Dempster v. Lamorak Ins. Co. (E.D. La., Sept. 16, 2020)

Our plain-English summary of Dempster v. Lamorak Ins. Co. (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana, September 16, 2020).

The family of Callen Dempster, who worked at the Avondale shipyard from 1962 to 1994, sued a number of companies and insurers. They allege he was exposed to asbestos and asbestos-containing products there and later developed asbestos-related cancer. He died in November 2018, and his heirs were substituted as plaintiffs. This opinion decided only an evidence question before trial. Amchem, joined by Foster Wheeler and General Electric, asked the court to bar Plaintiffs' Exhibit 1.157, the "Welch Paper," an amicus brief to the Michigan Supreme Court later published as an article arguing that asbestos dust from brakes causes mesothelioma. Both sides agreed it was hearsay, and Plaintiffs relied on the learned treatise exception. The court did not decide whether that exception applied. It excluded the paper under Rule 403 because it addressed brake dust rather than the exposures in this case, drew on information available elsewhere, and carried the signatures of over 51 researchers, which might lead the jury to give it undue weight. The motion was granted.

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, Eastern District of Louisiana
• Decided: September 16, 2020
• Citation: 487 F.Supp.3d 548
• Docket: CIVIL ACTION NO. 20-95
• Stage: Discovery or evidence ruling
• State: Louisiana

Outcome. The court granted Amchem's (joined by Foster Wheeler and General Electric) motion in limine and excluded Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 1.157, the Welch Paper, and any reference to it at trial.

What the court held. Even assuming the Welch Paper might qualify under the learned treatise exception of Rule 803(18), a court may exclude it under Rule 403 where its limited probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion, misleading the jury and cumulative evidence.

Issues decided: Expert Testimony, Trial Procedure and Discovery.

The people and their exposure

• Callen L. Dempster: asbestos-related cancer; died

Who	Work	Where	When	Products
Callen L. Dempster	employee of Avondale (shipyards and maritime work)	Avondale, Louisiana	1962-1994

The defendants

• Bayer CropScience, Inc., as Successor to Rhone-Poulenc AG Company, f/k/a Amchem Products, Inc., f/k/a Benjamin Foster Company (manufacturer)
• Foster Wheeler, LLC (manufacturer)
• General Electric Company (manufacturer)
• Huntington Ingalls Incorporated (employer)
• Lamorak Insurance Company (insurer)

Other decisions in this case

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

• Dempster v. Lamorak Insurance Co. (September 11, 2020). The district court denied the plaintiffs' Daubert motion, so defendant Amchem (Bayer CropScience) could present Dr. Paustenbach's testimony on removal and scraping of Benjamin Foster 81-27 adhesive.
• Dempster v. Lamorak Ins. Co. (September 21, 2020). The court granted in part and denied in part the Avondale Interests' motion in limine, barring plaintiffs' expert Dr. Kraus from comparing the decedent's death to Jesus Christ's crucifixion or making religious references about corporate sinning, but allowing him to compare the death to death by crucifixion.
• Dempster v. Lamorak Insurance Co. (September 21, 2020). The court granted in part and denied in part the Avondale defendants' motion in limine: it excluded evidence of non-asbestos injuries such as hearing loss suffered by family members and other non-parties, but it refused to bar evidence of asbestos-related illness in non-parties.
• Dempster v. Lamorak Ins. Co. (September 23, 2020). The court granted the motion in limine by Avondale, Bossier and Lamorak (joined by Foster Wheeler and General Electric), excluding evidence of Avondale accidents and regulatory citations unrelated to asbestos exposure; the plaintiffs lost this ruling.

Decisions this opinion cites

Earlier decisions in our library that the court cited:

• Schwartz v. Honeywell Internatl., Inc. (Ohio Court of Appeals, 8th Appellate District, 2016). The court affirmed the judgment for the plaintiffs against Honeywell on the jury verdict, reversed the directed verdict on punitive damages, and remanded for a new trial on punitive damages.
• Vedros v. Northrop Grumman Shipbuilding, Inc. (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana, 2015). The court granted in part and denied in part the defendants' motions to exclude Dr. Kraus: he was qualified and could testify on diagnosis and general causation, but could not give specific causation opinions based on the "every exposure above background" theory.

