous substances.” Exh. 7 to Plaintiffs Brief, ¶ 8. As to each defendant, Meyer essentially finds as follows: (1) that each defendant’s waste contained solids; (2) that the solids would settle by gravity to the bottom of the drums in which they were stored; (3) that some residual solids would remain in the drums when the overlying liquids were poured or decanted at Berlin & Farro; and (4) that the'residual solids contained hazardous substances of the type found at the Forest Waste Site. Certain defendants advance three principal arguments seeking to exclude the proposed expert testimony of Eugene Meyer, to wit: (1) that his opinions are scientifically unreliable under Daubert and thus inadmissible, (2) that his opinions are based upon a misunderstanding of the underlying facts, and (3) that he has failed to express opinions which are relevant to establishing whether defendants’ wastes were tran-shipped, the crucial issue in the instant case. With respect to certain defendants’ first argument that Meyer’s opinions are scientifically unreliable under Daubert, defendants point to Meyer’s deposition testimony in which he admits that he has no personal knowledge concerning any of the defendants’ waste sent to Berlin & Farro. See Exh. 1 to Certain Defendants’ Motion to Exclude Expert Opinions of Eugene Meyer, pp. 70-72. Significantly, Meyer admits that he conducted no studies, experiments, or literature searches upon which to rest his opinions. Id. Defendants also rely on the fact that Meyer was able to form no opinions concerning the quantity of any residual solids which may have remained in any of defendants’ drums after processing at Berlin & Farro. Id. pp. 153-56, 161, 345. In addition, and most significantly, Meyer testified that he did not know whether Berlin & Farro had sent drums to be recycled which contained some amount of solids. Id. p. 163. Defendants also point out that when specifically asked about the Daubert requirements, Meyer testified that he did not follow any published professional standards in reaching his opinions, that there are no peer reviewed standards for the work he performed, and, as mentioned above, that he did not perform any scientific tests to confirm his conclusions and that he did not evaluate any margin of error. See id., pp. 154-56, 408-10. In response, plaintiff asserts that “Dr. Meyer reviewed the available information regarding the Defendants’ waste streams, and based on such information and his own experience regarding the type of waste streams and processes involved, formulated certain opinions regarding the constituents that would most likely be found.... ” Plaintiffs Response to Certain Defendants’ Motion to Exclude, p. 2. According to plaintiff, the nature and characteristics of old waste streams are “rarely capable of scientific validation because the subject waste has been released into the environment, and the actual waste stream as produced by the generator is not available.” Id. p. 3. With respect to defendants’ claim that proposed expert Meyer does not meet the Daubert standards, plaintiff argues that “the inability to scientifically analyze and test waste streams is not fatal to the use of expert testimony in CERCLA cases.” Id. (citing B.F. Goodrich v. Betkoski 99 F.3d 505 (2d Cir.1996), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 118 S.Ct. 2318, 141 L.Ed.2d 694 (1998)). This Court is required, pursuant to Daubert and its progeny, to inquire into whether Meyer’s proposed expert testimony reflects valid scientific knowledge and whether the proffered expert testimony is relevant to the case at hand. See Smelser, 105 F.3d at 303. Applying the Daubert factors, the Court finds that Meyer’s proposed testimony does not comply with the Daubert standards. The proposed expert’s testimony does not reflect a “theory or technique” that can and has been tested. Additionally, as Meyer admitted, he can point to no peer reviewed standards for the work he performed. He has not computed a “known or potential rate of error,” nor has he identified “standards controlling the technique’s operation.” Most importantly, plaintiff has not demonstrated that Meyer’s theory or technique enjoys “general acceptance” within a “relevant scientific community.” The record is utterly lacking in any indicia that would establish any of the Daubert factors. Nevertheless, plaintiff argues that Dau-bert ’s requirements should be found inapplicable in CERCLA actions, or, in any ease, that there exists a CERCLA exception to Daubert’s standards for admitting scientific evidence. In an attempt to support such proposition, plaintiff is only able to cite one case, Goodrich v. Betkoski, supra. In that case, also involving a CERCLA action to recover clean-up costs, the Second Circuit found an expert’s affidavit “highly probative” and allowed its admission. See Betkoski, 99 F.3d at 526. The expert’s affidavit related to whether certain chemicals were contained in waste from various sources disposed of at landfills. See id. In reaching this decision, the Second Circuit remarked that “a CERCLA plaintiff is not required to prove its case with scientific certainty; a preponderance of the evidence is enough” and that “[environmental science, like epidemiology, ‘is ill-suited to lead a factfinder toward definitive answers, dealing as it does in statistical probabilities.’ ” Id. at 525-26 (quoting In Re Joint Eastern & Southern Dist. Asbestos Litig., 52 F.3d 1124, 1133 (2d Cir.1995)). Plaintiffs rebanee on Betkoski is misplaced. ■ That case is factually distinguishable from the case at bar. The expert in that case utilized “EPA reports concerning municipal and industrial landfills in the United States and he set forth the types of hazardous substances found in waste streams generated by households, commercial establishments, institutions, and industries.” Id. at 524. The court specifically found that the expert’s affidavit was “carefully researched, detailed, and directly relevant to [the] case.” Id. at 525. By contrast, in the case at bar, by his own admissions proposed expert Meyer conducted no research or literature search. He proffered nothing except his “experience” to support his conclusions that residual solids remained in the various defendants’ waste. No representation was made as to the alleged quantity of hazardous substances which may have remained in defendants’ waste or as to the likehhood that such substances were transhipped from Berlin & Farro to the Forest Waste Site. In addition, and more importantly, this Court does not find that Betkoski represents an exception to Daubert’s gatekeeping obligation, especially in light of recent Sixth Circuit and Supreme Court case law. See, especially, Kalamazoo River Study Group v. Rockwell Int’l Corp., 171 F.3d 1065 (6th Cir.1999) (affirming trial court’s decision in a CERCLA case to strike proposed expert’s affidavit as based on “speculation, conjecture, and possibility” and affirming trial court’s holding that the “inadequate factual basis” made the proposed expert’s affidavit “scientifically unreliable”); Kumho Tire Co., Ltd. v. Carmichael, — U.S. —, 119 S.Ct. 1167, 143 L.Ed.2d 238, 1999 U.S. LEXIS 2189 (Mar. 23, 1999) (holding that Dau-bert ’s “gatekeeping” obligation, requiring an inquiry into both relevance and reliability, applies not only to “scientific” testimony, but to all expert testimony); see also U.S. v. SCA Services of Indiana, Inc., 1995 WL 569634, *4-*6 (N.D.Ind. Aug.15, 1995) (striking affidavit in CERC-LA action on Daubert grounds); Burns Philp Food, Inc. v. Cavalea Continental Freight, Inc., 135 F.3d 526, 530-31 (7th Cir.1998) (stating that “[district judges have an obligation to ensure that purportedly scientific expert testimony is reliable” and affirming trial court’s exclusion of expert’s affidavit on Daubert grounds). In light of the foregoing considerations, this Court finds that proposed expert Meyer’s testimony does not meet the Daubert requirement of scientific reliability. Meyer is unable to substantiate his conclusions with any source other than his own “experience.” Plaintiff has failed to meet its burden of establishing that Meyer’s conclusions are “based on sound science” by the “objective, independent validation of the expert’s methodology.” Smelser, 105 F.3d at 303. Meyer has utterly failed to point to any “objective source — a learned treatise, the policy statement of a professional association, a published article in a reputable scientific journal or the like — to show that [he] has followed the scientific method.... ” Daubert, 43 F.3d at 1319. Meyer’s “conclusions” repeated almost verbatim with respect to each identified defendant represent nothing more than the proposed expert’s ipse dixit. As such, his testimony it is inadmissible. See Gen. Elec. Co. v. Joiner, 522 U.S. 136, 118 S.Ct. 512, 139 L.Ed.2d 508 (1997) (holding that district court is not required to admit opinion evidence which is connected to existing data only by ipse dixit of the expert; court may conclude that there is simply too great an analytical gap between the data and the opinion proffered). Because this Court has found the proposed expert’s testimony to be scientifically unreliable' under Daubert, the Court need not consider defendants’ two alternate grounds for excluding the proposed testimony, i.e., that Meyer’s opinions are based upon a misunderstanding of the underlying facts and that he has failed to express opinions which are relevant to establishing whether defendants’ wastes were transhipped to the Forest Waste Site. Even assuming arguendo that Meyer’s conclusions in his report were able to pass muster under Daubert, the Court nevertheless notes that the proposed testimony is unreliable for a further reason: it is based upon an apparent misconception of the facts regarding Berlin & Farro’s decanting methods. Meyer testified at his deposition as follows: I am making these statements about the ability of various wastes to flow or pour in connection with my general understanding that these wastes are arriving at Berlin & Farro where the employees are intentionally decanting only the ... liquid for subsequent incineration and leaving the solid in the drum. See Exh. 1 to Certain Defendants’ Motion to Exclude Expert Opinions of Eugene Meyer, pp. 394-95 (emphasis added). This assumption of “intentional” decanting of only the liquid