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

Filing 81

ORDER denying 79 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Judge Greg Gerard Guidry on 06/30/2023. (js)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
VERNON DAVIS BAGGETT

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

NO: 17-3030

BP EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION,
INC., et al.

SECTION: T (5)

VICTOR MAURICE BLACKSTON

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

NO: 17-3048

BP EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION,
INC., et al.

SECTION: T (5)

DEBRA GOREE BUTLER

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

NO: 17-3077

BP EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION,
INC., et al.

SECTION: T (4)

BENNY DARDAR, SR.

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

NO: 17-3138

BP EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION,
INC., et al.

SECTION: T (5)

VANTAVIOUS LATRELL
DUCKSWORTH

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

NO: 17-3157

BP EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION,
INC., et al.

SECTION: T (1)

1

CHARLES M. FRANKLIN, JR.

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

NO: 17-3215

BP EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION,
INC., et al.

SECTION: T (4)

PATRICK LAMAR LASTER, JR.

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

NO: 17-3319

BP EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION,
INC., et al.

SECTION: T (4)

FLINT JAMES MARTIN

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

NO: 17-3358

BP EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION,
INC., et al.

SECTION: T (4)

LARRY STEPHEN MCCAMMON

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

NO: 17-3375

BP EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION,
INC., et al.

SECTION: T (4)

JEFFARI S. MCMILLAN

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

NO: 17-3396

BP EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION,
INC., et al.

SECTION: T (4)

2

DENISE L. PETTAWAY

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

NO: 17-3404

BP EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION,
INC., et al.

SECTION: T (4)

WILLIE LOUIS CASEY, JR.

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

NO: 17-3525

BP EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION,
INC., et al.

SECTION: T (2)

CHRISTOPHER CHARLES CLAY, SR.

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

NO: 17-3526

BP EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION,
INC., et al.

SECTION: T (5)

BRANDON ANTHONY NEWTON

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

NO: 17-3588

BP EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION,
INC., et al.

SECTION: T (5)

BRIAN LARS ROBINSON

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

NO: 17-3606

BP EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION,
INC., et al.

SECTION: T (1)

3

SUSAN GAIL BARNES

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

NO: 17-3630

BP EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION,
INC., et al.

SECTION: T (1)

LARRY ALLEN DAVENPORT

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

NO: 17-3726

BP EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION,
INC., et al.

SECTION: T (5)

DANA PATTERSON

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

NO: 17-4079

BP EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION,
INC., et al.

SECTION: T (4)

WAYDE P. BONVILLAIN

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

NO: 17-4134

BP EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION,
INC., et al.

SECTION: T (2)

SANDRA PETTWAY

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

NO: 17-4146

BP EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION,
INC., et al.

SECTION: T (2)

4

APRIL WENSEL

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

NO: 17-4225

BP EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION,
INC., et al.

SECTION: T (4)

BRIAN THOMPSON

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

NO: 17-4265

BP EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION,
INC., et al.

SECTION: T (2)

TERRY WEATHERSBY

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

NO: 17-4275

BP EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION,
INC., et al.

SECTION: T (4)

VICTORIA WASHINGTON

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

NO: 17-4297

BP EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION,
INC., et al.

SECTION: T (2)

JEROME HARRY

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

NO: 17-4347

BP EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION,
INC., et al.

SECTION: T (5)

5

MITCHELL HENDRIX

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

NO: 17-4354

BP EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION,
INC., et al.

SECTION: T (1)

CALVIN PRICE, SR.

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

NO: 17-4571

BP EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION,
INC., et al.

SECTION: T (4)

BOBBY J. SLAUGHTER

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

NO: 17-4584

BP EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION,
INC., et al.

SECTION: T (5)

ORDER
Each of the captioned cases is a B-3 medical case arising out of the Deepwater
Horizon oil spill. Before the Court now are identical motions for reconsideration filed
by each of the above-captioned plaintiffs. Defendants, BP Exploration & Production
Inc., BP America Production Company, and BP p.l.c. (collectively “BP”)1 have filed
identical oppositions in each of the above-captioned cases. For the following reasons,
the Court denies the plaintiffs’ motions to reconsider.

Halliburton Energy Services, Inc., Transocean Deepwater, Inc., Transocean Holdings, LLC, and
Transocean Offshore Deepwater Drilling, Inc., join in each of the referenced motions.

1

6

BACKGROUND
Each of the captioned plaintiffs filed lawsuits against defendants based on
alleged injuries due to exposure to toxic chemicals following the 2010 Deepwater
Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. In each case, plaintiffs submitted an expert
report from Dr. Jerald Cook, a retired Navy physician with a master’s degree in
environmental toxicology and a fellow of the American College of Occupational and
Environmental Medicine, to demonstrate that exposure to crude oil, weathered oil,
and dispersants could cause symptoms they allege in their complaints. Dr. Cook
produced a general causation report used by many B3 plaintiffs including those
plaintiffs whose motions are addressed herein. In his report, Dr. Cook did not mention
any plaintiff by name, address any particular plaintiff’s work on the spill, nor did he
detail the nature of any plaintiff’s exposure to any particular toxins. Moreover, Dr.
Cook failed to present any opinion in his report of any link between particular
chemical compounds and any specific disease.
Defendants moved to exclude Dr. Cook’s testimony under Daubert. 2 This Court
granted those motions and simultaneously granted motions for summary judgment
as to causation reasoning that without Dr. Cook’s report, plaintiffs presented no
evidence of general causation as is necessary in toxic tort matters.
Plaintiffs now argue that the Court’s orders on the motions in limine and
motions for summary judgment should be reconsidered. Each of the plaintiffs’

2

Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993).

