Robichaux v. Huntington Ingalls Inc. (E.D. La., Sept. 25, 2023, evidence ruling, order 1)

Our plain-English summary of Robichaux v. Huntington Ingalls Inc. (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana, September 25, 2023).

Felton Robichaux worked as an insulator and carpenter at Avondale Shipyard from 1961 to 1979. He alleged he developed mesothelioma from handling asbestos-containing materials there. He sued Avondale and other defendants in Louisiana state court in January 2022, and the case was removed to federal court. He later died, and his survivors Carolyn, Tessa and Scott Robichaux joined as plaintiffs. This order resolved only an evidence question. Avondale asked the court to rule that insurance policy documents Liberty Mutual issued to Wayne Manufacturing Company were authentic and admissible. Liberty Mutual had stipulated that the copies were true duplicates and that the originals were lost or destroyed. The plaintiffs argued the stipulations did not bind them, that no witness authenticated the documents, and that the documents were hearsay and duplicates. The court granted the motion. It found that the Liberty Mutual logo and the contents of the documents were enough to authenticate them. It held that the documents, issued between 1963 and 1980, fell within the hearsay exception for older documents, and that the plaintiffs raised no genuine question about the originals.

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 25, 2023
• Docket: Civil Action No. 22-CV-0610
• Stage: Discovery or evidence ruling
• State: Louisiana

Outcome. The court granted Avondale's motion in limine, ruling that the Liberty Mutual insurance policy documents were authentic and admissible to the extent relevant, over the Robichaux plaintiffs' objections.

What the court held. Insurance policy documents bearing the insurer's logo and describing the policies can be authenticated by their distinctive characteristics under Rule 901(b)(4). Documents prepared before 1998 are not excluded as hearsay under Rule 803(16), and duplicates are admissible under Rule 1003 absent a genuine question about the original's authenticity or fairness.

Issues decided: Insurance Coverage, Trial Procedure and Discovery.

The people and their exposure

• Felton Robichaux: mesothelioma; died

Who	Work	Where	When	Products
Felton Robichaux	insulator and carpenter (shipyards and maritime work)	Avondale Shipyard	1961-1979

The defendants

• Huntington Ingalls Incorporated (Avondale) (employer)
• Liberty Mutual Insurance Company (insurer)

Other decisions in this case

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

• Robichaux v. Huntington Ingalls Inc. (September 25, 2023). The court denied Huntington Ingalls' motion in limine to exclude the late-produced expert affidavits of Kenneth Garza and Dr. Brent Staggs, so the plaintiffs may use them.
• Robichaux v. Huntington Ingalls Inc. (September 25, 2023). The court denied Huntington Ingalls' (Avondale's) motion for partial summary judgment on the Robichaux family's take-home exposure claim, so that claim goes forward.
• Robichaux v. Huntington Ingalls Inc. (September 26, 2023). The court denied the plaintiffs' motion to exclude Avondale's corporate representative Danny Joyce as a factual witness, and denied Avondale's motion to compel disclosure of settlements and trust submissions as moot or, to the extent not moot, as an improper attempt to reopen discovery.
• Robichaux v. Huntington Ingalls Inc. (October 2, 2023). The court granted Avondale's motions to expedite and to continue the trial, and stayed and administratively closed the case pending the outcome of Avondale's certiorari petition in Barrosse; the Robichaux plaintiffs lost their opposition.
• Robichaux v. Huntington Ingalls Inc. (October 2, 2023). The court denied the summary judgment motions of Uniroyal Holdings and Foster Wheeler, leaving the survivors' and Avondale's claims against them for trial.

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.

FELTON ROBICHAUX, ET AL.

v.

HUNTINGTON INGALLS INC., ET AL.

Civil Action No. 22-CV-0610.

September 25, 2023.

United States District Court, E.D. Louisiana.

ORDER AND REASONS

DARREL JAMES PAPILLION, District Judge.

Before the Court is a "Motion in Limine to Establish Admissibility of Liberty Mutual Insurance Policy Documents" filed by Defendant Huntington Ingalls Incorporated ("Avondale"). R. Doc. 235. Plaintiffs Carolyn Robichaux, Tessa Robichaux, and Scott Robichaux oppose Avondale's motion. R. Doc. 257. For the reasons assigned below, Avondale's motion is GRANTED. BACKGROUND

Mr. Felton Robichaux ("Robichaux")[1] worked as an insulator and carpenter at Avondale Shipyard from 1961 to 1979, and alleges he contracted mesothelioma from handling asbestos-containing materials in the course of his employment. R. Doc. 101 at ¶ 13. In January 2022, shortly after he was diagnosed with mesothelioma, Robichaux filed suit in Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans against a number of defendants, including Avondale. R. Doc. 1-2. The suit was removed to this Court on March 10, 2022, and on May 23, 2023, Avondale filed the instant motion in limine, urging the Court to deem as authentic and admissible certain insurance policy documents.

LEGAL STANDARD

I. Authenticating Evidence

A party seeking to authenticate evidence "must produce evidence sufficient to support a finding that the item is what the proponent claims it is." FED. R. EVID. 901(a). The following is a non-exhaustive list of evidence that may satisfy Rule 901(a)'s authentication requirement:

(1) Testimony of a Witness with Knowledge. Testimony that an item is what it is claimed to be.

(2) Nonexpert Opinion About Handwriting. A nonexpert's opinion that handwriting is genuine, based on a familiarity with it that was not acquired for the current litigation.

(3) Comparison by an Expert Witness or the Trier of Fact. A comparison with an authenticated specimen by an expert witness or the trier of fact.

(4) Distinctive Characteristics and the Like. The appearance, contents, substance, internal patterns, or other distinctive characteristics of the item, taken together with all the circumstances.