portion of the waste is at odds with the unrebutted evidence' presented by certain defendants that employees at Berlin & Farro made every effort to empty the drums and that any substance that would flow and that could be poured from the drums would be incinerated. See Brief in Support of Certain Defendants’ Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment and in Opposition to Plaintiffs Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, § B.l, pp. 6-10 (citing Aff. of Charles Berlin ¶¶ 8-10 and Depo. of Frank Farro, pp. 18-19 and 29, contained within Joint Transcripts and Affidavits). In their reply brief, certain defendants note that proposed expert Meyer has now filed a new affidavit contradicting his prior deposition testimony relating to his assumption that Berlin & Farro employees had intentionally decanted only the liquid portion of the waste. See Reply Brief in Support of Certain Defendants’ Motion to Exclude Expert Opinions of Eugene Meyer, p. 4 (citing new Affidavit of Dr. Eugene Meyer, attached as Exh. C to Plaintiffs Response). However, this Court is not bound to accept the assertions contained in the new affidavit. In fact, it is well-established that'a plaintiff may not “create a factual issue for the purpose of defeating a motion for summary judgment by filing an affidavit contradicting a statement the plaintiff [or, in this case, plaintiffs expert] made in a prior deposition.” Jones v. General Motors Corp., 939 F.2d 380, 385 (6th Cir.1991) (citing Reid v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 790 F.2d 453, 460 (6th Cir.1986); Biechele v. Cedar Point, Inc., 747 F.2d 209, 215 (6th Cir.1984)); see also Plaskon Electronic Materials, Inc. v. Allied-Signal Inc., 904 F.Supp. 644, 663-64 (N.D.Ohio 1995) (applying the rule in the context of a. CERCLA case). Accordingly, the Court will grant certain defendants’ motion to exclude expert opinions of Eugene Meyer on the basis that his proposed testimony is scientifically unreliable under Daubert. In the alternative, Dr. Meyer’s opinions appear to be premised upon a misconception concerning the nature of Berlin & Farro’s decanting process, and therefore may also be excluded as factually suspect. IV. MOTION 2: DEFENDANT PHAR-MACIA & UPJOHN COMPANY’S MOTION TO DISQUALIFY EUGENE MEYER, PH.D. FROM TESTIFYING AGAINST DEFENDANT PHARMACIA & UPJOHN COMPANY In addition to certain defendants’ motion discussed above, defendant Pharmacia & Upjohn Company has filed its own motion to disqualify Eugene Meyer. This motion was filed on February 1, 1999. Plaintiff submitted its response on March 18, 1999. Defendant Pharmacia & Upjohn Company filed a reply brief on April 9,1999. Defendant Pharmacia & Upjohn Company brings its motion to disqualify proposed expert Meyer based on two related grounds: (1) that Meyer and defendant company had executed a valid confidentiality agreement relating to a prior case unrelated to the instant litigation and (2) that an impermissible conflict of interest has arisen out of Meyer’s prior work for defendant company. Since this Court has already ruled that proposed expert Meyer’s testimony must be excluded as scientifically unreliable under Daubert, the instant motion to disqualify is now moot. Accordingly, the Court need not enter into a discussion of the' merits of the instant motion and will deny as moot defendant Pharmacia & Upjohn Company’s motion to disqualify proposed expert Eugene Meyer. V. MOTIONS 3 AND 4: PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND CERTAIN DEFENDANTS’ CROSS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT On August 27', 1998, plaintiff Freeport-McMoran Resource Partners Limited Partnership (“Freeport”) filed a motion for partial summary judgment. Plaintiff seeks a ruling from this Court on liability with a subsequent trial to be held to determine damages. As indicated above, the instant motion is brought against the following 15 defendants.: (1) B-B Paint Corporation, (2) Bradford White Corporation, (3) Brunswick Corporation, (4) Chemical Recovery Systems Inc., (5) Chemetron Corporation, (6) Ciba Specialty Chemicals Corporation, (7) Eagle Ottowa Leather Company, (8) International Harvester/Navistar, (9) Keeler Brass Company, (10) Knape & Vogt Manufacturing Company, Inc., (11) Knoll, Inc./Shaw Walker, (12) Motor Products-Owosso Corporation, (13) Rowe International, (14) U.S. Chemical Co., Inc. and (15) Pharmacia &'Upjohn Co. In addition, on January 29, 1999, plaintiff filed a separate motion for partial summary judgment against defendant William Greenway. On February 1, 1999, certain defendants submitted a brief in support of certain defendants’ cross-motion for summary judgment and in opposition to plaintiffs motion for partial summary judgment. These “certain defendants” consist of the following twelve defendants: (1) Bradford White Corporation, (2) Brunswick Corporation, (3) Chemetron Corporation, (4) Ciba Specialty Chemicals Corporation, (5) Eagle Ottowa Leather Company, (6) International Harvester/Navistar, (7) Keeler Brass Company, (8) Knape & Vogt Manufacturing Company, Inc., (9) Knoll, Inc./ Shaw Walker, (10) Motor Products-Owos-so Corporation, (11) Pharmacia & Upjohn, and (12) Rowe International. Also on February 1, 1999, defendant B-B Paint Corporation filed its own motion for summary judgment. On February 16, 1999, defendant William Greenway filed his own motion for summary judgment against plaintiff. On March 18, 1999, plaintiff submitted its response to certain defendants’ motion for summary judgment and reply in support of plaintiffs motion for partial summary judgment. Finally, on April 8, 1999, certain defendants submitted their reply brief in support of cross-motion for summary judgment. The discussion below will focus on plaintiffs motion for partial summary judgment and on certain defendants’ response and cross-motion for summary judgment. A. LEGAL STANDARD Pursuant to Rule 56(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, summary judgment may be granted “if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” “A fact is ‘material’ and precludes grant of summary judgment if proof of that fact would have [the] effect of establishing or refuting one of the essential elements of the cause of action or defense asserted by the parties, and would necessarily affect [the] application of appropriate principle^] of law to the rights and obligations of the parties.” Kendall v. Hoover Co., 751 F.2d 171, 174 (6th Cir.1984) (citation omitted). In evaluating a motion for summary judgment, the Court must view the evidence in a light most favorable to the nonmovant, as well as draw all reasonable inferences in the nonmovant’s favor. See U.S. v. Diebold, 369 U.S. 654, 655, 82 S.Ct. 993, 8 L.Ed.2d 176 (1962); Bender v. Southland Corp., 749 F.2d 1205, 1210-11 (6th Cir.1984). The movant bears the burden of demonstrating the absence of all genuine issues of material fact. See Gregg v. Allen-Bradley Co., 801 F.2d 859, 861 (6th Cir.1986). This burden “may be discharged by showing ... that there is an absence of evidence to support the nonmoving party’s case.” Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 325, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986). Once the moving party discharges that burden, the burden shifts to the non-moving party to set forth specific facts showing a genuine triable issue. Fed. R.Civ.Proc. 56(e); Gregg, 801 F.2d at 861. To create a genuine issue of material fact, however, the nonmovant must do more than present some evidence on a disputed issue. As the United States Supreme Court stated in Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., [t]here is no issue for trial unless there is sufficient evidence favoring the non-moving party for a jury to return a verdict for that party. If the [nonmov-ant’s] evidence is merely colorable, or is not significantly probative, summary judgment may be granted. 477 U.S. 242, 249-50, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986). See Catrett, 477 U.S. at 322-23, 106 S.Ct. 2548; Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586-87, 106 S.Ct. 1348, 89 L.Ed.2d 538 (1986). The evidence itself need , not be presented in a form which would be admissible at trial. See North American Specialty Ins. Co. v. Myers, 111 F.3d 1273, 1283 (1997). The evidence must be more than the nonmovant’s own pleadings and affidavits. Ashbrook v. Block, 917 F.2d 918, 921 (6th Cir.1990). B. ANALYSIS 1. CERCLA’S SECTION 113(F) ACTION FOR CONTRIBUTION AND THE ELEMENTS OF THE PRIMA FACIE CASE CERCLA provides for two methods whereby parties may recover response costs incurred as a result of an environmental clean-up effort. The first cause of action is governed by CERCLA Section 107(a), 42 U.S.C. § 9607(a), and sets forth the requirements for joint and several liability. Such an action may be brought by the government or by innocent parties who have incurred response costs. See Kalamazoo River Study Group v. Rockwell Int’l Corp., 3 F.Supp.2d 799, 805 (W.D.Mich.1998), affd, 171 F.3d 1065 (6th Cir.1999). The second method is an action for contribution brought by a potentially responsible party (PRP) against another PRP pursuant to CERCLA Section 113(f), 42 U.S.C. § 9613(f). In the case at bar, plaintiff, itself a PRP, has brought contribution claims for clean-up costs against several potentially liable defendants pursuant to CERCLA Section 113(f), 42 U.S.C. § 9613(f). Indeed, plaintiff as a PRP itself is barred under Sixth Circuit case law from bringing its claim under Section 107(a) for joint and several liability. See Centerior Svc. Co. v. Acme Scrap Iron & Metal Corp., 153 F.3d 344, 351 (6th Cir.1998) (holding that cost recovery action by PRPs who were compelled by EPA order to initiate hazardous waste site cleanup who sought cleanup costs' from other PRPs was necessarily an action for contribution, and was therefore governed by CERCLA’s contribution provision, rather than provision governing joint and several cost recovery actions, regardless of whether plaintiff PRPs had settled with EPA or had been adjudged liable under CERCLA). As a consequence, this Court must examine plaintiffs claims under the rules for evaluating Section 113(f) claims and not under the somewhat different rules applicable in Section 107(a) actions. As another federal court located in Michigan recently remarked