RABOVSKY et al v. AIR & LIQUID SYSTEMS CORPORATION et al

Filing 174

MEMORANDUM AND/OR OPINION ORDER THAT THE MOTION IN LIMINE TO PRECLUDE OR LIMIT PLAINTFFS' EXPERTS' TESTIMONY (DOC. NO.109) AND DEFENDANTS MOTION IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE THE "EACH AND EVERY EXPOSURE" OPINION (DOC. NO.115)ARE DENIED FOR THE REASONS ARTICULATED IN OUR MEMORANDUM OPINION OF 1/25/2012. SIGNED BY MAGISTRATE JUDGE DAVID R. STRAWBRIDGE ON 1/25/2012. 1/26/2012 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED, E-MAILED.(kk, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

IN RE: ASBESTOS PRODUCTS
LIABILITY LITIGATION (No. VI)
This Document Relates To
V ALENT RABOVSKY and
ANN RABOVSKY,

FILED
JAN;2 52012

MlCHAEL~ KU~~
By

CIVIL ACTION NO. MDL 875

Plaintiffs,
EDPA CIVIL ACTION NO. 10-cv-03202

v.
AIR & LIQUID SYSTEMS
CORPORATION, et al.,
Defendants.

ORDER
i

I

AND NOW, this 25 th day of January, 2012, upon consideration of Goulds Pumps, Inc.
I

I

I

("Goulds'!')'s Motion in Limine to Preclude or Limit Plaintiffs' Experts' Testimony Based on

Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals (Doc. 109), several defendants' motions adopting the
same, I t9gether with Plaintiffs' Response (Doc. 125) and Goulds' Reply (Doc. 138), and upon

I Defendant Foster Wheeler Energy Corporation's Motion in Limine Adopting Co­
Defendant, Goulds Pumps, Inc.'s Motion in Limine to Preclude Plaintiffs Experts' Testimony
Based on Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals (Doc. 118), Pennsylvania Electric
Company's Motion in Limine Adopting Co-Defendant, Goulds Pumps, Inc.'s Motion in Limine
to Preclude Plaintiffs Experts' Testimony Based on Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals
(Doc. 156), Motion for in Limine of Defendant, the Doe Run Resources Corporation, fIkIa St.
Joseph Lead Co. Adopting Co-Defendant, Goulds Pumps, Inc., Motion in Limine to Preclude
Plaintiffs' Experts' Testimony based on Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals (Doc. 162),
A.K. Steel Corporation's Motion in Limine Adopting Co-Defendant, Goulds Pumps, Inc.'s
Motion in Limine to Preclude Plaintiffs Experts' Testimony Based on Daubert v. Merrill Dow
Pharmaceuticals (Doc. 164), Joinder by Defendant CBS Corporation, Successor to
Westinghouse Electric Corporation, in Motions in Limine to Preclude Plaintiffs' Experts'
Testimony Regarding "Each and Every Exposure" Opinions and as Required by Daubert v.
Merrill Dow Pharmaceuticals (Doc. 165). In response, Plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Respor
(continUf

consideration of Crane CO.'s Motion in Limine to Exclude the "Each and Every Exposure"
OpiniQn (Doc. 115), two defendants' motions adopting it,2 together with Plaintiffs' Response
(Doc. 125), Crane Coo's Reply (Doc. 142), and Crane Coo's Supplemental Memorandum of Law
on Plaintiffs' Causation Evidence (Doc. 171), in addition to oral argument heard on January 19,
2012, it is hereby ORDERED that Defendants' motions are DENIED for the reasons articulated
in our Memorandum Opinion of January 25, 2012.

BY THE COURT:

2~ dZSk/?rtU£Ju1

DAVID R. STRAWBRkfGE
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

l(...continued)
in Opposition to Defendants' Joinders in the Motions in Limine to Exclude Plaintiffs' Expert
Causation Testimony (Doc. 169), which we consider as welL All of these defendants, together
with Goulds and Crane Co., hereinafter will be referred to collectively as "Defendants."
Motion for in Limine of Defendant, The Doe Run Resources Corporation, f/kla St.
Joseph Lead Co. Adopting the Motion in Limine of Defendant, Crane Co., to Exclude "Each and
Every Exposure" Opinion (Doc. 161), and Joinder by Defendant CBS Corporation, Successor to
Westinghouse Electric Corporation, in Motions in Limine to Preclude Plaintiffs' Experts'
Testimony Regarding "Each and Every Exposure" Opinions and as Required by Daubert v.
Merrill Dow Pharmaceuticals (Doc. 165).
.2