Vedros v. Northrop Grumman et al

Filing 549

ORDER AND REASONS granting in part, denying in part 511 MOTION to Strike Certain Opinions of Dr. Stephen Terry Kraus Which Are Outside the Scope of Opinions Offered by Dr. Samuel Hammar ; granting in part, denying in part 516 M OTION to Strike Certain Opinions of Dr. Stephen Terry Kraus Which Are Outside the Scope of Opinions Offered by Dr. Samuel Hammar; denying as moot 539 MOTION for Leave to File Reply Memorandum to Plaintiff's Opposition and 548 MOTION for Leave to File Memorandum in Support of Motion to Strike. Signed by Judge Carl Barbier on 7/29/2015.(blg)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

SALLY GROS VEDROS

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

NO: 11-1198

NORTHROP GRUMMAN
SHIPBUILDING, INC., ET AL

SECTION: “J” (4)

ORDER & REASONS
Before the Court is a Motion to Strike Certain Opinions of
Dr. Stephen Terry Kraus Which Are Outside the Scope of Opinions
Offered by Dr. Samuel Hammar (Rec. Doc. 511) filed by Defendants
Northrop

Grumman

Shipbuilding,

Inc.

(n/k/a

Huntington

Ingalls

Incorporated, f/k/a Northrop Grumman Ship Systems, Inc., f/k/a
Avondale Industries, Inc., f/k/a Avondale Shipyards, Inc., f/k/a
Avondale
Jr.,

and

Company

Marine
J.
and

Ways,

Melton

Inc.)

Garrett,

American

(“Avondale’),
and

Employers

OneBeacon
Insurance

Albert

L.

America
Company

Bossier,
Insurance
in

their

capacities as alleged insurers of Avondale’s alleged executive
officers (collectively the “Avondale Interests”). Additionally,
the

motion

filed

by

the

Avondale

Interests

was

adopted

by

Defendants the MacCarty Corporation (“McCarty”) (Rec. Doc. 514);
Eagle, Inc., (“Eagle”) (Rec. Doc. 515); Continental Insurance
Company

(“Continental”)

and

Maryland

Casualty

Company

(“Maryland”) (Rec. Doc. 523); and Bayer CropScience, Inc., as
Successor to Rhone-Poulene AG Company, f/k/a Amchem Products,

Inc., f/k/a Benjamin Foster Company (“Amchem”), who also filed a
Supplemental
America

Memorandum

Insurance

(Rec.

Company

Doc.

Defendants

OneBeacon

American

Employers

Insurance

and

519).

Company, as alleged insurers of Eagle, Inc., filed a motion to
strike that adopts the Avondale Interests’ motion as well. (Rec.
Doc. 516) Plaintiffs opposed the foregoing motions (Rec. Doc.
533), and the Avondale Interests filed a motion for leave to
file a reply to Plaintiffs’ opposition. (Rec. Doc. 539) Having
considered the motions and legal memoranda, the record, and the
applicable

law,

the

Court

finds

that

the

motions

to

strike

should be GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
The Court is familiar with the facts of the case and so
will provide only a brief recitation here. This action arises
from

the

death

of

Sally

Gros

Vedros

("Vedros")

due

to

mesothelioma. Alton Gros, Vedros's father, worked at Avondale as
a welder from 1943 to 1976, and Vedros claims to have spent many
years

washing

resulted

in

her

father's

Vedros's

work

secondary

clothes,

exposure

to

which

allegedly

insulation

dust

containing asbestos. Vedros also worked at Avondale from 1960 to
1963 in the purchasing department, and she claims that she was
directly

exposed

to

asbestos

while

she

worked

at

Avondale.

Before her death, Vedros filed suit against many Defendants, and
after her death, her children joined the suit as Plaintiffs.

2

Although

Plaintiffs

filed

suit

in

state

court,

Defendants

removed the matter to the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Louisiana on May 20, 2011. The matter was
then transferred to the Eastern District of Pennsylvania for
inclusion

in

MDL

No.

