Beacham v. BP Exploration & Production, Inc. et al

Filing 94

ORDER AND REASONS: Before the Court is Plaintiff Lathaddeus Beacham's Motion to Reconsider Order Granting Summary Judgment to Defendants 90 . After careful consideration of the parties' memoranda, the record, and the applicable law, the Court DENIES the Motion. Signed by Judge Wendy B Vitter on 3/14/23. (cg)

Case 2:17-cv-03038-WBV-KWR Document 94 Filed 03/14/23 Page 1 of 5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
LATHADDEUS BEACHAM

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

NO. 17-3038

BP EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION,
INC., ET AL.

SECTION: D (4)

ORDER AND REASONS
Before the Court is Plaintiff Lathaddeus Beacham’s Motion to Reconsider
Order Granting Summary Judgment to Defendants.1

The Defendants, BP

Exploration & Production Inc., BP America Production Company, BP p.l.c.,
Halliburton Energy Services, Inc., Transocean Holdings, LLC, Transocean
Deepwater, Inc., and Transocean Offshore Deepwater Drilling, Inc. (collectively
“Defendants”) oppose this Motion.2

After careful consideration of the parties’

memoranda, the record, and the applicable law, the Court DENIES the Motion.
I.

FACTUAL & PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
This case arises from the Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico in

2010 and the subsequent cleanup efforts of the Gulf Coast. The Court has previously
detailed the factual background of this case;3 accordingly, the Court only discusses
the relevant background as it pertains to the instant Motion.
On January 19, 2023, this Court granted Defendants’ Daubert Motion to
Exclude the General Causation Opinions of Plaintiff’s expert, Dr. Jerald Cook4, and

R. Doc. 90.
R. Doc. 93.
3 See R. Doc. 88 at pp. 2–4.
4 R. Doc. 72.
1
2

Case 2:17-cv-03038-WBV-KWR Document 94 Filed 03/14/23 Page 2 of 5

Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment Due to Plaintiff’s Inability to Prove
Medical Causation5 for the reasons stated in that Order.6 Plaintiff filed the present
Motion on February 16, 2023, asking this Court to reconsider its previous Order
granting summary judgment for Defendants in light of the claims raised in a
November 2022 affidavit of Dr. Linda Birnbaum (“Dr. Birnbaum”), the Director of the
National Institute of Environmental Health and Sciences from 2009 to 2019.7
Plaintiff argues that Dr. Birnbaum’s affidavit “creates material issues of fact”
sufficient for the Court to reconsider its prior Order granting summary judgment in
favor of Defendants.8
The Defendants filed a response in opposition to the Motion, pointing out that
the Court has already considered Dr. Birnbaum’s affidavit, finding it to be irrelevant
to the reliability of Plaintiff’s general causation expert, Dr. Jerald Cook.9

The

Defendants also contend that Plaintiff has wholly failed to provide any new reason
for the granting of the Motion not already considered and rejected by this Court and
has failed to address any of the relevant factors for reconsideration of a judgment
after entry.10
II.

LEGAL STANDARD
A Rule 59(e) motion to alter or amend a judgment “serve[s] the narrow purpose

of allowing a party to correct manifest errors of law or fact or to present newly

R. Doc. 73.
R. Doc. 88.
7 See R. Doc. 90; R. Doc. 90-2.
8 R. Doc. 90 at p. 1.
9 R. Doc. 93 at p. 2.
10 Id. at p. 7.
5
6

Case 2:17-cv-03038-WBV-KWR Document 94 Filed 03/14/23 Page 3 of 5

discovered evidence.”11

A district court has “considerable discretion in deciding

whether to reopen a case in response to a motion for reconsideration under” Rule
59(e).12 The Court is mindful that, “[r]econsideration of a judgment after its entry is
an extraordinary remedy that should be used sparingly.”13 “[S]uch a motion is not
the proper vehicle for rehashing evidence, legal theories, or arguments that could
have been offered or raised before the entry of judgment.”14
“A moving party must satisfy at least one of the following four criteria to
prevail on a Rule 59(e) motion: (1) the movant demonstrates the motion is necessary
to correct manifest errors of law or fact upon which the judgment is based; (2) the
movant presents new evidence; (3) the motion is necessary in order to prevent
manifest injustice; and, (4) the motion is justified by an intervening change in the
controlling law.”15
III.

ANALYSIS
Plaintiff relies on evidence already considered and rejected by this Court. As

the Court has explained elsewhere, Dr. Birnbaum “appears to conflate general
causation with specific causation” and “Dr. Birnbaum’s affidavit [neither] corrects
[n]or explains the shortcomings of Dr. Cook’s Report so as to render his opinions

Waltman v. Int’l Paper Co., 875 F.2d 468, 473 (5th Cir. 1989).
Lavespere v. Niagara Mach. & Tool Works, Inc., 910 F.2d 167, 174 (5th Cir. 1990), abrogated on other
grounds by Little v. Liquid Air Corp., 37 F.3d 1069 (5th Cir. 1994).
13 Templet v. HydroChem Inc., 367 F.3d 473, 479 (5th Cir. 2004).
14 Id. (citing Simon v. United States, 891 F.2d 1154, 1159 (5th Cir. 1990)).
15 Jupiter v. BellSouth Telecomms., Inc., Civ. A. No. 99-0628, 1999 WL 796218, at *1 (E.D. La. Oct. 5,
1999) (Vance, J.)) (internal quotation marks omitted); accord Castrillo v. American Home Mortg.
Servicing, Inc., Civ. A. No. 09-4369, 2010 WL 1424398, at *4 (E.D. La. Apr. 5, 2010) (Vance, J.) (citing
authority).
11
12

Case 2:17-cv-03038-WBV-KWR Document 94 Filed 03/14/23 Page 4 of 5

admissible.”16 Plaintiff’s Motion relies solely on Dr. Birnbaum’s affidavit and does
not include any new argument or evidence. Plaintiff’s reliance on evidence already
considered by the Court alone justifies denial of Plaintiff’s Motion. Simply rehashing
the same arguments which the Court has already deemed insufficient and irrelevant
is inappropriate for a motion for reconsideration and a waste of judicial resources.
Moreover, as Defendants point out, Plaintiff has failed to address any of the factors
considered by courts in this district when determining whether reconsideration of a
judgment is merited.
In sum, Plaintiff’s rehashing of arguments already considered and rejected by
this Court fails to carry Plaintiff’s heavy burden in persuading the Court to grant the
“extraordinary remedy” of a Rule 59(e) motion.17 Plaintiff fails to show that the
Motion should be granted in order to correct manifest errors of law or fact or to
prevent injustice.18 Further, Plaintiff has presented no new relevant evidence nor
shown that the motion is “justified by an intervening change in the controlling law.”19
Accordingly, the Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that this Court
should either alter or amend its prior Order in this case granting summary judgment
in favor of Defendants.

See Kaoui v. BP Expl. & Prod., Inc., No. CV 17-3313, 2023 WL 330510, at *9 (E.D. La. Jan. 12, 2023).
This Court relied upon its analysis in Kaoui in the instant case regarding the reliability and relevancy
of the May 31, 2022 version of Dr. Cook’s Report.
17 Templet, 367 F.3d at 479.
18 Jupiter, 1999 WL 796218, at *1.
19 Id.
16

Case 2:17-cv-03038-WBV-KWR Document 94 Filed 03/14/23 Page 5 of 5

IV.

CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion

to Reconsider Order Granting Summary Judgment to Defendants20 is DENIED.
New Orleans, Louisiana, March 14, 2023.

______________________________
WENDY B. VITTER
United States District Judge

20

R. Doc. 90.