Carroll v. John Crane, Inc. (W.D. Wis., July 13, 2017)

Our plain-English summary of Carroll v. John Crane, Inc. (U.S. District Court, Western District of Wisconsin, July 13, 2017).

Patricia Carroll sued John Crane Inc. in federal court in Wisconsin, individually and as personal representative of the estate of her late husband, Ronald Kenneth Carroll. The order refers to mesothelioma and to asbestos fibers, but it does not describe his work, his exposure or the type of mesothelioma. It is a short pretrial order issued while the court prepared for a jury trial set for July 17, 2017. The judge ruled on motions about evidence. He denied the plaintiffs' objection to the timing of one set of deposition designations and reserved the rest. He let plaintiffs impeach the defendant's experts with outside evidence, reserving whether that evidence would be admitted. He granted the defendant's motions to exclude evidence of workers' compensation claims and evidence about job sites other than those where the plaintiff worked. He allowed plaintiffs' expert to testify that an asbestos fiber theoretically could cause mesothelioma, but not to suggest that this alone proves liability. Several other motions were reserved for later. The order does not decide who is liable.

We wrote this summary from the court's opinion with the help of AI. It is not the court's wording, and it is not legal advice. The full opinion is below.

The decision

• Court: U.S. District Court, Western District of Wisconsin
• Decided: July 13, 2017
• Docket: No. 15-cv-373-wmc
• Stage: Discovery or evidence ruling
• State: Wisconsin

Outcome. Ahead of the July 17, 2017 trial, the court granted some and denied some of the parties' evidentiary motions and reserved others, so neither Patricia Carroll nor John Crane Inc. clearly won.

What the court held. Plaintiffs' expert may say that an asbestos fiber theoretically could cause mesothelioma if the science supports it, but may not suggest that this alone shows liability. Plaintiffs may impeach defendant's experts with extrinsic evidence, with admission of that evidence reserved.

Issues decided: Expert Testimony, Trial Procedure and Discovery.

The people and their exposure

• Ronald Kenneth Carroll: mesothelioma; died

The defendants

• John Crane Inc.

Other decisions in this case

Other rulings from the same court in the same case, in our library:

• Carroll v. Abb, Inc. (April 12, 2017). The court granted summary judgment to ABB, Atwood & Morrill, A.W. Chesterton, Crane Co., Crosby Valve, Flowserve and Ingersoll Rand, and denied it to John Crane Inc., so the claims against John Crane, including punitive damages, proceed.
• Carroll v. John Crane, Inc. (July 7, 2017). Ahead of trial, the court denied plaintiffs' motions to exclude John Crane's experts Crapo, Roggli, Beasley, Henshaw and McCloskey, granted many unopposed motions from both sides, and reserved ruling on others, including bankruptcy-trust claims, settlements, and "every exposure" language.

The court's opinion

The text below is Google Scholar's copy of the court's opinion, a public record. Numbers in brackets, such as [*921], mark where each page of the printed reporter begins.

PATRICIA CARROLL, individually and as personal representative of THE ESTATE OF RONALD

KENNETH CARROLL, deceased, Plaintiff,

v.

JOHN CRANE INC., Defendant.

No. 15-cv-373-wmc.

July 13, 2017.

United States District Court, W.D. Wisconsin.

Estate of Ronald Kenneth Carroll, Plaintiff, represented by Sam Iola, Simon Greenstone Panatier Bartlett, PC. Estate of Ronald Kenneth Carroll, Plaintiff, represented by Steven Scott Schulte, Simon Greenstone Panatier Bartlett, PC, David Warren Henderson, Simon Greenstone Panatier Bartlett, PC & Craig Ronald Steger, Hale, Skemp, Hanson, Skemp & Sleik.

Patricia L. Carroll, Plaintiff, represented by Sam Iola, Simon Greenstone Panatier Bartlett, PC, Steven Scott Schulte, Simon Greenstone Panatier Bartlett, PC, David Warren Henderson, Simon Greenstone Panatier Bartlett, PC & Craig Ronald Steger, Hale, Skemp, Hanson, Skemp & Sleik.

John Crane, Inc., Defendant, represented by Daniel Raymond Griffin, O'Connell Tivin Miller & Burns LLC & Mark Ingram Tivin, O'Connell, Tivin, Miller & Burns.

