Cotton v. BP Exploration & Production, Inc. et al
Filing
76
ORDER AND REASONS - IT IS ORDERED that Defendants' Motion in Limine (Doc. 56 ) and Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 57 ) are GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all of Plaintiff's claims are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Signed by Judge Jane Triche Milazzo on 8/16/2022. (sa)
Case 2:17-cv-03132-JTM-KWR Document 76 Filed 08/16/22 Page 1 of 8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
CILLO COTTON, JR.
CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS
NO. 17-3132
BP EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION,
INC. ET AL.
SECTION: H(4)
ORDER AND REASONS
Before the Court is a Motion in Limine to Exclude the General Causation
Opinions of Plaintiff’s Expert, Dr. Jerald Cook (Doc. 56) and a Motion for
Summary Judgment Due to Plaintiff’s Inability to Prove Medical Causation
(Doc. 57), both filed by Defendants BP Exploration & Production, Inc.; BP
America Production Company; BP p.l.c.; Transocean Holdings, LLC;
Transocean Deepwater, Inc.; Transocean Offshore Deepwater Drilling, Inc.;
and Halliburton Energy Services, Inc. For the following reasons, these Motions
are GRANTED.
1
Case 2:17-cv-03132-JTM-KWR Document 76 Filed 08/16/22 Page 2 of 8
BACKGROUND
This case is one among the “B3 bundle” of cases arising out of the
Deepwater Horizon oil spill.1 This bundle comprises “claims for personal injury
and wrongful death due to exposure to oil and/or other chemicals used during
the oil spill response (e.g., dispersant).”2 These cases were originally part of a
multidistrict litigation (“MDL”) pending in the Eastern District of Louisiana
before Judge Barbier. During this MDL, Judge Barbier approved the
Deepwater Horizon Medical Benefits Class Action Settlement Agreement, but
the B3 plaintiffs either opted out of this agreement or were excluded from its
class definition.3 Subsequently, Judge Barbier severed the B3 cases from the
MDL to be reallocated among the judges of this Court.4 This case was
eventually reassigned to Section H.5
Plaintiff Cillo Cotton, Jr. alleges continuous exposure to oil and
dispersants starting in May 2010 during his work as a boat captain and
recovery technician engaged in cleanup efforts along the Gulf coast.6 Plaintiff
claims to suffer from a host of medical conditions because of the exposure,
including headache, back pain, acne, boils, dryness, inflammation, itching,
lesions, sinus pain, congestion, dizziness, lethargy, tremors, nausea, and
more.7 Plaintiff asserts claims under the general maritime law of negligence,
See In Re: Oil Spill by the Oil Rig “Deepwater Horizon” in the Gulf of Mexico, on April 20,
2010, No. 10-md-02179, R. Doc. 26924 at 1 (E.D. La. Feb. 23, 2021).
2 Id.
3 Id. at 2 n.3.
4 Id. at 7–8.
5 See Docs. 6, 50.
6 See Doc. 56-2 at 15.
7 See Doc. 1-1 at 5; Doc. 56-6.
1
2
Case 2:17-cv-03132-JTM-KWR Document 76 Filed 08/16/22 Page 3 of 8
negligence per se, and gross negligence with respect to the spill and its
cleanup.8
Now before the Court are Defendants’ Motion in Limine to Exclude the
General Causation Opinions Testimony of Plaintiff’s Expert and their Motion
for Summary Judgment Due to Plaintiff’s Inability to Prove Medical
Causation.9 In the Motion in Limine, Defendants argue that Plaintiff’s expert
on medical causation, Dr. Jerald Cook, fails to satisfy the Fifth Circuit
requirements for an admissible general causation opinion in toxic tort cases
and should therefore be excluded as unreliable.10 In the Motion for Summary
Judgment, Defendants argue that assuming their Motion in Limine is granted,
Plaintiff lacks expert testimony on general causation and therefore fails to
present a genuine issue of material fact as to whether his injuries were caused
by exposure to oil and dispersants.11 Plaintiff opposes.12
LEGAL STANDARDS
I.