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.

487 F.Supp.3d 548 (2020)

Callen DEMPSTER et al.

v.

LAMORAK INSURANCE CO. etal.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 20-95.

Signed September 15, 2020.

Filed September 16, 2020.

United States District Court, E.D. Louisiana.

Gerolyn Petit Roussel, Benjamin Peter Dinehart, Jonathan Brett Clement, Lauren Roussel Clement, Perry Joseph Roussel, Jr., Roussel & Clement, Mandeville, LA, for Tanna Faye Dempster, Steven Louis Dempster, Janet Dempster Martinez, Marla Dempster Loupe, Callen Dempster, Jr., Annette Dempster Glad, Barnett Dempster.

Brian C. Bossier, Christopher Thomas Grace, III, Edwin A. Ellinghausen, III, Erin Helen Boyd, Jasmine Najee Brown, Laura M. Gillen, Whitney Charmaine Stewart, Blue Williams, LLP, Metairie, [*549] LA, Patrick Kevin Shockey, Husch Blackwell LLP, Chattanooga, TN, for Huntington Ingalls Incorporated.

McGready Lewis Richeson, Francis Xavier deBlanc, III, Milele N. St. Julien, Pugh, Accardo, Haas, Radecker & Carey, New Orleans, LA, Kevin M. Jordan, Jordan, Lynch & Cancienne, PLLC, Houston, TX, for Bayer CropScience, Inc.

Paula Marcello Wellons, Jared A. Davidson, Jonathan B. Womack, Mary Elizabeth Ingram, Taylor Wellons Politz & Duhe, APLC, New Orleans, LA, for Berkshire Hathaway Specialty Insurance Company.

Susan Beth Kohn, Daniel J. Caruso, Douglas Kinler, James R. Guidry, Simon, Peragine, Smith & Redfearn, LLP, New Orleans, LA, for Eagle, Inc.

John K. Nieset, Adrejia LaJoy Ann Boutte, James Aristide Holmes, Christovich & Kearney, LLP, New Orleans, LA, for First State Insurance Company.

John Joseph Hainkel, III, Angela M. Bowlin, James H. Brown, Jr., Kelly L. Long, Kelsey A. Eagan, Lacey Taylor McCoy, Magali Ann Puente-Martin, Frilot L.L.C., New Orleans, LA, Barry C. Campbell, Dogan & Wilkinson, PLLC, Metairie, LA, for Foster Wheeler, LLC.

John Joseph Hainkel, III, Angela M. Bowlin, James H. Brown, Jr., Kelly L. Long, Kelsey A. Eagan, Lacey Taylor McCoy, Magali Ann Puente-Martin, Frilot L.L.C., New Orleans, LA, Barry C. Campbell, Dogan & Wilkinson, PLLC, Metairie, LA, John M. Fitzpatrick, Pro Hac Vice, Wheeler Trigg O'Donnell, LLP, Denver, CO, for General Electric Company.

Kaye N. Courington, Blaine Augusta Moore, Brittney Bullock Ankersen, Jeffrey Matthew Burg, Mathilde Villere Semmes, Troy Nathan Bell, Courington, Kiefer, Sommers, Marullo & Matherne, New Orleans, LA, for Hopeman Brothers, Inc. David Allen Pote, Beahm & Green, New Orleans, LA, for Houston General Insurance Company.

Samuel Milton Rosamond, III, Adam Devlin deMahy, Francis Christopher Cannone, Taylor, Wellons, Politz & Duhe, APLC, New Orleans, LA, for Lamorak Insurance Company.

Katherine Osborne Hannan, Kristopher T. Wilson, Lugenbuhl, Wheaton, Peck, Rankin & Hubbard, New Orleans, LA, for United States Fidelity & Guaranty Company.

Gustave A. Fritchie, III, Alexander R. Saunders, David Michael Melancon, Timothy Farrow Daniels, Alex Tyler Robertson, Huber Thomas & Marcelle, Edward Winter Trapolin, Irwin Fritchie Urquhart & Moore, LLC, New Orleans, LA, for Albert Bossier, Jr., J. Melton Garrett.

