Cortez v. Lamorak Insurance Company et al, No. 2:2020cv02389 - Document 1225 (E.D. La. 2022)
Court Description: ORDER and REASONS granting 528 Motion to Strike certain expert witnesses, as stated herein. Signed by Judge Sarah S. Vance on 10/14/2022. (cbs)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Cortez v. Lamorak Insurance Company et al Doc. 1225 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA CALLEN J. CORTEZ, ET AL. VERSUS CIVIL ACTION NO. 20-2389 LAMORAK INSURANCE COMPANY, ET AL. SECTION “R” (1) ORDER AND REASONS Before the Court is plaintiffs’ motion to strike eleven witnesses for the defense.1 Hopeman Brothers, Inc. (“Hopeman”) opposes the motion.2 For the following reasons, the Court grants plaintiffs’ motion. I. BACKGROUND This is an asbestos exposure case. Plaintiffs allege that decedent Callen Cortez contracted mesothelioma as a result of exposure to asbestos over the course of his career,3 as well as take-home exposure resulting from his father’s and brothers’ work when the family shared a home.4 Defendants are sued in a variety 1 2 3 4 R. Doc. 528. R. Doc. 689. R. Doc. 1-1 at 3-6 (Complaint ¶¶ 3, 8). R. Doc. 149 at 1-2 (Second Amended Complaint ¶¶ 94-95). Dockets.Justia.com of capacities, including as manufacturers, premises owners, or employers allegedly responsible for Cortez’s exposure to asbestos.5 In the present motion, plaintiffs seek to strike defense witnesses listed as experts but for whom no expert report has been produced.6 Hopeman opposes the motion only as to Max Richard.7 The Court considers the motion below. II. DISCUSSION Plaintiffs seek to strike eleven witnesses for the defense listed as experts for whom no expert witness report was produced. None of the defendants filed oppositions to any of the witnesses identified in plaintiffs’ motion except for Hopeman, who opposed the exclusion of Max Richard. Hopeman contends that Richard was properly identified as a fact witness. Plaintiffs assert that Hopeman intends to elicit expert testimony from Richard as demonstrated by the excerpts of his deposition Hopeman proposes to use at trial. Hopeman concedes that it proposes to offer opinions Richard gave about airmonitoring testing he performed at the behest of Hopeman. He apparently rendered opinions about asbestos fiber release at Avondale generated by the 5 6 7 See generally R. Doc. 1-1. R. Doc. 528. R. Doc. 689. 2 cutting of asbestos-containing wall panels. Under Rule 701 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, if a witness is not testifying as an expert, he may offer opinion testimony only if it is: (a) rationally based on the witness’s perception; (b) helpful to clearly understanding the witness’s testimony or to determining a fact in issue; and (c) not based on scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge within the scope of Rule 702. Fed. R. Evid. 701. From 1970 to 1979, Richard was Director of the Occupational Health and Safety program at Tulane University.8 Hopeman while at Tulane.9 He also worked as a consultant for While Richard pursued a master’s degree in occupational health, he apparently conducted studies for Hopeman on asbestos fiber release at Avondale in 1972.10 These studies involve technical and specialized knowledge and are not the province of lay opinion. Hopeman may not offer opinion testimony from Richard without an expert report. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(B)(i) (providing that parties seeking to introduce expert testimony must produce a written report by their expert witnesses containing “a complete statement of all opinions the witness will express and the 8 9 10 R. Doc. 689-4 at 4. Id. Id. 3 basis and reasons for them”); see also Dockery v. Hall, No. 13- 326, 2018 WL 11424795, at *2 (S.D. Miss. Mar. 12, 2018) (noting that “the rules of civil procedure preclude an expert witness from offering testimony regarding opinions that are not timely disclosed”). And contrary to Hopeman’s contentions, Richard’s 1996 deposition from another case is not the equivalent of an expert report. Plaintiffs’ motion is granted. III. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS plaintiffs’ motion to strike certain expert witnesses. New Orleans, Louisiana, this _____ 14th day of October, 2022. _____________________ SARAH S. VANCE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 4
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
