Walters et al v. Flint et al

Filing 638

OPINION AND ORDER granting in part and denying in part 504 Motion in Limine. Signed by District Judge Judith E. Levy. (WBar)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

In re Flint Water Cases

Judith E. Levy
United States District Judge

__________________________________/

This Order Relates To:

Bellwether I Cases
Case No. 17-10164
__________________________________/
OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN
PART DEFENDANTS VEOLIA NORTH AMERICA, LLC, VEOLIA
NORTH AMERICA, INC., AND VEOLIA WATER NORTH
AMERICA OPERATING SERVICES, LLC’S MOTION IN LIMINE
TO EXCLUDE BONE LEAD REFERENCE VALUES [504]
Before the Court is one of thirteen motions in limine filed by Veolia
North America, LLC, Veolia North America, Inc., and Veolia Water
North America Operating Services, LLC’s (collectively “VNA”) in
anticipation of the first Flint Water bellwether trial. VNA seeks the

exclusion of bone lead “reference values” which were included in drafts of
Dr. Aaron Specht’s expert reports.
The reference values to which VNA objects were drawn from studies
involving the exposure of adults to leaded gasoline. (ECF No. 431,
PageID.32904-32907.) Dr. Specht explained in his deposition that he did
not include them in the final versions of his report because they were not
sufficiently relevant to children to be a valuable comparator. (Id. at
PageID.32904.)
Several other expert witnesses initially relied on the reference
values provided in Dr. Specht’s draft reports. (See, e.g., ECF No. 330-34,
PageID.15510 (Dr. Bithoney referencing Dr. Specht’s reference values)).
Because Dr. Specht has disclaimed reliance on these reference values,
Plaintiffs’ other experts may not rely on them in their testimony. Nor
may Plaintiffs rely on them during argument at trial to establish that
they were subjected to a “persistent” exposure.
There is no reason to pre-emptively bar Dr. Specht himself from
referencing studies involving the exposure of adults to leaded gasoline,
however. To the extent such studies become relevant to (otherwise
2

proper) questions posed to him at trial, Dr. Specht may refer to them. It
is clear that Dr. Specht will not use these studies as reference values to
evaluate the lead exposure of the bellwether Plaintiffs. (ECF No. 431,
PageID.32904.) Because there is no indication that the studies at issue
are unreliable, an order barring Dr. Specht from using them in response
to relevant questions at trial is unnecessary.
Accordingly, VNA’s motion to exclude evidence regarding Dr.
Specht’s reference values is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.
IT IS SO ORDERED,
Dated: January 13, 2022
Ann Arbor, Michigan

s/Judith E. Levy
JUDITH E. LEVY
United States District Judge

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned certifies that the foregoing document was served
upon counsel of record and any unrepresented parties via the Court’s
ECF System to their respective email or first-class U.S. mail addresses
disclosed on the Notice of Electronic Filing on January 13, 2022.
s/William Barkholz
WILLIAM BARKHOLZ
Case Manager

3