in a similar case, [a] number of courts have recognized a distinction between a cost recovery action brought by the government or other innocent party, and a contribution action brought by one PRP against another. As this Court noted in its opinion on the motions for partial summary judgment, an action for contribution under § 113(f) differs in material respects from a cost recovery action under § 107. There is a difference in the applicable statute of limitations, and there is a difference in whether Lability will be several or joint. There is also a difference occasioned by the application of equitable contribution principles in § 113(f) actions. The contours of all CERCLA claims by and between PRPs who contributed waste to a site are governed by the equitable contribution principles of § 113(f). Sun Co., Inc. (® & M) v. Browning-Ferris, Inc., 124 F.3d 1187, 1191 (10th Cir.1997). These equitable contribution principles permit the court to consider whether or to what degree the defendant caused the response costs in a § 113(f) contribution action. But see Premium Plastics v. LaSalle National Bank, 904 F.Supp. 809, 815 (N.D.Ill.1995) (“CERCLA in no way states or implies that private plaintiffs bear a heavier burden of proof than government plaintiffs.”). Kalamazoo River, 3 F.Supp.2d at 805 (Bell, J.) (footnotes omitted). It having been firmly established that plaintiff is limited to a Section 113(f) action for contribution, this Court will next explore the prima facie elements of such an action. Despite the differences between the two actions, mentioned above, the prima facie elements under both Section 107 and Section 113 are as follows: (1) there was a release or threatened release of a hazardous substance; (2) the site of the release or threatened release is a “facility” as defined in 42 U.S.C. § 9601(9); ' (3) the release or threatened release has caused the plaintiff to incur “necessary costs of response”; and (4) the defendant falls within one of the four categories of PRPs as set forth in 42 U.S.C. § 9607(a) See 42 U.S.C. § 9607(a); see also Centerior, 153 F.3d at 348; Kalamazoo River, 3 F.Supp.2d at 805; ABB Indus. Sys. v. Prime Technology, Inc., 120 F.3d 351, 356 (2d Cir.1997); FMC Corp. v. Aero Indus., Inc., 998 F.2d 842, 845 (10th Cir.1993) (citing Amoco Oil Co. v. Borden, Inc., 889 F.2d 664, 668 (5th Cir.1989)); Plaskon Electronic Materials, Inc. v. Allied-Signal, Inc., 904 F.Supp. 644, 659 (N.D.Ohio 1995). In addition, “[i]n actions seeking contribution [under Section 113(f) ], unlike those for joint and several cost recovery, the burden is placed on the plaintiff to establish the defendant’s equitable share of response costs.” Centerior, 153 F.3d at 348 (citing Adhesives Research Inc. v. American Inks & Coatings Corp., 931 F.Supp. 1231, 1244 n. 13 (M.D.Pa.1996) and United States v. Taylor, 909 F.Supp. 355, 361 (M.D.N.C.1995)). “Liability is not joint and several, but merely several.” Id. (citing United States v. Conservation Chemical Co., 619 F.Supp. 162, 229 (W.D.Mo.1985)). Pursuant to Section 107(a), “responsible person” is defined as a party who falls within one of following four categories: (1) the owner and operator of a vessel or a facility, (2) any person who at the time of disposal of any hazardous substance owned or operated any facility at which such hazardous substances were disposed of, (3) any person who by contract, agreement, or otherwise arranged for disposal or treatment, or arranged with a transporter for transport for disposal or treatment, of hazardous substances owned or possessed by such person, by any other party or entity, at any facility or incineration vessel owned or operated by another party or entity and containing such hazardous substances, and (4) any person who accepts or accepted any hazardous substances for transport to disposal or treatment facilities, incineration vessels or sites selected by such person, from which there is a release, or a threatened release which causes the incurrence of response costs, of a hazardous substance.... 42 U.S.C. § 9607(a). Plaintiff relies on the third alternative definition of “responsible person,” seeking to establish so-called “generator liability” on the part of each defendant. According to plaintiff, defendants generated and arranged for the disposal of drummed waste at the Berlin & Farro Site during January 1, 1975 through July 19, 1975. See Plaintiffs Brief, p. 18. Further, plaintiff claims that such drummed waste was commingled and became unidentifiable at the Berlin & Farro Site. Id. At some point thereafter the drams sent to the Berlin & Farro Site, after being drained of all liquids, were transhipped from the Berlin & Farro Site to the Forest Waste Site. Id. at p. 19 (citing Exhs. 4, 5, and 6). Despite being drained of liquids, plaintiff contends that said drums still contained solids, sludges or residues. Id. To establish “generator liability” under CERCLA, plaintiff, at a minimum, must establish that defendants’ hazardous wastes were deposited at the site from which a release occurred. In an extensive opinion dealing with the summary judgment standard and its application in CERCLA causes of action, the United