Susan Beth Kohn, Douglas Kinler, James R. Guidry, Simon, Peragine, Smith & Redfearn, LLP, New Orleans, LA, for McCarty Corporation.

Mary Reeves Arthur, Amy Louise Maccherone, Forman, Watkins & Krutz LLP, New Orleans, LA, Elizabeth Riddell Penn, Forman, Watkins, & Krutz, LLP, Jackson, MS, for Uniroyal Inc.

Walter G. Watkins, III, Elizabeth Riddell Penn, Forman, Watkins, & Krutz, LLP, Jackson, MS, Daniel S. Roberts, Mary Reeves Arthur, Thomas Peyton Smith, Forman, Watkins & Krutz LLP, Jason K. Elam, Cosmich Simmons & Brown, PLLC, New Orleans, LA, for International Paper Company.

Julia Ann Dietz, Jill R. Menard, Keith A. Kornman, Renee F. Smith Auld, Degan, Blanchard & Nash, New Orleans, LA, for American Insurance Company.

Kaye N. Courington, Dawn Danna Marullo, Jamie M. Zanovec, Jeffrey Matthew Burg, Troy Nathan Bell, Courington, Kiefer, [*550] Sommers, Marullo & Matherne, New Orleans, LA, for Louisiana Insurance Guaranty Association.

Seth Andrew Schmeeckle, Katherine Osborne Hannan, Kristopher T. Wilson, Lugenbuhl, Wheaton, Peck, Rankin & Hubbard, New Orleans, LA, Carey Austin Holliday, Louisiana Department of Justice, Baton Rouge, LA, for Travelers Indemnity Company.

SECTION: "G"(1)

ORDER AND REASONS

NANNETTE JOLIVETTE BROWN, CHIEF JUDGE.

In this litigation, Plaintiffs Tanna Faye Dempster, Steven Louis Dempster, Janet Dempster Martinez, Marla Dempster Loupe, Callen Dempster, Jr., Annette Dempster Glad, and Barnett Dempster's (collectively, "Plaintiffs") allege that Decedent Callen L. Dempster ("Decedent") was exposed to asbestos and asbestos-containing products that were designed, manufactured, sold, and/or supplied by a number of Defendant companies while Decedent was employed by Huntington Ingalls Incorporated ("Avondale").[1] Pending before the Court is Defendant Bayer CropScience, Inc., as Successor to Rhone-Poulenc AG Company, f/k/a Amchem Products, Inc., f/k/a Benjamin Foster Company's ("Amchem") "Motion in Limine to Exclude Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 1.157."[2] Defendants Foster Wheeler, LLC and General Electric Company join the motion.[3] Plaintiffs oppose the motion.[4] Considering the motion, the memoranda in support and in opposition, the record, and the applicable law, the Court grants the motion.

I. Background

In this litigation, Plaintiffs allege that Decedent was employed by Avondale from 1962 to 1994.[5] During that time, Plaintiffs aver that Decedent was exposed to asbestos and asbestos-containing products in various locations and work sites, resulting in Decedent breathing in asbestos fibers and later developing asbestos-related cancer.[6] Plaintiffs assert strict liability and negligence claims against various Defendants.[7]

Decedent filed a "Petition for Damages" in the Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans, State of Louisiana, on March 14, 2018.[8] Defendants Huntington Ingalls Incorporated, Albert Bossier, Jr., J. Melton Garret, and Lamorak Insurance Company (the "Removing Parties") removed the case to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana for [*551] the first time on June 21, 2018.[9] On January 7, 2019, this Court remanded the case to the Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans.[10]

Decedent passed away on November 24, 2018, and a First Supplemental and Amending Petition for Damages was filed in state court substituting Decedent's heirs as Plaintiffs on January 17, 2019.[11] Trial was scheduled to begin before the state trial court on January 13, 2020.[12] However, on January 9, 2020, Avondale removed the case to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana for a second time.[13] On January 28, 2020, the Court denied the motion to remand, finding that this case was properly removed to this Court under the federal officer removal statute.[14]

On February 25, 2020, Amchem filed the instant motion in limine.[15] Defendants Foster Wheeler, LLC and General Electric Company join the motion.[16] On March 17, 2020, Plaintiffs filed an opposition to the instant motion.[17] On April 6, 2020, Amchem, with leave of Court, filed a reply brief in further support of the motion.[18] On May 5, 2020, the Court continued the May 18, 2020 trial date due to COVID-19.[19]