875,

and

subsequently

remanded

to

this

of

this

Court on March 21, 2013.
Since
matter

that

time,

a

number

on

Accordingly,

the

timely

Hammar

February

scheduling

has

continued

occasions

has

issued

supplied

order.

Court

of

Court

Plaintiffs
on

the

17,
On

the

2012,
April

for

several

expert
in

7,

various

reasons.

Scheduling

report

accordance
2015,

trial

of
with

however,

Orders.

Dr.
a

Samuel

previous

Dr.

Hammar

announced that he is unavailable to provide deposition or trial
testimony due to medical concerns. (Rec. Doc. 406-5) Under the
current

Scheduling

Order,

trial

is

set

for

August

10,

2015.

(Rec. Doc. 386)
Because Dr. Hammar is unable to provide deposition or trial
testimony,

Plaintiffs

sought

permission

to

obtain

an

expert

report from Dr. Kraus or Dr. Kradin or both to replace that of
Dr. Hammar. (Rec. Doc. 406). Defendants generally did not oppose
Plaintiffs’ request to obtain a replacement medical expert. They
argued, however, that the Court should not permit Plaintiffs to
replace

one

Additionally,

expert

with

Defendant

two.

(Rec.

Westinghouse

3

Docs.

421,

423,

argued

that

the

426)
Court

should restrict the scope of the replacement report to that of
the original report from Dr. Hammar to prevent Defendants from
having

to

secure

responses

to

any

additional

testimony

from

their experts. (Rec. Doc. 423) Defendant Avondale objected to
Plaintiffs' use of Dr. Kraus as an expert and sought to have the
Court require Plaintiffs to employ Dr. Kradin instead. (Rec.
Doc.

426)

The

Court

agreed

with

Defendants

that

Plaintiffs

should not replace Dr. Hammar with two experts. In allowing the
substitution, the Court further ordered that “Plaintiffs shall
limit the scope of the replacement testimony to that of Dr.
Hammar as much as possible.” (Rec. Doc. 435, p. 5)
On July 10, 2015, the Avondale Interests filed the instant
Motion to Strike Certain Opinions of Dr. Stephen Terry Kraus
Which Are Outside the Scope of Opinions Offered by Dr. Samuel
Hammar

(Rec.

Doc.

511),

which

a

number

of

Defendants

subsequently adopted. (Rec. Docs. 514, 515, 519, 523) On July
14,

2015,

Defendants

OneBeacon

America

Insurance

Company

and

American Employers Insurance Company filed a separate motion to
strike that adopts the Avondale Interests’ motion. (Rec. Doc.
516) Plaintiffs opposed these motions on July 21, 2015. (Rec.
Doc. 533)
PARTIES’ ARGUMENTS
Defendants
contrary

to

or

argue

that

concern

many

matters

4

of
not

Dr.

Kraus’s

addressed

by

opinions
Dr.

are

Hammar.

Specifically, Defendants take issue with at least nine of Dr.
Kraus’s opinions or sets of opinions: (1) No. 5; (2) Nos. 15-18,
20; (3) No. 23; (4) No. 26; (5) No. 30; (6) Nos. 21, 22, 24, 25;
(7) No. 33; (8) No. 35; and (9) Nos. 37, 38. 1 Defendants ask the
Court to strike these opinions because they go beyond the scope
of Dr. Hammar’s expert report and testimony and deviate in such
a way that unfairly prejudices the Defendants.
In its Supplemental Memorandum, Amchem argues that any of
Dr.

Kraus’s

causation

opinions

based

upon

the

deposition

testimony of either Lori Vedros Kravet or Bobby S. Jambon exceed
the scope of Dr. Hammar’s opinions because Dr. Hammar did not
review

those

two

depositions

in

preparation

of

his

report.

Additionally, Amchem argues that Dr. Kraus’s “Rebuttal Report to
Dr.