States District Court for the Northern District of Indiana stated that plaintiffs [in such cases] bear the burden on two factual issues: (1) whether each defendant’s hazardous waste was disposed of at the Site; and (2) whether the hazardous substances similar to those contained in each defendant’s waste were present at the Site. First, if the plaintiffs do not prove that each defendant’s hazardous waste was disposed of at the Site, the court need not reach the second issue — whether hazardous substances similar to those contained in each defendant’s waste were present at the Site. Second, logic dictates that if the plaintiffs cannot prove (even by inference) what, if any, hazardous substances were in each defendant’s waste, then the plaintiffs cannot prove that hazardous substances similar to those contained in each defendant’s waste were present at the Site. Dana Corp. v. American Standard, Inc., 866 F.Supp.. 1481,1500 (N.D.Ind.1994); see Acme Printing Ink Co. v. Menard, Inc., 891 F.Supp. 1289,1296 (E.D.Wis.1995). The Dana court also set forth the following helpful commentary regarding application of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 in the context of a CERCLA case, such as the one presently before this Court: Summarizing the discussion of the summary judgment and CERCLA standards, the plaintiffs’ obligation under Rule 56 is no different because this is a CERCLA case. The plaintiffs must present evidence which, when all reasonable inferences are drawn in the plaintiffs’ favor, is sufficient to allow a trier of fact to find that it is more likely than not that a given defendant sent identifiable hazardous waste to the site in question. As in every summary judgment case, the defendants have no burden of proving the contrary, but merely must point out the alleged defects in the plaintiffs’ proof. That CERCLA is a remedial statute does not affect the operation of Rule 56. Because reasonable, permissive inferences must be drawn in the plaintiffs’ favor at the summary judgment stage, the plaintiffs need not present eyewitness testimony providing a complete chain of custody of hazardous waste from a defendant to the landfill. It is sufficient if circumstances allow an inference from which a trier of fact could make a finding by a preponderance of the evidence. So, in several cases cited by the plaintiffs, courts have held that if the plaintiffs show that a defendant generated a predictable and relatively consistent waste stream that included hazardous waste of a sort ultimately found at the site, and that defendant’s waste was regularly taken to the site, an inference that the waste found at the site came from that defendant is permissible and is sufficient to defeat a summary judgment motion, even if it would not ultimately be sufficient to persuade the trier of fact. As in any summary judgment case, the plaintiffs must make their showing, whether directly or indirectly, through evidence that has probative value, meaning there must be something more than testimony that something “could be” or “might be” — in other words, there must be evidence of something beyond a witness effectively saying that “anything’s possible”, because such evidence is not sufficient to support a finding. Dana, 866 F.Supp. at 1497-98. At the outset, it is clear from the record that plaintiff is able to establish that there is no genuine issue of material fact with respect to three out of the four elements of its prima facie case. First, plaintiff has demonstrated that there was “a release or threatened release of a hazardous substance” at the Forest Waste Site. This 'is evidenced by the hazardous substances found in the soil and groundwater at the site. See EPA Declaration for the Record of Decision dated March 31, 1988, attached as Exh. 2 to Plaintiffs Brief. Second, plaintiff has shown that the Forest Waste Site is a “facility,” as that term is defined in CERCLA. As the Act provides, the term “facility” means “any site or area where a hazardous substance has been deposited, stored, disposed of, or placed, or otherwise come to be located....” 42 U.S.C. § 9601(9). As previously stated, there is no question that hazardous substances were disposed of at the Forest Waste Site, and thus this site qualifies under this definition as a “facility.” Moreover, in 1982, the EPA placed the Forest Waste Site on the National Priorities List due to releases of hazardous substances, and subsequently ordered response actions for the cleanup of the site. See Aff. of Stephanie Gordinier, attached as Exh. 1 to Plaintiffs Brief. Third, there appears to be no dispute that the release of hazardous substances has resulted in plaintiffs having to incur “necessary costs of response.” See id. As Ms. Gordinier, plaintiffs senior environmental engineer, testified, “[w]ith respect to the landfill area of the Forest Waste Site, response action have included field investigations, excavation and offsite treatment of soil and drums, the installation of RCRA cap, operation and maintenance of the cap system, installation of groundwater monitoring wells, groundwater investigations, and monitoring.” Id. ¶ 8. To date, according to Ms. Gordinier, the