II. Parties' Arguments

A. Amchem's Arguments in Support of the Motion

Amchem moves the Court to issue an order excluding the introduction at trial or any reference to Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 1.157, which is a Michigan Supreme Court Amicus Brief subsequently published as a non-peer reviewed article by Laura S. Welch, etal., titled "Asbestos Exposure Causes Mesothelioma, But Not This Asbestos Exposure: an Amicus Brief to the Michigan Supreme Court" (the "Welch Paper").[20] Amchem asserts that the Welch Paper has been excluded by multiple courts throughout the country.[21] Amchem urges this Court to exclude the Welch Paper because: (1) it is irrelevant to the issues in this case, lacking in probative value, highly prejudicial and likely to confuse the jury; (2) it is inadmissible hearsay; and (3) it is not the type of material properly relied upon by experts.[22]

First, Amchem contends that the Welch Paper is not relevant because it was filed in a legal proceeding in a jurisdiction outside of Louisiana and its purpose was to collect references to sources supporting the position that asbestos from brakes causes mesothelioma—an issue completely unrelated to the questions before this Court in the instant matter.[23] Therefore, Amchem argues that the Welch Paper is irrelevant to the issues in this case, lacking in probative value, highly prejudicial and [*552] likely to confuse the jury.[24]

Second, Amchem contends that the Welch Paper is inadmissible hearsay.[25] Because the Welch Paper was prepared in anticipation of litigation, Amchem contends that the Welch Paper is inadmissible under the learned treatises exception.[26] Finally, Amchem argues that the Welch Paper is not the type of material properly relied on by experts.[27] Amchem asserts that the Welch Paper is devoid of facts or data, and is comprised merely of broad, generalized opinions and references to outside sources that are themselves inadmissible hearsay.[28] Accordingly, Amchem argues that the Welch Paper should be excluded on these bases.[29]

B. Plaintiffs' Arguments in Opposition to the Motion

In response, Plaintiffs contend that motion is premature.[30] Plaintiffs contend that the Welch Paper is admissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 803(18) because it represents peer-reviewed published literature.[31] Plaintiffs assert that the Welch Paper "is routinely relied upon by experts, and it has been cited as a reliance article by plaintiffs' experts in this case, including Dr. Stephen Terry Kraus, and Dr. Rodney Landreneau.[32] Although the Welch Paper is dated in 2007, Plaintiffs note that the article discusses asbestos hazards and diseases referencing scientific publications from the 1940s through 2007.[33] Therefore, Plaintiffs contend that the Welch Paper is relevant to show that the defendants knew or should have known about problems with asbestos-containing products, and should have taken steps to investigate, test, research and experiment on their products to determine the kinds of problems that may be caused by asbestos.[34] For these reasons, Plaintiffs contend that the motion in limine should be denied.[35]

C. Amchem's Arguments in Further Support of the Motion

In reply, Amchem reasserts that the Welch Paper is not peer-reviewed published literature.[36] Furthermore, Amchem asserts that the Welch Paper is not a learned treatise.[37] Amchem contends that the Welch Paper "is not the kind of information any expert witnesses would customarily rely upon in their day-to-day professional decisions, nor is it the type of

information that a competent expert witness would reasonably rely on in formulating an opinion that would be of any use to the trier of fact in this case."[38] Accordingly, Amchem asserts that the Welch Paper should be excluded.[39] III. Legal Standard

A. Relevancy and Prejudice

Federal Rule of Evidence 401 provides that evidence is relevant if: "(a) it [*553] has any tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it would be without the evidence; and (b) the fact is of consequence in determining the action." Under Federal Rule of Evidence 402, relevant evidence is admissible unless the United States Constitution, a federal statute, the Federal Rules of Evidence or other rules prescribed by the Supreme Court provide otherwise. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 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 Fifth Circuit instructs that "[t]he exclusion of evidence under Rule 403 should occur only sparingly[.]"[40] "Relevant evidence is inherently prejudicial; but it is only unfair prejudice, substantially outweighing probative value, which permits exclusion of relevant matter under Rule 403."[41]

