Sentilles v. Huntington Ingalls Incorporated (E.D. La., Feb. 10, 2025)

Our plain-English summary of Sentilles v. Huntington Ingalls Incorporated (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana, February 10, 2025).

Robert Stephen Sentilles sued Huntington Ingalls Incorporated, formerly Avondale Shipyard, in federal court in Louisiana. The opinion mentions his mesothelioma, and the parties stipulated to the amount of his mesothelioma-related medical bills. It does not describe how or where he was exposed to asbestos. Before trial, Avondale objected to many of the exhibits Sentilles planned to use. The court ruled on them in a short order. It overruled the objection to photographs of Sentilles, which it found relevant to his claim for pain and suffering. It also overruled the objection to a 1952 Louisiana law listing diseases, which it found relevant to Avondale's awareness of asbestos dangers. It sustained objections to anatomy charts and disease-process photos and videos because none had been produced in discovery. It sustained objections to expert reports and several scientific publications as hearsay, with some exceptions for expert reliance. Many objections were deferred to trial, and others were dismissed as moot because exhibits were withdrawn or the parties had stipulated.

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: February 10, 2025
• Docket: Civil Action No. 21-958
• Stage: Discovery or evidence ruling
• State: Louisiana

Outcome. The court ruled on Avondale's objections to plaintiff Sentilles's trial exhibits: it overruled some, sustained others (including expert reports and several publications as hearsay), deferred many to trial, and dismissed several as moot.

Issues decided: Trial Procedure and Discovery.

The people and their exposure

• Robert Stephen Sentilles: mesothelioma

The defendants

• Huntington Ingalls Incorporated (f/k/a Avondale Shipyard) (employer)

Other decisions in this case

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

• Sentilles v. Huntington Ingalls Inc. (December 20, 2021). The court denied defendant Pelnor's motion for partial summary judgment, so plaintiff Sentilles may pursue his claims about exposure at Pelnor on or after September 1, 1975, and the court did not categorically exclude evidence of post-1975 exposure.
• Sentilles v. Huntington Ingalls, Inc. (April 8, 2022). The court granted the unopposed summary judgment motions of Union Carbide, Amchem, Zurich (as alleged insurer of Marquette) and John Crane, and dismissed Sentilles's and Huntington Ingalls (Avondale)'s claims against them with prejudice.
• Sentilles v. Huntington Ingalls, Inc. (April 8, 2022). The court granted Avondale's unopposed motions for summary judgment and dismissed with prejudice Sentilles's claims about his employment there after June 23, 1969, and his secondary-exposure claims tied to his father and brother.
• Sentilles v. Huntington Ingalls Inc. (April 22, 2022). The court granted Avondale's motion for summary judgment and dismissed with prejudice Sentilles's state-law tort claims against Avondale, both occupational and take-home, as preempted by the LHWCA's exclusivity provision.
• Sentilles v. Huntington Ingalls Inc. (April 25, 2022). The court granted Avondale's (Huntington Ingalls') summary judgment motion and dismissed Sentilles's state-law tort claims against it with prejudice, ruling that the LHWCA's exclusivity provision preempts them.
• Sentilles v. Huntington Ingalls Incorporated (June 21, 2022). The court granted Pelnor's Rule 54(b) motion, entering partial final judgment on the order dismissing plaintiff Sentilles's claims against Avondale so that the dismissal can be appealed immediately.
• Sentilles v. Huntington Ingalls Incorporated (October 3, 2024). The court granted Avondale's Rule 12(c) motion dismissing with prejudice Sentilles's reasserted claims about post-June 1969 Avondale work and his father's and brother's Avondale employment, denied his motion for reconsideration, and barred him from using Pelnor's experts Pierce and Roggli at trial.
• Sentilles v. Huntington Ingalls Incorporated (October 4, 2024). The court denied plaintiff Sentilles's motion in limine to exclude Avondale's expert Christopher Herfel, finding him qualified and his opinions relevant and reliable.
• Sentilles v. Huntington Ingalls Incorporated (January 20, 2025). The court granted Pelnor's motion for partial summary judgment and denied First State Insurance Company's cross-motion, holding that First State must indemnify Pelnor for all of its reasonable defense attorney's fees and costs.
• Sentilles v. Huntington Ingalls Incorporated (March 30, 2025). The magistrate judge recommended granting in part and denying in part Pelnor's motion: Pelnor may supplement its crossclaim with a bad faith claim against First State for events on or after January 20, 2025, but not for events between September 4, 2024 and January 20, 2025.

