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

Filing 46

ORDER AND REASONS: granting 43 Motion for Summary Judgment, as stated herein. Signed by Judge Barry W Ashe on 07/14/2022. (am)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

JOHN WEBB

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

NO. 17-4276

BP EXPLORATION &
PRODUCTION, INC., et al.

SECTION M (4)

ORDER & REASONS
Before the Court is a motion by defendants BP Exploration & Production Inc., BP America
Production Company, and BP p.l.c. (collectively, “BP”) for summary judgment.1 The motion was
set for submission on June 30, 2022.2 Local Rule 7.5 of the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Louisiana requires that a memorandum in opposition to a motion be filed no
later than eight days before the noticed submission date, which deadline in this instance was June
22, 2022. Plaintiff John Webb, who is represented by counsel, did not file an opposition.
Accordingly, because the motion is unopposed and appears to have merit,3

1

R. Doc. 43. Defendants Haliburton Energy Services, Inc., Transocean Offshore Deepwater Drilling, Inc.,
Transocean Holdings, LLC, and Transocean Deepwater, Inc. join in the motion. Id. at 1 n.1.
2
R. Doc. 43-3.
3
This toxic-tort case arises out of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill that occurred on April 20, 2010. Webb
filed this suit in 2017, alleging that toxic exposures from the oil spill, oil-spill response, or cleanup caused him to
develop medical conditions, including headaches, diarrhea, and red eyes. R. Doc. 1-1 at 5. Webb’s case, which was
originally part of the multidistrict litigation (“MDL”) arising out of the Deepwater Horizon incident and known as a
“B3” case, was severed from the MDL and reallotted to this section of court. R. Docs. 6; 7. On November 10, 2021,
this Court entered a scheduling order that set June 6, 2022, as Webb’s expert disclosure deadline. R. Doc. 37 at 3. To
date, Webb has not designated any experts. R. Doc. 43-2 at 2-3. A B3 plaintiff must prove that exposure to oil, a
chemical, or other substance legally caused his or her physical condition. Generally, “‘when the conclusion regarding
medical causation is not one within common knowledge, expert medical testimony is required to prove causation.’”
Cibilic v. BP Expl. & Prod., 2017 WL 1064954, at *2 (E.D. La. Mar. 21, 2017) (quoting Lassiegne v. Taco Bell Corp.,
202 F. Supp. 2d 512, 524 (E.D. La. 2002)). Expert testimony is required to establish causation in toxic-tort cases
where “‘[s]cientific knowledge of the harmful level of exposure to a chemical, plus knowledge that the plaintiff was
exposed to such quantities, are minimal facts necessary to sustain the plaintiffs’ burden’” of proof. Seaman v. Seacor
Marine L.L.C., 326 F. App’x 721, 723 (5th Cir. 2009) (quoting Allen v. Pa. Eng’g Corp., 102 F.3d 194, 199 (5th Cir.
1996)). Because he did not timely designate any experts, Webb cannot present the expert testimony required to prove
his claim. Thus, BP is entitled to summary judgment in its favor.

IT IS ORDERED that BP’s motion for summary judgment (R. Doc. 43) is GRANTED,
and Webb’s claims are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
New Orleans, Louisiana, this 14th day of July, 2022.

________________________________
BARRY W. ASHE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2