Stewart v. BP Exploration & Production, Inc. et al
Filing
87
ORDER AND REASONS: For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's 83 Motion to Reconsider Order Granting Summary Judgment to Defendants is DENIED as set forth in document. Signed by Judge Wendy B Vitter on 12/8/2022. (mmv)
Case 2:17-cv-03613-WBV-MBN Document 87 Filed 12/08/22 Page 1 of 5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
LLOYD STEWART, JR.
CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS
NO. 17-3613
BP EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION,
INC., ET AL.
SECTION: D (5)
ORDER & REASONS
Before the Court is Plaintiff Lloyd Stewart, Jr.’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 September 27, 2022, this Court granted Defendants’ Daubert Motion to
Exclude the General Causation Opinions of Plaintiff’s expert, Dr. Jerald Cook4, and
R. Doc. 83.
R. Doc. 86.
3 See R. Doc. 81 at pp. 1–6.
4 R. Doc. 54.
1
2
Case 2:17-cv-03613-WBV-MBN Document 87 Filed 12/08/22 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 October 25, 2022, asking this Court to reconsider its previous Order
granting summary judgment for Defendants in light of an ongoing dispute between
the B3 plaintiffs and the Defendants over the alleged failure of BP to collect dermal
and biological monitoring data from oil spill cleanup workers.7 Plaintiff argues that
“[a]llowing summary judgment to stand would reward” Defendants’ “sanctioned
discovery abuse.”8
The Defendants filed a response in opposition to the Motion, pointing out that
numerous sections of this Court have rejected nearly identical motions in dozens of
cases for “rehash[ing] arguments about the same discovery dispute that this Court
and others have already concluded is irrelevant to the issue of general causation.”9
The Defendants 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.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
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
R. Doc. 55.
R. Doc. 81.
7 R. Doc. 83.
8 R. Doc. 83-1 at p. 3.
9 R. Doc. 86 at p. 1.
10 Id. at p. 6.
11 Waltman v. Int’l Paper Co., 875 F.2d 468, 473 (5th Cir. 1989).
5
6
Case 2:17-cv-03613-WBV-MBN Document 87 Filed 12/08/22 Page 3 of 5
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 primarily relies upon Magistrate Judge North’s discovery-related
ruling in the Torres-Lugo case to support his argument that the Court should
reconsider its prior granting of summary judgment in favor of Defendants.16 Plaintiff
contends that, pursuant to the Torres-Lugo sanctions order, Plaintiff has finally been
able to depose a BP corporate witness about BP’s alleged intentional failure to
conduct dermal and biometric monitoring data of cleanup workers and that, “with the
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).
16 See R. Doc. 83-1 at pp. 2–3 (citing Torres-Lugo v. BP Expl. & Prod., Inc., No. 20-210, R. Doc. 136
(E.D. La. July 18, 2022)).
12
Case 2:17-cv-03613-WBV-MBN Document 87 Filed 12/08/22 Page 4 of 5
benefit of these depositions” in hand, “Plaintiff should have the opportunity to defend
the BP motions with a full record.”17
As Defendants point out, Plaintiff’s argument is not new; the Court already
considered the impact of the Torres-Lugo sanctions order and Plaintiff’s allegations
regarding dermal and biological monitoring in its prior Order and found such
arguments to be wholly irrelevant to the question of the admissibility of Dr. Cook’s
expert report.18 As this Court previously explained: “Plaintiff’s argument misses the
mark because a general causation analysis does not depend upon particular sampling
taken from the incident in question. Rather, a general causation expert is allowed to
consult the entire universe of relevant epidemiological studies to support their
opinion.”19 Indeed, every section of this court to have considered this issue has
concurred that BP’s alleged failure to conduct dermal testing or biomonitoring is not
what renders Dr. Cook’s expert report deficient.20 Rather, Dr. Cook’s report fails
because, as this Court has explained, it does not meet Fifth Circuit requirements for
Id. at p. 2.
R. Doc. 86 at p. 7; R. Doc. 81 at p. 17.
19 R. Doc. 81 at p. 17.
20 See R. Doc. 86 at pp. 7–11 (collecting cases); R. Doc. 81 at p. 17 (“Dr. Cook, after all, ‘was not
prevented from consulting the relevant scientific and medical literature on the harmful effects of oil
to determine whether a relevant chemical has the capacity to cause the harm alleged by plaintiff in
the general population.’” (quoting Dawkins v. BP Expl. & Prod., Inc., No. CV 17-3533, 2022 WL
2315846, at *8 (E.D. La. June 28, 2022) (Vance, J.))); Milsap v. BP Expl. & Prod., Inc., No. CV 17-4451,
2022 WL 6743269, at *2 (E.D. La. Oct. 11, 2022) (Africk, J.) (“[T]he Torres-Lugo sanctions are
irrelevant to defendants’ motions in limine and for summary judgment. Sanctions and more discovery
on BP’s internal decision-making regarding data collection have no effect on the data actually available
to Cook to prove general causation and . . . are therefore not outcome determinative of the legal issue
of general causation.”) (citations omitted).
17
18
Case 2:17-cv-03613-WBV-MBN Document 87 Filed 12/08/22 Page 5 of 5
general causation opinions.21
Further, because Plaintiff has no expert general
causation evidence, the Court granted Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment.22
In sum, Plaintiff’s rehashing of arguments which have already been 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.23 Plaintiff fails to
show that the Motion should be granted in order to correct manifest errors of law or
fact or to prevent injustice.24
Further, Plaintiff has presented no new relevant
evidence nor shown that the motion is “justified by an intervening change in the
controlling law.”25
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.
IV.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion
to Reconsider Order Granting Summary Judgment to Defendants26 is DENIED.
New Orleans, Louisiana, December 8, 2022.
______________________________
WENDY B. VITTER
United States District Judge
R. Doc. 81 at pp. 17–18.
See id. at pp. 18–19.
23 Templet, 367 F.3d at 479.
24 Jupiter, 1999 WL 796218, at *1.
25 Id.
26 R. Doc. 83.
21
22
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?