Stockman”

(Rec.

Doc.

519-3)

should

be

stricken

in

its

entirety because Dr. Stockman is no longer an expert in this
matter and because Dr. Kraus’s rebuttal report was untimely,
seeks to offer additional causation opinions, goes beyond the
scope of Dr. Stockman’s report, and goes beyond the scope of the
opinions offered by Dr. Hammar.
In opposition, Plaintiffs generally argue that they have
limited the scope of Dr. Kraus’s replacement testimony to that
of Dr. Hammar “as much as possible.” Although Dr. Kraus’s report
may include additional references and support for his opinions,
1

The numbered opinions correspond to the numbered conclusions in Dr. Kraus’s
report (Rec. Doc. 511-3).

5

and the fact that Dr. Kraus “may have presented the details of
the

articles

differently

in

his

report

from

Dr.

Hammar,”

Plaintiffs argue that Dr. Kraus’s opinions are “not outside the
scope of Dr. Hammar’s opinions and are actually in line with Dr.
Hammar’s opinions.” (Rec. Doc. 533, pp. 4, 7-8)
DISCUSSION
This Court recently considered a similar motion filed by
Plaintiffs
expert,

seeking

Dr.

opinions

Gail

offered

to

strike

Stockman,
by

the

the

that

original

opinions
were

of

a

outside

expert,

Dr.

substitute

the

scope

Robert

of

Sawyer.

(Rec. Doc. 477) Plaintiffs argued, just as the Defendants do
now, that certain opinions of the substitute expert deviated
from

those

prejudices
opinions,
expert

of

the

Plaintiffs.
stated

to

original

that

testify

was

The

expert

Court

“[t]he
based

in

a

agreed

decision
on

the

way

and,

to

that

unfairly

striking

allow

a

understanding

those

substitute
that

the

substitute report and testimony would not go beyond the original
expert's

report

and

testimony

and

that

the

substitute

would

testify to the same conclusions.” (Rec. Doc. 506, p. 6) The same
applies here.
A.

Arguments Raised by the Avondale Interests
1.

Kraus Opinion No. 5

In Opinion No. 5, Dr. Kraus opines that “Vedros also had
occupational

exposure

at

Avondale,

6

where

she

worked

in

an

office.” (Rec. Doc. 511-3, p. 1)

Defendants argue that Dr.

Hammar did not opine that Vedros was exposed to asbestos while
she worked in the office at Avondale. Dr. Hammar’s Opinion No.
23 states that Vedros’s mesothelioma was caused by her “total
and cumulative exposure to asbestos[, which] was primarily due
to bystander exposure from her father.” (Rec. Doc. 511-2, p. 6)
In other words, Hammar opined that Vedros’s bystander exposure
was

her

primary

exposure,

though

not

her

only

exposure.

Furthermore, Hammar Opinion No. 2 states that Vedros worked at
Avondale between 1960 and 1963, and Hammar Opinion No. 52 opines
that

“occupational

and

bystander

exposures

.

.

.

have

the

ability to contribute to the causation of mesothelioma.” (Rec.
Doc. 511-2, pp. 5, 11) While this may be sufficient to create an
inference

that

occupational

Dr.

Hammar

exposure,

Dr.

opined

that

Hammar’s

Vedros

deposition

had

some

testimony

provides further clarification. Dr. Hammar testified that it is
correct to say that Vedros was “exposed to asbestos directly
from Avondale shipyards, and . . . that that [exposure] would
have . . . been a significant contributing factor.” (Rec. Doc.
533-4, pp. 14-15)
Defendants are correct to say that Dr. Hammar’s report did
not explicitly state that Vedros was exposed to asbestos while
she

worked

report

in

the

mentions

office

that

at

Vedros

Avondale.
worked

7

However,

at

Dr.

Avondale,

Hammar’s
discusses

occupational

exposure

generally,

and

concludes

that

her

mesothelioma was caused by her total and cumulative exposure to
asbestos.