response costs relating to the landfill portion of the Forest Waste Site have totaled more than $10 million, of which plaintiff has paid approximately $ 2.3 million. Id. ¶ 9. As defendants do not contest these three elements in their responsive brief, the Court’s examination will focus on the fourth and crucial element of plaintiffs prima facie case. This element, as mentioned above, concerns the identification of each defendant as a “responsible party” as that term is defined in 42 U.S.C. § 9607(a). In the context of summary judgment motions, such as the present ones, the moving party must present evidence sufficient to show the absence of all genuine issues of material fact. See Gregg v. Allen-Bradley Co., 801 F.2d 859, 861 (6th Cir.1986). This burden “may be discharged by showing ... that there is an absence of evidence to support the nonmoving party’s case.” Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 325, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986). Once the moving party discharges that burden, the burden shifts to the nonmoving party to set forth specific facts showing a genuine triable issue. Fed.R.Civ.Proc. 56(e); Gregg, 801 F.2d at 861. The discussion below will examine whether the moving party has met its initial burden and whether the responding party has set forth facts showing a triable issue. 2. THE CAUSATION ISSUE At the root of the disagreement between the parties is the issue of causation. Specifically, the parties are in dispute as to the appropriate standard of causation which should be applied to determine “generator liability” in the instant case. Plaintiff argues for strict liability, i.e., that it is not necessary to show that a particular defendant intended or knew that its waste had been sent to the site in question. See U.S. v. Cannons Engineering Corp., 720 F.Supp. 1027 (D.Mass.1989), affd, 899 F.2d 79 (1st Cir.1990). It is also not necessary, according to plaintiff, to trace the release of hazardous waste to a particular generator to establish liability. U.S. v. Distler, 803 F.Supp. 46 (W.D.Ky. 1992). Furthermore, plaintiff maintains that liability under CERCLA may be imposed so long as “hazardous substances ‘like’ those contained in the defendant’s waste were found at the site.” U.S. v. Fairchild Indus. Inc., 766 F.Supp. 405, 415 (D.Md.1991). Certain defendants argue in response that Distler is distinguishable from the case at bar. This Court agrees. Distler involved a claim brought by an innocent party under CERCLA, Section 107(a) and not, as in the case at hand, a claim brought by a potentially responsible party under CERCLA, Section 113(f). As the Eighth Circuit recognized in Farmland Industries v. Morrisoru-Quirk Grain Corp., 987 F.2d 1335 (8th Cir.1993), a different standard of causation applies in a case brought by the government as' opposed to a case brought by a PRP. In a Section 107(a) action, “liability to the United States for CERCLA response costs is a matter of strict liability ... Liability, therefore, is not dependent on any showing of causation or fault.” Id. at 1339. However, a private party cannot predicate a claim for contribution solely upon Section 107, “but must also prove causation.” Id. at 1340. As several federal district courts have noted, the so-called “alternative liability doctrine” which allows a plaintiff to shift the burden of proving liability to two or more potentially liable defendants is only available “when the party seeking to invoke the doctrine is blameless [which is not the situation in the present case].” New Jersey Turnpike Authority v. PPG Industries, Inc., 16 F.Supp.2d 460, 471 (D.N.J.1998) (rejecting plaintiffs attempt to shift burden of proof to defendants in a CERCLA Section 113(f) action); Kalamazoo River Study Group v. Rockwell Int’l Corp., 3 F.Supp.2d 799, 804 (W.D.Mich. 1998), affd, 171 F.3d 1065 (6th Cir.1999) (emphasizing the distinction between cost recovery action brought by government or other innocent party and a contribution action brought by one PRP against another);. Acushnet Co. v. Coaters, Inc., 937 F.Supp. 988, 998 (D.Mass.1996) (same). This precise issue was recently settled by the Sixth Circuit in a decision handed down on March 26, 1999, after the filing of certain defendants’ brief on February 1, 1999. See Kalamazoo River Study Group v. Rockwell Int’l Corp., 171 F.3d 1065 (6th Cir.1999). In that case, the appellate court held that “[i]n a ‘two-site’ case ... where hazardous substances are released at one site and allegedly travel to a second site, in order to make out a prima facie case, the plaintiff must establish a causal connection between the defendant’s release of hazardous substances and the plaintiffs response costs incurred in cleaning them up.” Id. at 1068 (citing Thomas v. FAG Bearings Corp., 846 F.Supp. 1382, 1387 (W.D.Mo.1994)). In light of the Sixth Circuit’s recent ruling in Kalamazoo, this Court must reject plaintiffs attempt to apply strict liability. Instead, plaintiff will be required to prove causation, in other words, plaintiff “must proffer evidence sufficient to support a finding that hazardous substances traceable to the defendant are in nature, quantity, and durability sufficient [to impose liability].” Kalamazoo River Study Group v. Rockwell Int’l Corp., 3 F.Supp.2d 799, 806 (W.D.Mich.1998) (citing Acushnet Co. v. Coaters, Inc. (“Acushnet II”), 948 F.Supp. 128,136 (D.Mass.1996)). 