Arbogast et al v. A.W. Chesterton Company et al
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER denying 598 Motion in Limine. Signed by Judge James K. Bredar on 7/17/2017. (kw2s, Deputy Clerk)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
BARBARA ARBOGAST et al.,
CIVIL NO. JKB-14-4049
GEORGIA-PACIFIC LLC et al.,
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Pending before the Court is Plaintiffs’ “Daubert” Motion to Exclude the Testimony and
Opinions of Donald E. Marano. (ECF No. 598.) The motion has been briefed (ECF No. 606),1
and no hearing is required, Local Rule 105.6 (D. Md. 2016). The motion will be denied.
Federal Rule of Evidence 702 provides,
A witness who is qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience,
training, or education may testify in the form of an opinion or otherwise if:
(a) the expert’s scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will
help the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue;
(b) the testimony is based on sufficient facts or data;
(c) the testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods; and
(d) the expert has reliably applied the principles and methods to the facts
of the case.
Mr. Marano is a certified industrial hygienist who is offered by Defendant GeorgiaPacific as an expert who will testify as to his qualitative assessment of the various exposures to
asbestos described by the decedent, Charles Lemuel Arbogast, Jr.; additionally, Mr. Marano will
offer his quantitative assessment of Mr. Arbogast’s alleged exposure to asbestos from GeorgiaPacific products.
He will also testify as to the level of risk of contracting mesothelioma
associated with his quantitative assessment of Mr. Arbogast’s exposure.
No reply was filed by Plaintiffs.
Plaintiffs indicate that Mr. Marano will be offered as an expert concerning both risk and
causation of Mr. Arbogast’s mesothelioma (Pls.’ Mot. 1-2), but Georgia-Pacific counters that by
saying Mr. Marano repeatedly disclaimed any expertise on causation and has confined his
opinion “to explaining the risk assessments performed by various agencies and organizations and
offering his risk assessment opinion based on the analysis that his profession is trained to
provide” (Def.’s Opp’n 3).
Both sides have provided ample information and argument on this motion, and after
carefully reviewing that, the Court concludes that the motion is properly denied for the reasons
stated in Georgia-Pacific’s opposition. Mr. Marano’s opinion is based on sound, recognized,
scientific methodology and meets all of the requirements of Rule 702, and it will be helpful to
the trier of fact.
Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ motion (ECF No. 598) is DENIED.
DATED this 17th day of July, 2017.
BY THE COURT:
James K. Bredar
United States District Judge
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?