Guillot, et al v. Aventis Pasteur Inc, et al

Filing 117

ORDER AND REASONS granting 94 Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by Judge Mary Ann Vial Lemmon on 11/3/14. (cbn)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
JACOB GUILLIOT, ET AL.

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

NO: 02-3373

AVENTIS PASTEUR, INC., ET AL.

SECTION: "S" (5)

ORDER AND REASONS
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Eli
Lilly and Company, American International Chemical, Inc., and Spectrum Laboratory Products, Inc.
(Doc. #94) is GRANTED, and plaintiffs' claims against them are DISMISSED WITH
PREJUDICE.
Plaintiffs, Dale and Angel Guillot, filed this action against several vaccine manufacturers and
Thimerosal manufacturers claiming that the mercury-based preservative, Thimerosal, found in some
vaccines caused their son to suffer brain damage. In their complaint, they specifically reference
seven vaccines that were administered to the child in 1998. This court previously dismissed
plaintiffs' claims against the vaccine manufacturers, and plaintiffs' only remaining claims are failure
to warn claims brought under the Louisiana Products Liability Act against the Thimerosal
manufacturer defendants. Under the LPLA, a plaintiff cannot recover against a manufacturer if the
manufacturer did not produce the offending product. Demahy v. Schwarz Pharma., Inc., 702 F.3d
177, 182 (5th Cir. 2012).
The Thimerosal manufacturer defendants' motion for summary judgment argues that they
cannot be held liable for failure to warn under the LPLA because they can prove that they did not
produce the Thimerosal in the seven vaccines listed in the complaint. These defendants presented
to the vaccine manufacturers the batch numbers for the vaccines administered to the child, and ask
where the Thimerosal in those batches was obtained. The vaccine manufacturers' records indicate

that none of the Thimerosal manufacturer defendants sold to the vaccine manufactures the
Thimerosal that was used in the batches of the vaccines that the child received. Plaintiffs' opposition
does not dispute the defendants' evidence, nor does it offer any evidence that the Thimerosal
manufacturer defendants produced the Thimerosal that was in the vaccines listed in the complaint.
Thus, plaintiffs cannot prevail on their LPLA claim, and the motion for summary judgment is
GRANTED. See Demah, 702 F.3d at 182.

3rd
New Orleans, Louisiana, this _____ day of November, 2014.

____________________________________
MARY ANN VIAL LEMMON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2