John Crane, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Mark Ingram Tivin, O'Connell, Tivin, Miller & Burns. John Crane, Inc., Cross Claimant, represented by Daniel Raymond Griffin, O'Connell Tivin Miller & Burns LLC & Mark Ingram Tivin, O'Connell, Tivin, Miller & Burns.

John Crane, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Daniel Raymond Griffin, O'Connell Tivin Miller & Burns LLC, Mark Ingram Tivin, O'Connell, Tivin, Miller & Burns, Daniel Raymond Griffin, O'Connell Tivin Miller & Burns LLC, Mark Ingram Tivin, O'Connell, Tivin, Miller & Burns, Daniel Raymond Griffin, O'Connell Tivin Miller & Burns LLC, Mark Ingram Tivin, O'Connell, Tivin, Miller & Burns, Daniel Raymond Griffin, O'Connell Tivin Miller & Burns LLC, Mark Ingram Tivin, O'Connell, Tivin, Miller & Burns, Daniel Raymond Griffin, O'Connell Tivin Miller & Burns LLC, Mark Ingram Tivin, O'Connell, Tivin, Miller & Burns, Daniel Raymond Griffin, O'Connell Tivin Miller & Burns LLC & Mark Ingram Tivin, O'Connell, Tivin, Miller & Burns. John Crane, Inc., Counter Defendant, represented by Daniel Raymond Griffin, O'Connell Tivin Miller & Burns LLC & Mark Ingram Tivin, O'Connell, Tivin, Miller & Burns.

Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, Counter Defendant, represented by Smitha Chintamaneni, von Briesen & Roper. John Crane, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Daniel Raymond Griffin, O'Connell Tivin Miller & Burns LLC, Mark Ingram Tivin, O'Connell, Tivin, Miller & Burns & Megan Beth McCormick, O'Connell Tivin Miller & Burns LLC. John Crane, Inc., Counter Defendant, represented by Daniel Raymond Griffin, O'Connell Tivin Miller & Burns LLC, Mark Ingram Tivin, O'Connell, Tivin, Miller & Burns & Megan Beth McCormick, O'Connell Tivin Miller & Burns LLC. John Crane, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Daniel Raymond Griffin, O'Connell Tivin Miller & Burns LLC, Mark Ingram Tivin, O'Connell, Tivin, Miller & Burns & Megan Beth McCormick, O'Connell Tivin Miller & Burns LLC. John Crane, Inc., Counter Defendant, represented by Daniel Raymond Griffin, O'Connell Tivin Miller & Burns LLC, Mark Ingram Tivin, O'Connell, Tivin, Miller & Burns & Megan Beth McCormick, O'Connell Tivin Miller & Burns LLC. John Crane, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Daniel Raymond Griffin, O'Connell Tivin Miller & Burns LLC, Mark Ingram Tivin, O'Connell, Tivin, Miller & Burns & Megan Beth McCormick, O'Connell Tivin Miller & Burns LLC.

John Crane, Inc., Counter Defendant, represented by Daniel Raymond Griffin, O'Connell Tivin Miller & Burns LLC, Mark Ingram Tivin, O'Connell, Tivin, Miller & Burns & Megan Beth McCormick, O'Connell Tivin Miller & Burns LLC. John Crane, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Daniel Raymond Griffin, O'Connell Tivin Miller & Burns LLC, Mark Ingram Tivin, O'Connell, Tivin, Miller & Burns, Megan Beth McCormick, O'Connell Tivin Miller & Burns LLC, Daniel Raymond Griffin, O'Connell Tivin Miller & Burns LLC, Mark Ingram Tivin, O'Connell, Tivin, Miller & Burns, Megan Beth McCormick, O'Connell Tivin Miller & Burns LLC, Daniel Raymond Griffin, O'Connell Tivin Miller & Burns LLC, Mark Ingram Tivin, O'Connell, Tivin, Miller & Burns & Megan Beth McCormick, O'Connell Tivin Miller & Burns LLC.