(5) Opinion About a Voice. An opinion identifying a person's voice—whether heard firsthand or through mechanical or electronic transmission or recording—based on hearing the voice at any time under

circumstances that connect it with the alleged speaker.

(6) Evidence About a Telephone Conversation. For a telephone conversation, evidence that a call was made to the number assigned at the time to

(A) a particular person, if circumstances, including self-identification, show that the person answering was the one who called; or

(B) a particular business, if the call was made to a business and the call related to business reasonably transacted over the telephone.

(7) Evidence About Public Records. Evidence that:

(A) a document was recorded or filed in a public office as authorized by law; or

(B) a purported public record or statement is from the office where items of this kind are kept.

(8) Evidence About Ancient Documents or Data Compilations. For a document or data compilation, evidence that it:

(A) is in a condition that creates no suspicion about its authenticity;

(B) was in a place where, if authentic, it would likely be; and

(C) is at least 20 years old when offered.

(9) Evidence About a Process or System. Evidence describing a process or system and showing that it

produces an accurate result.

(10) Methods Provided by a Statute or Rule. Any method of authentication or identification allowed by a federal statute or a rule prescribed by the Supreme Court.

FED. R. EVID. 901(b)(1)-(10).

II. Hearsay

Hearsay is "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." FED. R. EVID. 801(c)(1)-(2). Hearsay is inadmissible unless a federal statute, the Federal Rules of Evidence, or the Supreme Court provides otherwise. FED. R. EVID. 802. After a party objects to evidence on hearsay grounds, the proponent of the evidence bears the burden to show the statement is not offered as hearsay or that it falls within an exception to the hearsay rule. Bouraily v. United States, 483 U.S. 171, 175, 107 S. Ct. 2775 (1987).

ANALYSIS

The subject of the instant motion in limine is policy documents Liberty Mutual Insurance Company ("Liberty Mutual") issued to Wayne Manufacturing Company (the "Policy Documents"). Avondale asks the Court to deem the Policy Documents as (1) authentic; (2) admissible as business records and/or ancient documents; (3) true and correct photographic duplicates of originals, and allow the duplicates to be used as originals; and (4) admissible to the extent they are relevant. Avondale attaches to its motion stipulations by Liberty Mutual (the "Stipulations") that the Policy Documents are true and correct photographic duplicates of the original policy documents, that Liberty Mutual does not dispute the Policy Documents are true and correct photographic duplicates of the original policy documents, that the original policy documents have been lost or destroyed, and that the original policy documents were authentic records of Liberty Mutual.

In response, Robichaux argues because he is not a party to the Stipulations, they are not binding on him and Avondale must establish the Policy Documents are authentic and admissible on some basis other than the Stipulations. Robichaux then argues that without the binding effect, the Stipulations are insufficient to prove the Policy Documents are authentic because they do not include testimony from a witness with knowledge that the Policy Documents are what Avondale purports them to be. Finally, Robichaux argues that even if Avondale can show the Policy Documents are authentic, the Policy Documents are inadmissible as hearsay and as duplicates of the original policy documents.

As an initial matter, the Court need not resolve the parties' arguments as to the Stipulations because the Court finds, even if the Stipulations are not binding on Robichaux, they are sufficient to establish that the Policy Documents are authentic and admissible. Robichaux argues Avondale fails to show the Policy Documents are authentic because it did not offer witness testimony that the Policy Documents are what Avondale purports them to be. But witness testimony is only one method of authenticating evidence. As noted, a document's "appearance, contents, substance, internal patterns, or other distinctive characteristics of the item, taken together with all the circumstances" is sufficient evidence to authenticate a document under Federal Rule of Evidence 901(b)(4). The Policy Documents bear Liberty Mutual's logo, and the substance of the Policy Documents describes the insurance policies between Liberty Mutual and Wayne Manufacturing Company such that they support a finding that they are what Avondale purports them to be. Like numerous other sections of this Court have found when faced with motions identical to this motion, this Court finds the evidence presented by Avondale is sufficient to authenticate the Policy Documents. E.g., Vedros v. Northrop Grumman, No. 11-CV-1198, 2015 WL 13540186, at [*2] (E.D. La. June 8, 2015); Dempster v. Lamorak Ins. Co., 488 F.Supp.3d 499, 508 (E.D. La. Sept. 21, 2020).

The Court likewise finds the Policy Documents are admissible evidence. The Policy Documents were issued between 1963 and 1980 and, therefore, fall under Federal Rule of Evidence 803(16), which provides that "[a] statement in a document that was prepared before January 1, 1998 and whose authenticity is established" is not excluded by the rule against hearsay. FED. R. EVID. 803(16). Nor does the fact that the Policy Documents are duplicates render them inadmissible. Duplicates are admissible "to the same extent as the original[s] unless a genuine question is raised about the original's authenticity or the circumstances make it unfair to admit the duplicate." FED. R. EVID. 1003. Robichaux has not raised a genuine issue as to the original's authenticity or the fairness of admitting the Policy Documents. Robichaux's sole argument is that Avondale has failed to offer evidence that the original policy documents were indeed lost. This assertion, however, is insufficient to raise a genuine issue about authenticity or that admission of the evidence is unfair. The Policy Documents are admissible to the extent they are relevant.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, IT IS ORDERED Avondale's Motion in Limine to Establish Admissibility of Liberty Mutual Insurance Policy Documents (Record Document 235) is GRANTED.

[1] Mr. Robichaux was the sole plaintiff in this suit until he passed away and at that point, Carolyn Robichaux, Tessa Robichaux, and Scott Robichaux, as his survivors, filed an Amended Complaint seeking to be added as plaintiffs. To avoid confusion, they will collectively be referred to as "Robichaux."

Sources

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