Considering

Dr.

Hammar’s

report

together

with

his

deposition testimony, which seems to clarify his opinion that at
least

some

of

Vedros’s

exposure

was

occupational,

the

Court

concludes that Dr. Kraus’s opinion is not outside the scope of
Dr. Hammar’s opinions and testimony.
2.

Kraus Opinions Nos. 15-18, 20

Kraus Opinions Nos. 15-18, 20 generally concern “state-ofthe-art”

knowledge

of

asbestos-related

diseases.

For

example,

Kraus Opinion No. 15 states that the “first written record of
asbestos was by Theophrastus in 300 BC,” and describes two of
the early definitions of asbestos. (Rec. Doc. 511-3, p. 3) In
addition, Kraus Opinion No. 16 states “Ramazzini, in 1713, noted
that

laundresses

‘had

fallen

sick

from

various

ailments

contracted in the court of their work’ . . . from direct contact
with linens and bedclothes.” (Rec. Doc. 511-3, p. 3)
The

Avondale

Interests

argue

that

these

opinions

are

contrary to those expressed by Dr. Hammar in his report and
testimony.

Hammar

Opinion

No.

30

states

“[t]he

earliest

publication that brought attention to the fact that asbestos
caused
reports

neoplastic
.

.

.

diseases
in

the

in

the

1930s.”

United
(Rec.

States

Doc.

were

511-2,

p.

case
7)

Additionally, Dr. Hammar testified that Dr. Meriwether’s 1965

8

paper published in Great Britain was the first published paper
recognizing the risk of developing mesothelioma from handling
contaminated work clothing. (Rec. Doc. 511-4, pp. 10-11)
In opposition, Plaintiffs argue that Dr. Kraus’s opinions
do not contradict those of Dr. Hammar and are limited in scope
to those of Dr. Hammar because both experts offer state of the
art opinions in their reports. According to Plaintiffs, “Dr.
Kraus simply traces the history of the state of the art further
back in time.” (Rec. Doc. 533, p. 3) However, because Dr. Kraus
traced the history further back in time, these opinions are not
“limited

in

scope

as

much

as

practicable”

to

those

of

Dr.

Hammar. Accordingly, Kraus Opinions Nos. 15-18, 20 are outside
the scope of Dr. Hammar’s report and opinions and should be
stricken.
3.

Kraus Opinion No. 23

Kraus Opinion No. 23 refers to the “1951 Welsh-Healy Public
Contracts

Act,”

which

recommends

that

asbestos

workers

be

provided with “necessary protective work clothes.” (Rec. Doc.
511-3, p. 4) The Avondale Interests argue that this opinion is
outside the scope of Dr. Hammar’s opinions because Dr. Hammar
does not address the purported requirements of the Welsh-Healy
Act.
Plaintiffs

do

not

deny

that

Dr.

Hammar’s

expert

report

makes no mention of the Welsh-Healy Act. Instead, Plaintiffs

9

argue

that

this

opinion

is

a

state-of-the-art

opinion

that

“simply adds additional support for Dr. Kraus’ opinion that the
risk of carrying asbestos home on work clothing was recognized
early on.” (Rec. Doc. 533, p. 4) In other words, Plaintiffs
argue that Dr. Kraus’s and Dr. Hammar’s opinions are the same,
“Dr.

Kraus

just

included

this

additional

reference,

which

further supports their opinions on this issue.”
As mentioned above, this Court ordered Plaintiffs to “limit
the scope of [Dr. Kraus’s report] to that of Dr. Hammar as much
as possible.” (Rec. Doc. 435, p. 5) Because Dr. Kraus’s report
contains additional references and support, it exceeds the scope
of Dr. Hammar’s report. Accordingly, Kraus Opinion No. 23 is
outside the scope of Dr. Hammar’s report and opinions and should
be stricken.
4.

