Evidence of Prior Asbestos Lawsuits Against Defendant Discoverable United States District Court, W. D. Kentucky, November 19, 2019

KENTUCKY – The plaintiffs, Jack and Holly Papineau, filed a lawsuit against several defendants alleging damages suffered from exposure to asbestos. The plaintiffs filed a motion to compel the defendant Honeywell to supplement answers to interrogatories and requests for production, specifically regarding prior lawsuits. After oral argument, the court requested that the plaintiffs narrow the scope of their supplemental requests. The plaintiffs complied, requesting information and documents pertaining to all lawsuits filed against Honeywell wherein the claimant alleged an asbestos-related disease from exposure to Honeywell…
Continue reading...

Court Refuses Plaintiff’s Attempt to “Smuggle” New Discovery Requests through Motion Practice United States District Court, E. D. Pennsylvania, November 19, 2019

PENNSYLVANIA – The plaintiff filed this lawsuit against several defendants alleging damages suffered from exposure to asbestos. The opinion did not provide any background into exposure, disease or procedural history, other than ongoing motion practice between the plaintiff and the defendant, Space Systems/Loral, LLC (SSL) regarding responses to discovery.The plaintiff filed a motion to compel SSL to provide more adequate responses to interrogatories, specifically Interrogatory No. 3, regarding company background information. On July 22, 2019, the court issued an order compelling the requested discovery from…
Continue reading...

Court Denies Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Supplemental Discovery Against Defendant

In McCallister v. McDermott & Co., Inc., et al., the United States District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana recently ruled on the plaintiffs’ motion to compel discovery directed to Armstrong International, Inc., requesting supplemental responses to interrogatories and requests for production. The plaintiffs initially served requests to Armstrong, which were responded to in a timely manner. Several months after receiving the responses, the plaintiffs’ counsel emailed Armstrong’s counsel, arguing that the responses were deficient and required supplemental responses within seven days. On…
Continue reading...

Nonparty Discovery Allowed in Take Home Exposure Case Supreme Court, State of New York County of Nassau, February 21, 2019

NEW YORK — The instant motion by the defendants Ford Motor Company and Hennessey Inc. stems from lawsuit filed on behalf of decedent Frances Lange; the plaintiffs assert that Mrs. Francis Lange (Frances) contracted mesothelioma as a result of the inhalation of asbestos during the course of laundering her deceased husband’s (Carl) and son’s (Jeffery) clothing. On November 12, the defendant Ford requested authorizations for Carl and Frances’ Social Security records, in response the plaintiff only provided Francis’ records. Ford also requested Carl and Jeffery’s…
Continue reading...

After Close of Discovery Motion for Release of Pathology Materials Granted U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, November 3, 2017

NORTH CAROLINA — Defendant John Crane filed a motion for an order governing the release of pathology materials following the close of discovery. Although pathology materials had been requested from the plaintiff’s counsel nearly a year and a half prior to the discovery end date, they were not produced until eight days after that deadline had passed. John Crane then learned that there were additional pathology materials in the possession of Duke University Hospital System (DHUS). John Crane requested the additional slides in April 2017,…
Continue reading...

Conflicting X-Ray Reports Subject for Cross-Examination, Not Grounds to Compel a CT Scan Superior Court of the Virgin Islands, August 23, 2017

Defendants Hess Oil Virgin Islands Corporation and Hess Corporation filed a motion to compel plaintiff Andrew Wilson to undergo a CT scan of his chest to determine whether there was any objective evidence of lung disease. The court denied the motion to compel. Wilson alleged asbestos exposure and the development of asbestosis due to his work at the oil refinery on St. Croix in the U.S. Virgin Islands. The plaintiff’s case was consolidated with over a hundred cases. The court ordered the plaintiffs to provide…
Continue reading...

Favorable Defense Discovery Rulings, Including Preclusion of Treating Physicians from Testifying as Experts U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, February 2, 2017

The district court issued two opinions in the same case, issuing various rulings on motions brought by both parties. The plaintiff alleged he developed lung cancer from asbestos exposure while employed by Freeport Sulphur Company, predecessor to Mosaic Global Holdings, Inc. This case started in Louisiana state court, and was removed by Mosaic. The primary rulings on these motions are summarized below. The plaintiff moved to exclude evidence of settled claims and collateral sources of compensation. The defendants argued that both settlement agreements and collateral…
Continue reading...

Certain Bankruptcy Trust Information Ruled Discoverable in Louisiana U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, January 23, 2017

The plaintiff alleged he developed lung cancer due to his asbestos exposure while working on the premises of Freeport’s Port Sulphur facility, other facilities, and various drilling rigs. The defendants removed to federal court on the bases of original jurisdiction under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act. The plaintiff filed a motion to quash subpoena and notice of records deposition, and a motion for protective order. The court analyzed both at the same time, as both contained substantially the same arguments. Defendant McCarty Corporation issued…
Continue reading...

Special Master Recommendation Upheld Denying Plaintiff’s Discovery Requests Supreme Court of New York, New York County, October 27, 2016

Plaintiff Lori LoGiudice developed mesothelioma and brought suit, alleging her disease was caused by her use of asbestos-containing Cashmere Bouquet talcum powder made by Colgate-Palmolive. The only other defendants were suppliers of asbestos-containing talc to Colgate. After the Special Master denied certain discovery requests made by the plaintiff, the plaintiff moved for relief. The court affirmed the recommendations made by the Special Master. At issue was one request for production involving conversations between Dr. Marie Capdevielle and individuals interviewed by her in preparation for her…
Continue reading...

Sanctions Granted Against Defendant for Suspension of Corporate Representative Deposition U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, October 24, 2016

The plaintiffs’ brought this action against Electric Boat and General Dynamics for their decedent’s alleged development of mesothelioma as a result of his work as a machinist at the defendants’ shipyards. The plaintiffs sought depositions of the corporate representatives of both Electric Boat and General Dynamics since Electric Boat operated as a division of General Dynamics during the alleged exposure period. The plaintiffs noticed the deposition of General Dynamics’ corporate representative. General Dynamics objected to the notice and a hearing was promptly held. The court…
Continue reading...