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.

ROBERT STEPHEN SENTILLES,

v.

HUNTINGTON INGALLS INCORPORATED (f/k/a AVONDALE SHIPYARD), etal.

Civil Action No. 21-958.

February 10, 2025.

United States District Court, E.D. Louisiana.

SECTION M (3)

BARRY W. ASHE, District Judge.

ORDER & REASONS

Before the Court are objections to plaintiff's trial exhibits filed by defendant Huntington Ingalls Incorporated ("Avondale"),[1] to which plaintiff Robert Stephen Sentilles responds in opposition.[2] Considering the parties' memoranda, the exhibits, the record, and the applicable law, the Court rules as follows:

IT IS ORDERED that Avondale's objection to exhibit PLT.001 (photographs of or regarding the plaintiff)[3] is OVERRULED, because the pictures are relevant to plaintiff's claim for pain and suffering damages.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Avondale's objection to exhibit PLT.002 (plaintiff's medical bills and/or summary of same) is DISMISSED AS MOOT because the parties have stipulated to the amount of plaintiff's mesothelioma-related medical bills,[4] and plaintiff has indicated he will not offer other medical bills or a summary of his bills.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Avondale's objection to exhibit PLT.003 (plaintiff's medical records and/or summary of same) is DISMISSED AS MOOT because plaintiff has indicated he will not introduce his medical records en masse, nor will he offer a summary of the records. Avondale may otherwise make contemporaneous objections to individual records as they are introduced at trial.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Avondale's objection to exhibit PLT.027 (anatomy charts) is SUSTAINED because plaintiff has not produced any in discovery. Avondale may make contemporaneous objections if plaintiff offers such items as demonstrative exhibits at trial.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Avondale's objection to exhibit PLT.028 (photos, slides, and videotape of asbestos disease process) is SUSTAINED because plaintiff has not produced any. Avondale may make contemporaneous objections if plaintiff offers such items as demonstrative exhibits at trial.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Avondale's objection to exhibit PLT.031/50 (defendants' answers to interrogatories, responses to requests for production of documents, and responses to requests for admission in this or any other asbestos related lawsuit) is DEFERRED. Avondale may make contemporaneous objections if plaintiff offers the exhibit at trial. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Avondale's objection to exhibit PLT.048 (plaintiff's expert reports, including reliance materials, including opinions, testimony and/or exhibits that can be deduced from the reports and/or subject matter as permitted by the Court) is SUSTAINED as they are hearsay.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Avondale's objection to exhibit PLT.051 (asbestos, asbestosis, and cancer: the Helsinki Criteria for diagnosis and attribution, Scand J Work Environ Health 1997; 23:311-6 (and revision/update of 2014) is SUSTAINED as hearsay, unless an expert relies upon it in direct or cross-examination and, even then, it will not be received as an exhibit.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Avondale's objection to exhibit TLV.011 (publication entitled "Documentation of Threshold Limit Values," American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists Committee on Threshold Limit Values, 1st Edition: ii-112, 1962) is SUSTAINED as hearsay, unless an expert relies upon it in direct or cross-examination and, even then, it will not be received as an exhibit.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Avondale's objection to exhibit TLV.0113 (article entitled "Discussion" On No Safe Level, Annals New York Academy of Sciences 335-336, 1965) is SUSTAINED as hearsay, unless an expert relies upon it in direct or cross-examination and, even then, it will not be received as an exhibit.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Avondale's objection to exhibit TLV.014 (article entitled "Present Threshold Limit Value in U.S.A. for Asbestos Dust: A Critique," E. Schall, Annals of New York Academy of Sciences, 132(1):316-321, 1965) is SUSTAINED as hearsay, unless an expert relies upon it in direct or cross-examination and, even then, it will not be received as an exhibit.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Avondale's objection to exhibit 62.05 is DISMISSED AS MOOT, because Avondale withdrew it.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Avondale's objection to exhibit 247.00 is DISMISSED AS MOOT, because Avondale withdrew it.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Avondale's objection to exhibit AVD.165 ("Avondale Salutes"; Avondale Goes All Out for Safety (125.49)) is DEFERRED. Avondale may make contemporaneous objections if plaintiff offers the exhibit at trial. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Avondale's objection to exhibit AVD.206 (Avondale Salutes 1954 (125.02)) is DEFERRED. Avondale may make contemporaneous objections if plaintiff offers the exhibit at trial.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Avondale's objection to exhibit AVD.221 (Avondale Salutes 1956, Issue 10, Vol. IV (125.17)) is DEFERRED. Avondale may make contemporaneous objections if plaintiff offers the exhibit at trial. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Avondale's objection to exhibit AVD.232 (Avondale Salutes October 1957 (125.28)) is DEFERRED. Avondale may make contemporaneous objections if plaintiff offers the exhibit at trial. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Avondale's objection to exhibit AVD.258 (Avondale Salutes January 1962) is DEFERRED. Avondale may make contemporaneous objections if plaintiff offers the exhibit at trial.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Avondale's objection to exhibit AVD.289 (Yard Talk July 15, 1965) is DISMISSED AS MOOT, because Avondale withdrew it.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Avondale's objection to exhibit AVD.377 (Yard Talk Sept/Oct 1977 — excerpt) is DEFERRED. Avondale may make contemporaneous objections if plaintiff offers the exhibit at trial. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Avondale's objection to exhibit AVD.378 (Yard Talk June 15, 1977 — excerpt) is DEFERRED. Avondale may make contemporaneous objections if plaintiff offers the exhibit at trial. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Avondale's objection to exhibit SA-733 (Act no. 532 of the 1952 Regular Session of the Louisiana Legislature, July 10, 1952 (List of Diseases)) is OVERRULED because it is relevant to Avondale's awareness of the dangers of asbestos.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Avondale's objection to an exhibit titled "Avondale Executive Officer Photographs and time cards" is DEFERRED. Avondale may make contemporaneous objections if plaintiff offers the exhibit at trial. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Avondale's objection to exhibits AVD.006, AVD.075, and AV-39 (1965 Shipyard Repair Regulations) is DISMISSED AS MOOT as to AVD.006, because Avondale withdrew the objection. The objection is DISMISSED AS MOOT as to AVD.075 and AV-39 because plaintiff withdrew these exhibits as duplicates of AVD.006. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Avondale's objection to exhibits AVD.117, AV-40, and AV-147 (1964 ASI/HII Safety Pamphlet) is DISMISSED AS MOOT because plaintiff withdrew the exhibits as duplicates of unobjected to exhibit 44.00. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Avondale's objections to the exhibits from its corporate deposition taken on August 30, 2023, in Robicheaux v. Huntington Ingalls Inc., C/A No. 22-610 (E.D. La) are ruled on as follows:

