Walters et al v. Flint et al
Filing
645
OPINION and ORDER denying as moot 489 Motion in Limine; granting in part and denying in part 490 Motion in Limine; denying 492 Motion in Limine; granting in part and denying in part 511 Motion in Limine; granting in part and denying in part 513 Motion in Limine. Signed by District Judge Judith E. Levy. (WBar)
Case 5:17-cv-10164-JEL-KGA ECF No. 645, PageID.43344 Filed 01/21/22 Page 1 of 4
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 DENYING AS MOOT DEFENDANTS
VEOLIA NORTH AMERICA, LLC, VEOLIA NORTH AMERICA,
INC., AND VEOLIA WATER NORTH AMERICA OPERATING
SERVICES, LLC’S MOTION TO EXCLUDE IMPROPER JURY
ARGUMENT [489]; GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN
PART VNA’S MOTION TO EXCLUDE SETTLEMENT [490];
DENYING VNA’S MOTION TO EXCLUDE TESTIMONY ABOUT
MOTIVE [492]; GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART
PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO PRECLUDE INVESTIGATIVE
REPORTS [511]; AND GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN
PART PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO PRECLUDE EVIDENCE
ABOUT ALTERNATIVE LEAD EXPOSURES [513]
Before the Court are a series of motions in limine filed in
anticipation of the first Flint Water bellwether trial, scheduled to begin
on February 15, 2022. On January 19, 2022, oral argument was held on
Case 5:17-cv-10164-JEL-KGA ECF No. 645, PageID.43345 Filed 01/21/22 Page 2 of 4
the parties’ motions in limine. The following motions were resolved
during that hearing for the reasons set forth on the record:
The VNA Defendants’ motion to exclude improper jury argument
(ECF No. 489) is DENIED AS MOOT because the issues raised in
that motion have been resolved by the parties.
The VNA Defendants’ motion to exclude the settlement from
evidence (ECF No. 490) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN
PART.
The VNA Defendants’ motion to exclude testimony and evidence
about motive and intent (ECF No. 492) is DENIED.
Plaintiffs’ motion to preclude investigative reports (ECF No. 511) is
GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. Neither the Task
Force Report nor the EPA reports will be admitted in their entirety.
On February 1, the LAN and VNA Defendants will inform the Court
what portions of these reports, if any, they intend to use during
their opening statements. Plaintiffs may submit their response by
February 7.
2
Case 5:17-cv-10164-JEL-KGA ECF No. 645, PageID.43346 Filed 01/21/22 Page 3 of 4
Finally, Plaintiffs’ motion to exclude from evidence testimony about
alternative lead exposures (ECF No. 513) is GRANTED IN PART and
DENIED IN PART.
For the reasons set forth on the record, Dr.’s Finley and Weed will
be permitted to testify that Plaintiffs’ blood lead values are normal, not
indicative of lead poisoning, and consistent with ordinary background
exposure to lead. They may explain what constitutes ordinary
background exposure to lead, and they may rebut opinions offered by
Plaintiffs’ experts. Neither Dr. Finley nor Dr. Weed may testify that
Plaintiffs’ exposure or their injuries were in fact caused by sources of lead
other than Flint’s water supply, because neither Dr. Finley nor Dr. Weed
has attempted to determine the most likely source of Plaintiffs’ exposure.
In addition, Defendants’ experts will not be permitted to testify to
the results of A.T.’s home inspection report. That home inspection was
conducted years after A.T. moved to a different home. In the intervening
time, A.T.’s previous home was remodeled and sustained fire damage.
Accordingly, any testimony based on A.T.’s home inspection report would
be entirely speculative. Speculative expert testimony is inadmissible.
E.g. Tamraz v. Lincoln Elec. Co., 620 F.3d 665, 671 (6th Cir. 2010) (“no
3
Case 5:17-cv-10164-JEL-KGA ECF No. 645, PageID.43347 Filed 01/21/22 Page 4 of 4
matter how good experts’ credentials may be, they are not permitted to
speculate”) (cleaned up) (quoting Goebel v. Denver & Rio Grande W.R.R.
Co., 215 F.3d 1083, 1088 (10th Cir. 2010)).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 21, 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 21, 2022.
s/William Barkholz
WILLIAM BARKHOLZ
Case Manager
4
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?