7

motions are substantively identical. In support of their positions, plaintiffs state they
were unable to present appropriate expert testimony due to BP’s “mismanagement of
biological monitoring” and point to sanctions against BP in another section of this
Court for failure to produce a proper 30(b)(6) corporate witness to testify as to such
monitoring. Defendants respond that reconsideration is not warranted as plaintiffs
present no new evidence or argument, and that the issue of discovery sanctions is
irrelevant to general causation.
LAW & ANALYSIS
Rule 59(e) motions to alter or amend judgments serve solely to allow parties to
correct “manifest errors of law or fact or to present newly discovered evidence.” 3
Reconsideration of judgments is “an extraordinary remedy that should be used
sparingly.” 4 A party seeking reconsideration must show that it is necessary based on
at least one of the following criteria: “(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; [or] (4) the motion is justified by an intervening change in the
controlling law.” 5 District courts have “considerable discretion” under Rule 59(e). 6

Waltman v. Int’l Paper Co., 875 F.2d 468, 473 (5th Cir. 1989) (internal quotations omitted); See Matter
of Life Partner Holdings, Inc., 926 F.3d 103, 128 (5th Cir. 2019) (quoting Schiller v. Physicians Res.
Grp., Inc., 342 F.3d 563, 567 (5th Cir. 2003)).
4 Templet v. HydroChem Inc., 367 F.3d 473, 479 (5th Cir. 2004).
5 Theriot v. Brit Sys., Inc., No. 11-1995, 2013 WL 12238852, at *1 (E.D. La. Apr. 23, 2013); Fields v.
Pool Offshore, Inc., No. 97-3170, 1998 WL 43217, at *2 (E.D. La. Feb. 3, 1998).
6 Edward H. Bohlin Co. v. Banning Co., 6 F.3d 350, 355 (5th Cir. 1993).
3

8

Plaintiffs seek reconsideration of this Court’s orders excluding Dr. Cook’s
testimony and granting summary judgment in favor of defendants based on a theory
that defendants improperly blocked discovery efforts on the issue of biomonitoring.
Plaintiffs largely rely on the same argument regarding sanctions in the Torres-Lugo
case they have previously relied on in response to the defendants’ motions in limine.
The fact that sanctions were issued in the interim does not change the Court’s
conclusions in its previous rulings. The arguments posed by plaintiffs are duplicative
of their previous arguments, which have been exhaustively considered. As such,
another recitation of those arguments “does not entitle [them] to a second bite at the
apple” through reconsideration. 7
This Court is not alone in its decision to deny plaintiffs’ motions to reconsider.
Indeed, other sections of this Court have consistently found that the issues of
sanctions motions are not outcome determinative to the admissibility of Dr. Cook’s
report, nor the merits of the summary judgment motions filed by defendants. 8 In
addition, the Fifth Circuit recently affirmed the reasoning adopted by this Court. 9 In
none of their identical motions do plaintiffs contend the discovery sought would
alleviate or cure the need for particularized causation evidence for each plaintiff. In
that regard, BP’s purported failure of biomonitoring is irrelevant as to either the

Vesoulis v. Reshape Lifesciences, Inc., No. 19-1795, 2021 WL 2267676, at *1 (E.D. La. June 3, 2021).
See, e.g., Dawkins v. BP Expl. & Prod. Inc., No. 17-3533, R. Doc. 81 (E.D. La. Sept. 20, 2022) (Vance,
J.); Keller v. BP Expl. & Prod. Inc., No. 13-1018, R. Doc. 64 (E.D. La. Aug. 25, 2022) (Africk, J.); Barkley
v. BP Expl. & Prod. Inc., No. 13-0995, R. Doc. 58 (E.D. La. Aug. 5, 2022) (Barbier, J.); Beverly v. BP
Expl. & Prod. Inc., No. 17-3045, R. Doc. 66 (E.D. La. Sept. 13, 2022 (Barbier, J.); Barksdale v. BP Expl.
& Prod. Inc., No. 17-3034, R. Doc. 60 (E.D. La. Oct. 21, 2022) (Zainey, J.).
9
See Byrd v. BP Exploration & Production, Incorporated, 2023 WL 4046280 (5th Cir. June 16, 2023).
7
8

9

admissibility of Dr. Cook’s report nor the summary judgment motions. 10 Plaintiffs
likewise fail to claim to have discovered new evidence, or that there have been any
intervening changes in controlling law. Moreover, plaintiffs have not established that
this Court’s orders create a manifest injustice.
Absent sufficient support for their motion for reconsideration to justify such an
extraordinary remedy, plaintiffs’ motions for reconsideration are DENIED.
New Orleans, Louisiana this 30th day of June, 2023.

GREG GERARD GUIDRY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

See Burns v. BP Expl. & Prod. Inc., No. 17-3117, R. Doc. 66, at 2 n. 5 (E.D. La. July 25, 2022) (Ashe,
J.); Ross v. BP Expl. & Prod. Inc., No. 17-4287, R. Doc. 60 at 12 (E.D. La. July 28, 2022) (Barbier, J.);
Reed v. BP Expl. & Prod. Inc., No. 17-3603, R. Doc. 66 at 2 (E.D. La. July 28, 2022) (Milazzo, J.).
10

10