SUOJA, DELORES AGNES v. OWENS-ILLINOIS, INC.

Filing 61

ORDER granting as unopposed 32 Motion to Bar the Longo/MAS Videotaped Experiments and Related Testimony , 40 Motion to Exclude Barry Castleman, Sc.D. and 27 Motion to Bar the "Any Exposure" Causation Opinion by Defendant Owens-Illinois Inc. Signed by District Judge Barbara B. Crabb on 2/13/2015. (voc)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - GARY SUOJA, individually and as special administrator for the estate of Oswald F. Suoja, ORDER Plaintiff, 99-cv-475-bbc v. OWENS-ILLINOIS, INC., Defendant. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - BARBARA CONNELL, individually and as special administrator for the estate of Daniel Connell, ORDER Plaintiff, 05-cv-219-bbc v. OWENS-ILLINOIS, INC., Defendant. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - In both of these cases, the plaintiff seeks to recover damages for exposure to asbestos. Trials are scheduled for later this year. Now before the court are several motions filed by defendant Owens-Illinois, Inc. in both cases related to evidence that may be offered at trial. In particular, defendant seeks to exclude (1) expert testimony related to the theory that “any 1 exposure” to asbestos, no matter how slight, could have caused the diseases at issue in these cases; (2) evidence of experiments conducted by William Longo and his company Materials Analytical Services that are related to asbestos exposure; and (3) expert testimony from Barry Castleman. Defendant argues that all of this evidence is inadmissible under Fed. R. Evid. 702 and Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993), because it is unreliable. (In case no. 99-cv-475-bbc, defendant has filed a motion to enforce a settlement agreement. Dkt. #46. I will address that motion in a separate order.) The deadline for responding to these motions in both cases passed approximately one month ago, but plaintiffs have yet to file any opposition materials. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that defendants’ motions (dkt. ##27, 32 and 40 in case no. 99-cv-475-bbc and dkt. ##26, 31 and 39 in case no. 05-cv-219-bbc) are GRANTED as unopposed. Bonte v. United States Bank, N.A., 624 F.3d 461, 466 (7th Cir. 2010) (“Failure to respond to an argument . . . results in waiver.”). Entered this 13th day of February, 2015. BY THE COURT: /s/ BARBARA B. CRABB District Judge 2

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?