William Lund et al v. 3M Company et al
ORDER Denying Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration Regarding Order on MIL to Exclude 779 , and Granting Crane Co.'s Renewed Motion for Summary Judgment 790 by Judge William G Young. SEE ORDER FOR FURTHER AND COMPLETE DETAILS. (jre)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
INDIVIDUALLY AND AS
TO WILLIAM LUND
deceased; DAVID LUND,
an individual; and
SHEILA LUND, an
as legal heirs of
WILLIAM LUND, deceased,
Case No. 2:13-cv-02776-WGY
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION REGARDING ORDER ON
MOTION IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE, ECF NO.
779, AND GRANTING CRANE CO.'S RENEWED
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, ECF NO.
3M Co. et al.,
July 21, 2015
On March 25, 2015, this Court held a motion hearing on
defendant Crane Co.'s motion for summary judgment.
ECF No. 757.
Noting that a Daubert motion to exclude the
testimony of the plaintiffs' experts was still pending, the
Court denied Crane Co.'s motion without prejudice, stating that
Crane Co. would win summary judgment if the Daubert motion were
Mot. Hr. Tr. 17:1-11, ECF No. 758.
Of the United States District Court for the District of
Massachusetts, visiting judge for pre-trial purposes by order of
Chief Judge George H. King.
Order Chief Judge, May 1, 2014, ECF
ultimately ruled in Crane CO.'s favor on the Daubert motion on
April 7, 2015, excluding the testimony of the plaintiffs'
experts that "each and every exposure" above background level
was insufficient as matter of law.
ECF No. 764.
wake of this order, Crane Co. has renewed its motion for summary
judgment on causation grounds, while the plaintiffs have moved
for reconsideration or clarification of the Daubert order.
Crane CO.'s Notice Mot.
& Renewed Mot. Summ. J. Re: Causation,
790; Mot. Clarification This Ct.'s Limine Order Barring
Pls.' Experts Testifying That "Every Exposure" Asbestos
Contributed Disease Risk & Mem.
Recons."), ECF No.
The plaintiffs advance a myriad of arguments against Crane
CO.'s renewed motion - for example,
that the motion misconstrues
the experts' opinions, that the standard they employ meets
California's causation requirements,
and that their non-expert
evidence also proves causation - but all of these points are
simply new iterations of arguments made in prior briefing
relevant to Crane CO.'s Daubert motion and the original motion
for summary judgment.
& Mem. Law Opp'n Crane CO.'s Renewed Mot. Summ.
Re: Causation, ECF No.
Compare Pls.' Opp'n Crane CO.'s Renewed
803, with Pls.' Opp'n Crane CO.'s Mot.
& Mem. Law Opp'n Crane CO.'s Mot. Summ. J., ECF No.
682, and Pls.' Omnibus Opp'n Defs.' Mot. Limine Preclude Pl.'s
Experts From Testifying That Def.'s Prod. Was Substantial Factor
Causing Decedent's Injury, ECF No. 723.
Moreover, many of the
arguments are substantially identical to those advanced by the
Plaintiffs' parallel motion seeking reconsideration of the
Court's earlier Daubert ruling barring their experts' testimony.
See Daubert Mot. Recons.
The Court's two chief statements relevant to the prior
motion - that the experts' testimony was inadmissible and that
Crane Co. would be entitled to summary judgment if it prevailed
on its Daubert motion - were both based on a careful
consideration of the record and of the briefing from both sides.
The plaintiffs' attempt to revivify previously rejected
arguments does nothing to persuade the Court to depart from its
earlier statements and rulings.
Accordingly, the Court DENIES
the plaintiffs' motion for clarification or reconsideration of
the Daubert ruling, ECF No. 779, and GRANTS Crane CO.'s renewed
motion for summary judgment, ECF No. 790.
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?