Kraus Opinion No. 26

Kraus Opinion No. 26 cites the Consensus Report of the 1997
Helsinki Conference (“Helsinki Report”). Dr. Kraus quotes the
Helsinki Report, stating “[o]ccupational history of brief or low
level

exposure

should

be

sufficient

for

mesothelioma

to

be

designated as occupationally related.” In addition, Dr. Kraus
opines that “domestic or para occupational asbestos exposure ‘is

10

all that is required for malignant mesothelioma to be asbestos
related.’” 2 (Rec. Doc. 511-3, p. 5)
Dr. Hammar also cites the Helsinki Report. Hammar Opinion
No. 51 states that, according to the Helsinki criteria, “very
low background environmental exposures carry only an extremely
low risk.” Additionally, Hammar Opinion No. 52 states that “all
occupational
concentration
studies

and

and

bystander

identified
within

the

exposures
in

the

latency

to

asbestos

case-control

period

have

the

above

the

epidemiology
ability

to

contribute to the causation of mesothelioma.” (Rec. Doc. 511-2,
p. 11)
Plaintiffs argue that Kraus Opinion No. 26 is the same as
Hammar Opinion No. 52 because both opinions recognize causative
exposures from occupational and para-occupational exposure. The
Court agrees that both experts’ opinions are similar. However,
Dr.

Hammar’s

opinion

seems

to

be

narrower

than

Dr.

Kraus’s

because Dr. Hammar opines that only those exposures “above the
concentration identified” have the ability to be causative. In
this regard, Dr. Kraus’s opinion goes beyond the scope of Dr.
Hammar’s.
Plaintiffs also argue that Hammar Opinion No. 51 is the
same as Kraus Opinion No. 32, which states that “[b]ackground
asbestos exposure is negligible and not a factor in developing
2

Although Dr. Kraus attributes this quotation to the Helsinki Report, the
Court is unable to find that exact language therein. (See Rec. Doc. 533-6)

11

malignant mesothelioma.” (Rec. Doc. 511-3, p. 6) In other words,
Kraus Opinion No. 32 limits Opinion No. 26 to those exposures
over the background level. Considering Kraus Opinions Nos. 26
and 32 together, the Court finds that Dr. Kraus’s opinions are
not contradictory to those of Dr. Hammar.
The Avondale Interests also argue that Dr. Hammar testified
that the Helsinki Report states that a significant environmental
exposure to asbestos will suffice for attributing a mesothelioma
to asbestos exposure, and they anticipate that Dr. Kraus will
testify to the contrary. However, during his deposition on July
14,

2015,

Dr.

Kraus

testified

that

significant

environmental

exposure to asbestos “would have to be one of the contributing
factors.”

(Rec.

Doc.

533-5,

p.

6)

Therefore,

both

experts’

opinions are the same in this regard.
5.

Kraus Opinion No. 30

In Opinion No. 30, Dr. Kraus opines that “[w]orkers who
have had occupational exposure to asbestos have a 5-11% risk of
developing malignant mesothelioma.” (Rec. Doc. 511-3, p. 6) The
Avondale Interests argue that this opinion is outside the scope
of

Dr.

Hammar’s

opinions

because

nothing

in

Dr.

Hammar’s

opinions and testimony mentioned a 5-11% risk.
Plaintiffs

argue

that

both

experts’

reports

discuss

the

risk of disease to exposed individuals and “[t]he fact that Dr.
Kraus may have presented the details of the articles differently

12

. . . does not mean that his opinions are outside the scope of
Dr. Hammar’s opinions.” (Rec. Doc. 533, p. 8). The Court finds
that both reports do discuss risk of disease, but the Avondale
Interests are correct that Dr. Hammar does not mention a 5-11%
risk. Accordingly, Dr. Kraus’s opinion regarding the 5-11% risk
is outside the scope of Dr. Hammar’s report and opinions and
should be stricken.
6.