3. WHETHER THERE EXISTS EVIDENCE SUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT A FINDING OF A GENUINE ISSUE OF MATERIAL FACT WITH RESPECT TO EACH OF THE RESPONDING DEFENDANTS. In order to evaluate plaintiffs motion for partial summary judgment, it will be necessary to review the evidence proffered by plaintiff as to each defendant to determine whether plaintiff has satisfied its burden of demonstrating the existence of an absence of any genuine issue of material fact pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56. In addition, for the sake of efficiency, the Court will at the same time also consider any evidence submitted by defendants in support of their own cross-motion for summary judgment. It should also be noted that the plaintiff relies heavily on the proposed expert testimony of Eugene Meyer throughout its brief in support of its motion for partial summary judgment. For the reasons stated above, the Court has ruled Meyer’s testimony inadmissible and thus will not consider such testimony in evaluating the parties’ summary judgment motions. (1) DEFENDANT BRADFORD WHITE CORPORATION Plaintiff has produced Michigan Department of Natural Resources Liquid Industrial Waste Removal Records (hereinafter “MDNR records”) purporting to show that 131 drums of waste were sent to Berlin & Farro by defendant Bradford White Corporation (“Bradford White”). See Exh. 10 to Plaintiffs Brief. Plaintiff alleges that these drums contained waste solvents and paint, spent trichloroenthylene and used engine oil. See Exhs. 10-11 to Plaintiffs Brief. Plaintiff relies on the deposition of Wayne Johnson and the testimony of proposed expert witness Eugene Meyer. For the reasons set forth above, the Court shall not consider Meyer’s testimony. Defendant Bradford White has presented the affidavit of Mike Ward in-support of its position that any wastes from painting operations would have contained only a minimal quantity of paint. Wayne Johnson is manager of manufacturing engineering for defendant Bradford White and is currently responsible for environmental matters at the company. See Johnson Depo., pp. 4-5, attached as Exh. 11 to Plaintiffs Brief in Support of Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. Mr. Johnson at his deposition testified that the “waste liquid” produced by Bradford White could have been either a mixture of solvent and hydraulic oil, or trichloroethy-lene and oil from a degreasing operation, or spent trichloroethylene from washing of parts from truck serviced at the company’s garage. See Johnson Depo. pp. 11-12. After reviewing Mr. Johnson’s deposition in its entirety, the Court finds that the testimony contained therein does not raise a genuine issue of material fact. Plaintiff, relying upon the deposition testimony of Wayne Johnson, has failed to proffer any evidence that hazardous substances traceable to defendant Bradford White were transhipped from Berlin & Farro to the Forest Waste Site. Accordingly, the Court will deny plaintiffs motion for partial summary judgment as to defendant Bradford White Corporation. With respect to certain defendants’ motion for summary judgment, defendants cite the affidavit of Mike Ward, a Bradford White employee who is responsible for maintenance of the paint booths. See Aff. of Mike Ward, ¶ 2. Mr. White testifies that prior to 1982, Bradford White utilized a paint which was much less susceptible to dripping into the hydraulic ram pit beneath the paint booths than paint that was utilized subsequent to 1982. Id. ¶¶ 4 and 7. He also attests that prior to 1982, little if any paint was present in the liquid which had to be removed from the paint booth pits as a result, of hydraulic leaks. The Court finds that the evidence submitted by defendant Bradford White in the form of deposition testimony of Wayne Johnson and the affidavit of Mike Ward support defendant’s position that none of the drummed wastes sent to Berlin & Far-ro contained any appreciable quantities of residual solids. In fact, the testimony of these witnesses supports a finding that the wastes attributable to defendant company, i.e., oils, trichloroethylene, and paint solvents .would have been removed from drums in which they were transported and incinerated at Berlin & Farro. As indicated above, plaintiff has offered no admissible evidence to rebut the testimony of defendant’s employees. The Court therefore finds that defendant has met its burden of demonstrating an absence of any genuine issue of material fact. Accordingly, the Court will grant certain defendants’ motion for summary judgment as to defendant Bradford White Corporation. (2) DEFENDANT BRUNSWICK CORPORATION Plaintiff has produced MDNR records purporting to show that 224 drums of waste were sent to Berlin & Farro by defendant Brunswick Corporation (“Brunswick”). See Exh. 12 to Plaintiffs Brief. Plaintiff alleges that these drums contained paint sludge and resin/methylene chloride. See Exh. 12-