B. Hearsay

Under the Federal Rules of Evidence, hearsay is defined as "a statement that: (1) the declarant does not make while testifying at the current trial or hearing; and (2) a party offers in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted in the statement."[42] Hearsay is not admissible unless a federal statute, the Federal Rules of Evidence, or "other rules prescribed by the Supreme Court" provide otherwise.[43] After a party properly objects to the admission of evidence as hearsay, the proponent of evidence bears the burden to show that statement is not offered as hearsay or falls within an exception to the hearsay rule.[44]

IV. Analysis

Amchem urges this Court to exclude the Welch Paper because: (1) it is irrelevant to the issues in this case, lacking in probative value, highly prejudicial and likely to confuse the jury; (2) it is inadmissible hearsay; and (3) it is not the type of material properly relied upon by experts.[45] In response, Plaintiffs contend that the Welch Paper is admissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 803(18) because it represents peer-reviewed published literature.[46] Plaintiffs also contend that the Welch Paper [*554] is relevant to show that Defendants knew or should have known about problems with asbestos-containing products, and should have taken steps to investigate, test, research and experiment on their products to determine the kinds of problems that may be caused by asbestos.[47]

The article at issue was authored by Laura S. Welch, and is entitled "Asbestos Exposure Causes Mesothelioma, But Not This Asbestos Exposure: An Amicus Brief to the Michigan Supreme Court," 13 Int'l. J. Occupational Envtl. Health 318 (2007). The author, Dr. Laura Welch, was contacted and asked to write the brief as an advocacy piece.[48] The paper was eventually published, but it is unclear if it was peer reviewed.[49]

Both parties agree that the publication is hearsay. Plaintiffs argue that the publication is admissible under the learned treatise exception found in Federal Rule of Evidence of 803(18). The learned treaties exception applies when (1) the material is relied upon by an expert and (2) the material is established as reliable through expert testimony, or judicial notice. [50] Numerous federal district courts have found that because the Welch Paper was drafted for the advocacy of a particular position, it is not the type of objective scientific evidence contemplated by Rule 803(18).[51] However, at least one state appellate court has reached the opposite conclusion.[52]

Nevertheless, the Court need not resolve this issue. To the extent the Welch Paper might be admissible under Rule 803(18), its prejudicial effect substantially outweighs its probative value. The Welch Paper is "a collection of evidence to support the conclusion that asbestos dust from brakes causes mesothelioma."[53] It does not address the specific types of asbestos

exposure at issue in this case. Therefore, the Welch Paper is of limited probative value to the issues presented this case. The Welch Paper is a collection of evidence, and it is based on information that is independently available. Additionally, the Welch Paper was signed by over 51 individuals who "have published extensively in this field for more than 30 years and have conducted dozens of epidemiologic and other studies into the issues of asbestos and disease."[54] This may cause the jury to place undue weight on the document. Therefore, the Court concludes that the probative value of the Welch Paper is substantially outweighed by a danger of unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the jury, and needlessly presenting cumulative evidence.

Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Amchem's "Motion in Limine to Exclude Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 1.157"[55] is GRANTED. Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 1.157 and any references thereto are excluded.

[1] See Rec. Doc. 1-2; Rec. Doc. 1-8. On August 6, 2020, Tanna Faye Dempster, Steven Louis Dempster, Janet Dempster Martinez, Marla Dempster Loupe, Callen Louis Dempster, Jr., Annette Ruth Dempster Glad, and Barnett Lynn Dempster were substituted as plaintiffs for Louise Ella Simon Dempster. Rec. Doc. 239. Plaintiffs bring claims against Lamorak Insurance Company, Huntington Ingalls Inc., Albert Bossier, Jr., J. Melton Garrett, Eagle, Inc., Bayer CropScience, Inc., Foster-Wheeler LLC, General Electric Co., Hopeman Brothers, Inc., McCarty Corporation, Taylor-Seidenbach, Inc., CBS Corporation, Uniroyal, Inc., International Paper Company, Houston General Insurance Company, Berkshire Hathaway Specialty Insurance Company, Northwest Insurance Company, United Stated Fidelity and Guaranty Company, Fist State Insurance Company, The American Insurance Company, Louisiana Insurance Guaranty Association, and the Traveler's Indemnity Company. Rec Doc. 1-8 at 2-3.

