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

Filing 81

ORDER AND REASONS: For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's 79 Motion to Reconsider Order Granting Summary Judgment to Defendants is DENIED as set forth in document. Signed by Judge Wendy B Vitter on 3/9/2023. (mmv)

Case 2:17-cv-04154-WBV-JVM Document 81 Filed 03/09/23 Page 1 of 5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
JACQUELINE CASTLEBERRY, ET AL.

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

NO. 17-4154

BP EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION,
INC., ET AL.

SECTION: D (1)

ORDER AND REASONS
Before the Court is Plaintiffs’1 Motion to Reconsider Order Granting Summary
Judgment to Defendants.2 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.3

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;4 accordingly, the Court only discusses
the relevant background as it pertains to the instant Motion.

The Plaintiffs are Jacqueline Castleberry and Jancey Castleberry-Fort, individually and on behalf of
her minor child, JJC.
2 R. Doc. 79.
3 R. Doc. 80.
4 See R. Doc. 77 at pp. 2–4.
1

Case 2:17-cv-04154-WBV-JVM Document 81 Filed 03/09/23 Page 2 of 5

On January 17, 2023, this Court granted Defendants’ Daubert Motion to
Exclude the General Causation Opinions of Plaintiff’s expert, Dr. Jerald Cook5, and
Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment Due to Plaintiff’s Inability to Prove
Medical Causation6 for the reasons stated in that Order.7 Plaintiffs filed the present
Motion on February 14, 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 2019.8
Plaintiffs argue 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.9
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 Plaintiffs’ general causation expert, Dr. Jerald Cook. 10 The
Defendants also contend that Plaintiffs have 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.11

R. Doc. 59.
R. Doc. 60.
7 R. Doc. 77.
8 See R. Doc. 79; R. Doc. 79-2.
9 R. Doc. 79 at p. 1.
10 R. Doc. 80 at p. 2.
11 Id. at p. 7.
5
6

Case 2:17-cv-04154-WBV-JVM Document 81 Filed 03/09/23 Page 3 of 5

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.”12

A district court has “considerable discretion in deciding

whether to reopen a case in response to a motion for reconsideration under” Rule
59(e).13 The Court is mindful that, “[r]econsideration of a judgment after its entry is
an extraordinary remedy that should be used sparingly.”14 “[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.”15
“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.”16
III.

ANALYSIS
Plaintiffs rely on evidence already considered and rejected by this Court. As

the Court has explained elsewhere, Dr. Birnbaum “appears to conflate general

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).
14 Templet v. HydroChem Inc., 367 F.3d 473, 479 (5th Cir. 2004).
15 Id. (citing Simon v. United States, 891 F.2d 1154, 1159 (5th Cir. 1990)).
16 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).
12
13

Case 2:17-cv-04154-WBV-JVM Document 81 Filed 03/09/23 Page 4 of 5

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
admissible.”17 Plaintiffs’ Motion relies solely on Dr. Birnbaum’s affidavit and does
not include any new argument or evidence. Plaintiffs’ reliance on evidence already
considered by the Court alone justifies denial of Plaintiffs’ 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, Plaintiffs have failed to address any of the factors
considered by courts in this district when determining whether reconsideration of a
judgment is merited.
In sum, Plaintiffs’ rehashing of arguments already considered and rejected by
this Court fails to carry Plaintiffs’ heavy burden in persuading the Court to grant the
“extraordinary remedy” of a Rule 59(e) motion.18 Plaintiffs fail to show that the
Motion should be granted in order to correct manifest errors of law or fact or to
prevent injustice.19 Further, Plaintiffs have presented no new relevant evidence nor
shown that the motion is “justified by an intervening change in the controlling law.”20
Accordingly, the Court finds that Plaintiffs have 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 June 21, 2022 version of Dr. Cook’s Report.
18 Templet, 367 F.3d at 479.
19 Jupiter, 1999 WL 796218, at *1.
20 Id.
17

Case 2:17-cv-04154-WBV-JVM Document 81 Filed 03/09/23 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 Defendants21 is DENIED.
New Orleans, Louisiana, March 9, 2023.

______________________________
WENDY B. VITTER
United States District Judge

21

R. Doc. 79.