Exhibit 14 (Excerpts of Yard Talk, June 15, 1967) — DEFERRED. Avondale may make contemporaneous objections if plaintiff offers the exhibit at trial.

Exhibit 15 (Excerpt of Yard Talk, Picture) — DEFERRED. Avondale may make contemporaneous objections if plaintiff offers the exhibit at trial.

Exhibit 16 (Picture of George Kelmell) — DEFERRED. Avondale may make contemporaneous objections if plaintiff offers the exhibit at trial.

Exhibit 17 (obituary) — DEFERRED. Avondale may make contemporaneous objections if plaintiff offers the exhibit at trial. Exhibit 18 (Excerpt of Yard Talk) — DEFERRED. Avondale may make contemporaneous objections if plaintiff offers the exhibit at trial.

Exhibit 20 (Picture of Steven Kennedy) — DEFERRED. Avondale may make contemporaneous objections if plaintiff offers the exhibit at trial.

Exhibit 23 (Picture of Edwin Hartzman) — DEFERRED. Avondale may make contemporaneous objections if plaintiff offers the exhibit at trial.

Exhibit 24 (Picture of Edwin Hartzman) — DEFERRED. Avondale may make contemporaneous objections if plaintiff offers the exhibit at trial.

Exhibit 25 (Picture of Edwin Hartzman) — DEFERRED. Avondale may make contemporaneous objections if plaintiff offers the exhibit at trial.

Exhibit 34 (Picture of Danny Joyce) — DEFERRED. Avondale may make contemporaneous objections if plaintiff offers the exhibit at trial.

Exhibits 35 & 36 (Picture of Edward Blanchard) — DEFERRED. Avondale may make contemporaneous objections if plaintiff offers the exhibit at trial.

Exhibit 40 (Excerpt of "A Guide to Avondale Shipyards, Inc.") — OVERRULED.

Exhibit 41 (Ariel Photograph) — OVERRULED.

[1] R. Doc. 412.

[2] R. Doc. 432.

[3] The exhibit numbers are those referenced in the pretrial order. R. Doc. 391 at 17-18.

[4] R. Doc. 433.

Sources

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