Kraus Opinion Nos. 21, 22, 24, 25

Kraus Opinion No. 21 refers to a 1943 article by Wedler,
Kraus Opinion No. 22 refers to the Annual Report of the Chief
Inspector of Factories for the year 1947, Kraus Opinion No. 24
refers to a 1956 article by Lieber, and Kraus Opinion No. 25
refers to a 1960 article by Wagner. (Rec. Doc. 511-3, p. 4) The
Avondale interests argue simply that these opinions “are outside
the scope of Dr. Hammar’s opinion and should be stricken.” (Rec.
Doc. 511-1, p. 6)
In response, Plaintiffs argue that these Kraus Opinions are
not

outside

Hammar’s
articles.

the

report
Hammar

scope

of

similarly
Opinion

Dr.

Hammar’s

references
No.

31

opinions
three

refers

to

of
the

because
these
1943

Dr.
four

Wedler

article, Hammar Opinion No. 33 refers to the 1947 Annual Report,
and Hammar Opinion No. 35 refers to the 1960 Wagner article.
(Rec. Doc. 511-2, pp. 7-8) However, Plaintiffs admit that Dr.
Hammar does not reference the 1956 Liber article, but argue that

13

this “is an additional state of the art article [and] is not
outside the scope of Dr. Hammar’s report.” (Rec. Doc. 533, p. 7)
Because Dr. Hammar’s report includes similar references to the
articles cited in Kraus Opinions Nos. 21, 22, and 25, the Court
finds that these opinions are not outside the scope of those of
Dr. Hammar. Kraus Opinion No. 24, however, is outside the scope
of Dr. Hammar’s report and opinions and should be stricken.
7.

Kraus Opinion No. 33

In his Opinion No. 33, Dr. Kraus opines that “[t]he risk of
malignant

mesothelioma

for

individuals

with

domestic

or

para

occupational exposure to asbestos workers may be as high as 9%.
The main cause of domestic or para occupational exposure is from
laundering the clothes of asbestos workers.” (Rec. Doc. 511-3,
pp. 6-7) The Avondale Interests argue that “[n]othing in Dr.
Hammar’s

report

or

testimony

mentions

a

risk

factor

from

domestic exposure.” (Rec. Doc. 511-1, p. 7)
Plaintiffs argue that Kraus Opinion No. 33 is within the
scope of Dr. Hammar’s opinions because Dr. Hammar’s report “is
replete

with

references

identifying

an

increased

risk

of

mesothelioma to occupationally exposed workers as well as those
who sustain para-occupational or domestic exposure.” (Rec. Doc.
533,

p.

8)

occupational

A

number

exposure,

of
and

Dr.
in

Hammar’s

his

opinions

deposition

discuss

testimony

he

confirmed that he believes that “Vedros developed mesothelioma,

14

at

least

in

part,

as

a

result

of

handling

her

father’s

contaminated work clothing.” (Rec. Doc. 511-4, p. 11) Although
Dr. Hammar’s report discusses occupational and domestic exposure
generally, the Avondale Interests correctly point out that Dr.
Hammar does not mention a specific risk factor from domestic
exposure. Accordingly, Kraus Opinion No. 33 exceeds the scope of
Dr. Hammar’s opinions in this regard and should be stricken.
8.

Kraus Opinion No. 35

In his Opinion No. 35, Dr. Kraus opines that “[t]he mean
life expectancy of individuals with malignant mesothelioma is 912 months.” (Rec. Doc. 511-3, p. 7) The Avondale Interests argue
that this opinion is outside the scope of Dr. Hammar’s report
and

also

irrelevant.

While

Plaintiffs

argue

that

opinions

regarding the mean life expectancy of mesothelioma victims are
relevant, they do not address whether this opinion is within the
scope of Dr. Hammar’s report. Because Dr. Hammar’s report and
testimony does not include any opinions regarding the mean life
expectancy

of

individuals

with

malignant

mesothelioma,

Kraus

Opinion No. 35 is outside the scope of Dr. Hammar’s opinions and
should be stricken.
9.

