Robichaux v. Huntington Ingalls Inc. (E.D. La., Sept. 26, 2023)

Our plain-English summary of Robichaux v. Huntington Ingalls Inc. (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana, September 26, 2023).

Felton Robichaux worked as an insulator and carpenter at Avondale Shipyard from 1961 to 1979. His family alleged he was exposed to asbestos through his own work and through contact with other shipyard employees. He was diagnosed with mesothelioma in January 2022 and sued Avondale and other defendants in Orleans Parish. The case was removed to federal court. He later died, and his survivors joined the suit as plaintiffs. This order resolved two pretrial motions. The plaintiffs asked to exclude Avondale's witness Danny Joyce as a factual witness because he lacked personal knowledge. The court denied the motion because Avondale offered Joyce only as its corporate representative, who may testify to matters within the corporation's knowledge. Avondale asked the court to order disclosure of the plaintiffs' settlements and trust submissions. The plaintiffs were willing to give some of that information, so the court denied the motion as moot. It denied the rest because it was really a motion to compel, and discovery had closed.

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 26, 2023
• Docket: Civil Action No. 22-CV-0610
• Stage: Discovery or evidence ruling
• State: Louisiana

Outcome. 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.

What the court held. A corporate representative may testify to matters within the corporation's knowledge regardless of personal knowledge. A request for information a party will not provide is a motion to compel, not a motion in limine, and the court will not reopen closed discovery through an evidentiary motion.

Issues decided: Fault, Apportionment and Settlement Credits, Trial Procedure and Discovery, Asbestos Trust Claims in Court.

The people and their exposure

• Felton Robichaux: mesothelioma; died

The defendants

• Huntington Ingalls Incorporated (Avondale) (employer)

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 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.
• 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. (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 26, 2023.

United States District Court, E.D. Louisiana.

ORDER AND REASONS

DARREL JAMES PAPILLION, District Judge.

Before the Court are two motions. The first is a Motion in Limine to Exclude Factual Testimony by Danny Joyce filed by Plaintiffs Carolyn Robichaux, Scott Robichaux, and Tessa Robichaux ("Plaintiffs"). R. Doc. 228. Defendant Huntington Ingalls Incorporated ("Avondale") opposes the motion. R. Doc. 259. The second motion is a Motion in Limine to Require Plaintiffs to Disclose Settlements and Trust Submissions filed by Avondale. R. Doc. 236. Plaintiffs oppose the motion. R. Doc. 258. For the following reasons, Plaintiff's Motion in Limine (Record Document 228) is denied. Avondale's Motion in Limine (Record Document 236) is denied as moot, and to the extent the motion is not moot, it is denied. BACKGROUND

Mr. Felton Robichaux ("Robichaux")[1] worked as an insulator and carpenter at Avondale Shipyard from 1961 to 1979, and Plaintiffs allege Robichaux, through his employment at Avondale Shipyard, as well as his contact with other Avondale Shipyard employees, was exposed to asbestos. R. Doc. 101 at ¶¶ 13, 14. In January 2022, Robichaux was diagnosed with mesothelioma, and shortly after, 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 extensive motion practice ensued, including the motions at issue in this Order and Reasons.

I. Plaintiffs' Motion in Limine to Exclude Factual Testimony by Danny Joyce

The basis of Plaintiffs' motion is the factual testimony of Avondale's witness Danny Joyce is not based on personal knowledge, and Mr. Joyce should therefore be excluded as a factual witness. In Avondale's opposition, however, it clarifies Mr. Joyce is being offered solely as Avondale's corporate representative, not as a factual or expert witness. Plaintiffs are correct that typically a witness, under Federal Rule of Evidence 602, may only testify to a matter of which he has personal knowledge. FED. R. EVID. 602. Witnesses who testify as corporate representatives, however, are agents of a corporation and as such, "testify as to matters within corporate knowledge," not solely matters within the personal knowledge of the corporate representative. See Brazos River Auth. V. GE Ionics, Inc., 469 F.3d 416, 434 (5th Cir. 2006). Mr. Joyce may, therefore, testify to matters of which Avondale has corporate knowledge, regardless of whether Mr. Joyce has personal knowledge of the facts forming the basis of his testimony. Accordingly, Plaintiffs' motion is denied.

II. Avondale's Motion in Limine to Require Plaintiffs to Disclose Settlements

and Trust Submissions

In this motion, Avondale asks the Court to order Plaintiffs to disclose any and all settlements into which Plaintiffs have entered and the identities of the parties with whom Plaintiffs have settled for the purposes of determining virile shares. At the July 12, 2023 pretrial conference in this matter, Plaintiffs noted they were amenable to providing some or all of this information and suggested the instant motion may be moot. Plaintiffs also note in their opposition brief they do not oppose the motion to the extent Avondale seeks the identities of the parties with whom Plaintiffs have settled since this lawsuit

began. Plaintiffs oppose the motion only to the extent Avondale seeks the disclosure of additional information. Given Plaintiffs' willingness to provide some or all of this information, it appears Avondale's motion is moot, and the Court therefore denies it as such. To the extent the motion is not moot, the motion is denied. Avondale's request for information Plaintiffs are not willing to provide amounts to a motion to compel, not a motion in limine. The discovery period in this case is closed, and the Court will not unilaterally reopen discovery under the guise of an evidentiary motion. See Dempster v. Lamorak Ins. Co., No. 20-CV-95, 2020 WL 5665691, at [*3] (E.D. La. Sept. 21, 2020).

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, IT IS ORDERED Plaintiffs' Motion in Limine to Exclude Factual Testimony by Danny Joyce (Record Document 228) is DENIED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED Avondale's Motion in Limine to Require Plaintiffs to Disclose Settlements and Trust Submissions (Record Document 236) is DENIED AS MOOT and, to the extent the motion is not moot, it is DENIED. [1] After filing suit, Robichaux died, and Plaintiffs, as his survivors, filed an Amended Complaint seeking to be added as plaintiffs.

Sources

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