Daubert Motion
Federal Rule of Evidence 702 provides that a witness who is qualified as
an expert may testify if: (1) the expert’s “specialized knowledge will help the
trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue”; (2) the
expert’s testimony “is based on sufficient facts or data”; (3) the expert’s
See Doc. 30 at 7–15.
See Docs. 56, 57.
10 See Doc. 56-1 at 7–11.
11 See Doc. 57-1 at 9–10.
12 See Docs. 59, 60.
8
9
3
Case 2:17-cv-03132-JTM-KWR Document 76 Filed 08/16/22 Page 4 of 8
testimony “is the product of reliable principles and methods”; and (4) the
principles and methods employed by the expert have been reliably applied to
the facts of the case. In Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., the U.S.
Supreme Court held that Rule 702 “requires the district court to act as a
gatekeeper to ensure that ‘any and all scientific testimony or evidence
admitted is not only relevant, but reliable.’”13 All types of expert testimony are
subject to this gatekeeping.14 The party offering the expert testimony bears the
burden of proving its reliability and relevance by a preponderance of the
evidence.15
The reliability of expert testimony “is determined by assessing whether
the reasoning or methodology underlying the testimony is scientifically
valid.”16 The Court may consider several nonexclusive factors in determining
reliability, including: (1) whether the technique has been tested, (2) whether
the technique has been subject to peer review and publication, (3) the
technique’s potential error rate, (4) the existence and maintenance of
standards controlling the technique’s operation, and (5) whether the technique
is generally accepted in the relevant scientific community.17 Granted, the
reliability analysis is a flexible one and “not every Daubert factor will be
Metrejean v. REC Marine Logistics, LLC, No. 08-5049, 2009 WL 3062622, at *1 (E.D. La.
Sept. 21, 2009) (quoting Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharms., Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 589 (1993)).
14 See Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137, 147 (1999).
15 See Moore v. Ashland Chem. Co., 151 F.3d 269, 276 (5th Cir. 1998).
16 Knight v. Kirby Inland Marine, Inc., 482 F.3d 347, 352 (5th Cir. 2007).
17 See Burleson v. Tex. Dep’t of Crim. Just., 393 F.3d 577, 584 (5th Cir. 2004).
13
4
Case 2:17-cv-03132-JTM-KWR Document 76 Filed 08/16/22 Page 5 of 8
applicable in every situation.”18 As the gatekeeper of expert testimony, this
Court enjoys broad discretion in determining admissibility.19
II.
Motion for Summary Judgment
Summary judgment is appropriate “if the pleadings, depositions,
answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with affidavits, if
any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the
moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.”20 A genuine issue
of fact exists only “if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a
verdict for the nonmoving party.”21
In determining whether the movant is entitled to summary judgment,
the Court views facts in the light most favorable to the non-movant and draws
all reasonable inferences in her favor.22 “If the moving party meets the initial
burden of showing that there is no genuine issue of material fact, the burden
shifts to the non-moving party to produce evidence or designate specific facts
showing the existence of a genuine issue for trial.”23 Summary judgment is
appropriate if the non-movant “fails to make a showing sufficient to establish
the existence of an element essential to that party’s case.”24 “In response to a
properly supported motion for summary judgment, the non-movant must
identify specific evidence in the record and articulate the manner in which that
Guy v. Crown Equip. Corp., 394 F.3d 320, 325 (5th Cir. 2004).
See Wellogix, Inc. v. Accenture, L.L.P., 716 F.3d 867, 881 (5th Cir. 2013).
20 Sherman v. Hallbauer, 455 F.2d 1236, 1241 (5th Cir. 1972).
21 Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986).
22 Coleman v. Houston Indep. Sch. Dist., 113 F.3d 528, 532 (5th Cir. 1997).
23 Engstrom v. First Nat’l Bank of Eagle Lake, 47 F.3d 1459, 1462 (5th Cir. 1995).
24 Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 324 (1986).