Kraus Opinions Nos. 37, 38

Kraus Opinions Nos. 37 and 38 describe the quality of life
of

mesothelioma

victims

and

the

various

symptoms

that

they

suffer. (Rec. Doc. 511-3, pp. 7-8) The Avondale Interests argue

15

that these opinions exceed the scope of Dr. Hammar’s report and
testimony

because

Dr.

Hammar’s

report

and

testimony

did

not

include any opinions regarding quality of life for mesothelioma
victims

or

potential

symptoms.

Additionally,

the

Avondale

Interests argue that such opinions are irrelevant.
Plaintiffs argue that these opinions are not outside the
scope of those offered by Dr. Hammar because Dr. Hammar reviewed
Vedros’s medical record and specifically noted her symptoms from
her mesothelioma. However, Dr. Kraus opines as to the quality of
life and potential symptoms of mesothelioma victims generally,
not

Vedros’s

quality

of

life

or

symptoms

that

she

actually

suffered. Therefore, these opinions by Dr. Kraus are outside the
scope

of

Dr.

Hammar’s

report

and

testimony

and

should

be

stricken.
B.

Arguments Raised by Amchem
1.

Kraus Opinion No. 2

Amchem argues that Dr. Kraus’s opinions exceed the scope of
Dr. Hammar’s opinions because Dr. Kraus reviewed two additional
depositions that Dr. Hammar did not review, the depositions of
Lori Vedros Kravet abd Bobby S. Jambon. The only opinion of Dr.
Kraus that Amchem cites in support of its argument is Kraus
Opinion

No.

2,

which

lists

the

reviewed.

16

materials

that

Dr.

Kraus

In their opposition, Plaintiffs argue that the fact that
Dr.

Kraus

cause

reviewed
opinions

his

opinions,

these
to

and

Amchem

be
has

two

additional

outside
not

the

cited

depositions

scope

to

any

of

did

Dr.

opinion

not

Hammar’s
that

was

outside the scope of Dr. Hammar’s opinions based upon his review
of

these

two

additional

depositions.

The

Court

agrees

with

Plaintiffs. Amchem has not cited any opinions of Dr. Kraus that
are

outside

the

scope

of

Dr.

Hammar’s

report

and

testimony

because he reviewed these additional depositions.
2.

Kraus Rebuttal Report to Dr. Stockman

Amchem

argues

that

Dr.

Kraus’s

June

25,

2015,

Rebuttal

Report to Dr. Stockman (Rec. Doc. 519-3) should be stricken in
its entirety because it was filed untimely, it seeks to expound
upon

his

causation

opinions,

and

it

is

now

moot

because

Westinghouse has settled and Dr. Stockman is no longer an expert
in this matter. The Court agrees with Amchem. Because Defendant
Westinghouse has settled and Dr. Stockman is no longer an expert
in this matter, no rebuttal report is necessary. Therefore, the
Court strikes Dr. Kraus’s Rebuttal Report to Dr. Stockman in its
entirety.
CONCLUSION
Accordingly,
IT

IS

HEREBY

ORDERED

that

the

Motion

to

Strike

Certain

Opinions of Dr. Stephen Terry Kraus Which Are Outside the Scope

17

of Opinions Offered by Dr. Samuel Hammar (Rec. Doc. 511) is
GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion to Strike Certain
Opinions of Dr. Stephen Terry Kraus Which Are Outside the Scope
of Opinions Offered by Dr. Samuel Hammar (Rec. Doc. 516) is
GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion for Leave to File
Reply Memorandum to Plaintiff’s Opposition (Rec. Doc. 539) and
the Motion for Leave for Amchem to File Memorandum in Support of
Motion to Strike (Rec. Doc. 548) are DENIED as moot.
New Orleans, Louisiana this 29th day of July, 2015.

CARL J. BARBIER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

18