[2] Rec. Doc. 46.

[3] Rec. Doc. 57.

[4] Rec. Doc. 157.

[5] Rec. Doc. 1-2 at 5.

[6] Id.

[7] Id. at 7-8.

[8] Id. at 2-3.

[9] Case No. 18-6158, Rec. Doc. 1 at 2.

[10] Case No. 18-6158, Rec. Doc. 89.

[11] Rec. Doc. 1-8.

[12] Rec. Doc. 1-12.

[13] Rec. Doc. 1.

[14] Rec. Doc. 17.

[15] Rec. Doc. 46.

[16] Rec. Doc. 57.

[17] Rec. Doc. 157.

[18] Rec. Doc. 212.

[19] Rec. Doc. 225.

[20] Rec. Doc. 46-1 at 1.

[21] Id.

[22] Id. at 4-11.

[23] Id. at 4.

[24] Id. at 4, 9.

[25] Id. at 4.

[26] Id. at 5.

[27] Id.

[28] Id. at 7.

[29] Id. at 10.

[30] Rec. Doc. 157 at 1.

[31] Id. at 2.

[32] Id. at 6.

[33] Id. at 9.

[34] Id.

[35] Id. at 10.

[36] Rec. Doc. 212 at 1.

[37] Id. at 2.

[38] Id. at 3.

[39] Id. at 4.

[40] United States v. Pace, 10 F.3d 1106, 1115 (5th Cir. 1993), cert. denied, 511 U.S. 1149, 114 S.Ct. 2180, 128 L.Ed.2d 899 (1994). [41] Id. at 1115-16 (quoting United States v. McRae, 593 F.2d 700, 707 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 862, 100 S.Ct. 128, 62 L.Ed.2d 83 (1979)).

[42] Fed. R. Evid. 801(c)(1)-(2). Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d) further provides that opposing party's statements and certain prior statements by declarant-witnesses used to impeach or rebut the witness are not hearsay.

[43] Fed. R. Evid. 802.

[44] See Bourjaily v. United States, 483 U.S. 171, 175, 107 S.Ct. 2775, 97 L.Ed.2d 144 (1987) ("The preponderance standard ensures that before admitting evidence, the court will have found it more likely than not that the technical issues and policy concerns addressed by the Federal Rules of Evidence have been afforded due consideration."); Loomis v. Starkville Mississippi Pub. Sch. Dist., 150 F. Supp. 3d 730, 742-43 (N.D. Miss. 2015) ("Once a party has `properly objected to [evidence] as inadmissible hearsay,' the burden shifts to the proponent of the evidence to show, `by a preponderance of the evidence, that the evidence [falls] within an exclusion or exception to the hearsay rule and was therefore admissible.'" (citations omitted)); see also Randle v. Tregre, 147 F. Supp. 3d 581, 596 (E.D. La. 2015) (Africk, J.); Broad. Music, Inc. v. Tex Border Mgmt., Inc., No. 10-2524, 2012 WL 4119111, at [*4] (N.D. Tex. Sept. 18, 2012).

[45] Id. at 4-11.

[46] Rec. Doc. 157 at 2.

[47] Id.

[48] See Dugas v. 3M Co., No. 14-1096, 2016 WL 3966142, at [*6] (M.D. Fla. June 30, 2016); Yates v. Ford Motor Co., No. 12-752, 2015 WL 3463559, at [*10] (E.D.N.C. May 30, 2015).

[49] See Dugas, No. 2016 WL 3966142, at [*6].

[50] Fed. R. Evid. 803(18).

[51] See Vedros v. Northrop Grumman Shipbuilding, Inc., 119 F.Supp.3d 556, 564 (E.D. La. 2015); Yates v. Ford Motor Co., 113 F.Supp.3d 841, 847 (2015).

[52] Schwartz v. Honeywell Int'l, Inc., 2016-Ohio-3175, ¶¶ 58-60, 66 N.E.3d 118, 132-33 (Ct. App.).

[53] Id. at 132.

[54] Id. at 133.

[55] Rec. Doc. 46.

Sources

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