18
19
5
Case 2:17-cv-03132-JTM-KWR Document 76 Filed 08/16/22 Page 6 of 8
evidence supports that party’s claim, and such evidence must be sufficient to
sustain a finding in favor of the non-movant on all issues as to which the nonmovant would bear the burden of proof at trial.”25 “We do not . . . in the absence
of any proof, assume that the nonmoving party could or would prove the
necessary facts.”26 Additionally, “[t]he mere argued existence of a factual
dispute will not defeat an otherwise properly supported motion.”27
LAW AND ANALYSIS
“B3 plaintiffs must prove that the legal cause of the claimed injury or
illness is exposure to oil or other chemicals used during the response.”28 “The
plaintiff’s burden with respect to causation in a toxic tort case involves proof of
both general causation and specific causation.”29 “General causation is whether
a substance is capable of causing a particular injury or condition in the general
population, while specific causation is whether a substance caused a particular
individual’s injury.”30 Here, Dr. Cook is listed as Plaintiff’s only expert witness
on causation.31 On this topic, Dr. Cook produced a report dated March 14, 2022
John v. Deep E. Tex. Reg. Narcotics Trafficking Task Force, 379 F.3d 293, 301 (5th Cir.
2004) (internal citations omitted).
26 Badon v. R J R Nabisco, Inc., 224 F.3d 382, 394 (5th Cir. 2000) (quoting Little v. Liquid Air
Corp., 37 F.3d 1069, 1075 (5th Cir. 1994)).
27 Boudreaux v. Banctec, Inc., 366 F. Supp. 2d 425, 430 (E.D. La. 2005).
28 In re Oil Spill by Oil Rig “Deepwater Horizon” in the Gulf of Mexico, on April 20, 2010,
MDL NO. 2179, 2021 WL 6053613, at *11 (E.D. La. Apr. 1, 2021).
29 Davis v. BP Expl. & Prod., Inc., No. 17-4664, 2022 WL 2789027, at *1 (E.D. La. July 15,
2022).
30 Knight v. Kirby Inland Marine Inc., 482 F.3d 347, 351 (5th Cir. 2007) (internal quotation
marks omitted).
31 See Doc. 51 at 1.
25
6
Case 2:17-cv-03132-JTM-KWR Document 76 Filed 08/16/22 Page 7 of 8
and entitled “Health Effects Among Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill Response and
Cleanup Workers: A Cause and Effect Analysis.”32 This report is not unique to
this case; another judge of this Court has described it as “an omnibus, non-case
specific general causation expert report that has been used by many B3
plaintiffs.”33
Five other sections of the Eastern District of Louisiana have excluded
Dr. Cook based on this same report before the Court.34 After carefully and
thoroughly reviewing those decisions, and for the same reasons articulated by
Judges Ashe, Vance, Barbier, Morgan, and Zainey, the Court grants
Defendants’ Motion in Limine. Accordingly, the Court also grants Defendants’
Motion for Summary Judgment.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Defendants’ Motion in Limine (Doc. 56) and
Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 57) are GRANTED.
IT IS ORDERED that all of Plaintiff’s claims are DISMISSED WITH
PREJUDICE.
See Doc. 56-3.
McIntosh v. BP Expl. & Prod., Inc., No. 13-1020, 2022 WL 2342480, at *1 (E.D. La. June
29, 2022).
34 See Johns v. BP Expl. & Prod. Inc., No. 17-3304, 2022 WL 1811088 (E.D. La. June 2, 2022)
(Ashe, J.); Coleman v. BP Expl. & Prod., Inc., No. 17-4158, 2022 WL 2314400 (E.D. La. June
28, 2022) (Vance, J.); McIntosh, 2022 WL 2342480 (Barbier, J.); Harrison v. BP Expl. & Prod.
Inc., No. 17-4346, 2022 WL 2390733 (E.D. La. July 1, 2022) (Morgan, J.); Davis, 2022 WL
2789027 (Zainey, J.).
32
33
7
Case 2:17-cv-03132-JTM-KWR Document 76 Filed 08/16/22 Page 8 of 8
New Orleans, Louisiana this 16th day of August, 2022.
____________________________________
JANE TRICHE MILAZZO
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
8
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?