Krutz v. Huntington Ingalls Incorporated et al

Filing 206

ORDER AND REASONS granting in part 176 Motion in Limine to Daubert Motion to Preclude Hopeman-Specific Testimony from Plaintiffs' Expert, Barry Castleman; granting 194 Motion For Order -Daubert Motion to Preclude Testimony from Plaintiffs Expert Barry Castleman for the reasons stated within document. Signed by Judge Sarah S. Vance on 8/25/2021. (mm)

Case 2:20-cv-01722-SSV-DMD Document 206 Filed 08/25/21 Page 1 of 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
GARY KRUTZ, ET AL.

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

NO. 20-1722

HUNTINGTON INGALLS INC., ET
AL.

SECTION “R” (3)

ORDER AND REASONS
Before the Court is plaintiffs’ consent motion 1 regarding Hopeman
Brothers, Inc.’s (“Hopeman”) Daubert motion to preclude certain testimony
by plaintiffs’ expert, Barry Castleman. 2 Plaintiffs’ motion is unopposed. 3
The Court considers the motion below.
On July 30, 2021, defendant Hopeman filed a Daubert motion seeking
to exclude “Hopeman-specific testimony from Plaintiffs’ State-of-the-Art
Expert, Barry Castleman.”4 In its Daubert motion, defendant argued that
plaintiffs’ expert made factually inaccurate statements regarding Hopeman’s
connection to Johns Manville, the manufacturer of marinite core, a
component of the wallboard panels Hopeman installed, some of which

1
2
3
4

R. Doc. 194.
R. Doc. 176.
R. Doc. 194 at 1.
R. Doc. 176 at 1.

Case 2:20-cv-01722-SSV-DMD Document 206 Filed 08/25/21 Page 2 of 3

contained asbestos. 5 Plaintiffs did not file an opposition to Hopeman’s
Daubert motion.

Instead, plaintiffs filed the present consent motion,

representing that the parties have stipulated to a resolution of defendant’s
motion. 6 To that end, the parties submit a proposed order, granting in part
and denying in part defendant’s Daubert motion regarding the testimony of
Barry Castleman. 7
Considering the foregoing, the Court GRANTS plaintiffs’ consent
motion, 8 and thereby GRANTS in part defendant’s Daubert motion 9 to
exclude portions of Mr. Castleman’s expert testimony and to strike
corresponding sections from his expert report.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that Mr. Castleman shall not be permitted
to testify at trial about the following allegations: (a) that Hopeman was a
government contractor, (b) that Hopeman was a contractor for Johns
Manville, (c) that Hopeman and Johns Manville had a legal or contractual
relationship other than as buyer and seller, and (d) that Hopeman’s lawyers
met with Johns Manville and were involved in creating warning labels that
Johns Manville placed on its products. It is FURTHER ORDERED that any

5
6
7
8
9

R. Docs. 176-1 at 3-6 & 171-1 ¶¶ 4-6.
R. Doc. 194.
R. Doc. 194-1.
R. Doc. 194.
R. Doc. 176.
2

Case 2:20-cv-01722-SSV-DMD Document 206 Filed 08/25/21 Page 3 of 3

statements in Mr. Castleman’s expert report regarding the above subjects
shall be stricken from the report. To the extent that defendant’s Daubert
motion seeks relief other than the exclusions enumerated above, the motion
is DENIED.

25th
New Orleans, Louisiana, this _____ day of August, 2021.

_____________________
SARAH S. VANCE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3