John Crane, Inc., Cross Claimant, represented by Daniel Raymond Griffin, O'Connell Tivin Miller & Burns LLC, Mark Ingram Tivin, O'Connell, Tivin, Miller & Burns & Megan Beth McCormick, O'Connell Tivin Miller & Burns LLC. John Crane, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Daniel Raymond Griffin, O'Connell Tivin Miller & Burns LLC, Mark Ingram Tivin, O'Connell, Tivin, Miller & Burns, Megan Beth McCormick, O'Connell Tivin Miller & Burns LLC, Daniel Raymond Griffin, O'Connell Tivin Miller & Burns LLC, Mark Ingram Tivin, O'Connell, Tivin, Miller & Burns, Megan Beth McCormick, O'Connell Tivin Miller & Burns LLC, Daniel Raymond Griffin, O'Connell Tivin Miller & Burns LLC, Mark Ingram Tivin, O'Connell, Tivin, Miller & Burns, Megan Beth McCormick, O'Connell Tivin Miller & Burns LLC, Daniel Raymond Griffin, O'Connell Tivin Miller & Burns LLC, Mark Ingram Tivin, O'Connell, Tivin, Miller & Burns, Megan Beth McCormick, O'Connell Tivin Miller & Burns LLC, Daniel Raymond Griffin, O'Connell Tivin Miller & Burns LLC, Mark Ingram Tivin, O'Connell, Tivin, Miller & Burns & Megan Beth McCormick, O'Connell Tivin Miller & Burns LLC.

ORDER

WILLIAM M. CONLEY, District Judge.

This case is set for trial commencing on Monday, July 17, 2017, at 9:00 a.m. The court continued the final pretrial conference today, July 13, 2017, at which the parties appeared by counsel. The court made several rulings and set deadlines for additional filings during that hearing, which this order now formalizes.

ORDER

IT IS ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiffs' motion to strike the deposition designations of Robert Rygh (May 31, 2012) (dkt. #539) is DENIED IN PART AND RESERVED IN PART. Plaintiffs' objection to the designations as untimely is denied. In all other respects, the motion is reserved pending plaintiffs' filing of any further general, as well as specific, objections and any counter-designations, which is due by 12:00 p.m. on Friday, July 14.

2. Plaintiffs' sub-motion in limine No. 27 (dkt. #469) is GRANTED IN PART AND RESERVED IN PART. Plaintiffs may impeach defendant's experts with extrinsic evidence, but the court reserves as to the actual admission of this evidence if denied. For example, if defendant's experts deny that defendant funded certain research projects and papers, then the court will revisit whether evidence to this effect should be admitted during rebuttal.

3. With respect to certain reserved motions in defendant's omnibus motions in limine (dkt. #452): a. MIL No. 10: DENIED with respect to job sites where plaintiff worked and GRANTED with respect to all other job sites.

b. MIL No. 11: MOOTED by defendant's withdrawal.

c. MIL No. 12: GRANTED as unopposed.

d. MIL No. 15: GRANTED with respect to witness testimony and evidence, but DENIED with respect to argument.

4. Defendant's motion in limine to preclude evidence of workers' compensation claims (dkt. #454) is GRANTED as unopposed. Defendant's other motions in limine concerning post-exposure evidence (dkt. ##453, 455) are RESERVED. The court will take up defendant's objections with reference to possible relevance of specific exhibits to causation tomorrow.

5. Defendant's motion in limine to preclude "unscientific catch phrases in lieu of causation proof" (dkt. #456) is GRANTED as to that specific request, but plaintiffs' expert may testify to the extent the science supports it that an asbestos fiber theoretically could cause mesothelioma, so long as the expert does not suggest, and plaintiff does not argue, that this would be sufficient to demonstrate liability.

6. During the July 14, 2017, telephonic conference, defendant should be prepared to advise the court as to whether Dr. Springs is available to testify adversely during the plaintiffs' case-in-chief, and if so, on which day.

7. By 5:00 p.m. on Friday, July 14, 2017, plaintiffs should advice the court as to whether Dan Herman is available to testify in person.

8. The court will continue the final conference by telephone at 12:30 p.m. on Friday, July 14, 2017, to address issues remaining before trial. Plaintiff is responsible for setting up the call to Chambers at 608-264-5087.

Sources

• The opinion on Google Scholar
• Wisconsin asbestos laws
• Wisconsin asbestos exposure sites