Goodrich et al v. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation et al, No. 4:2017cv00009 - Document 171 (E.D. Va. 2018)
Court Description: OMNIBUS OPINION AND ORDER. The Court: (1) GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART plaintiffs' motion to limit the testimony of Captain McCloskey (ECF No. 68); (2) GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART plaintiffs' motion to limit the testimony of John Henshaw (ECF No. 69); (3) GRANTS plaintiffs' motion to limit testimony about, and reliance upon, reports and studies concerning asbestos fiber potency ratios (ECF No. 73); (4) DENIES plaintiffs' motion to preclude so-called dose reconstruc tion testimony and evidence (ECF No. 71); and (5) DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE defendant's motion to prohibit evidence of regulatory and policy statements as evidence of medical causation (ECF No. 87). Signed by Magistrate Judge Robert J. Krask on 9/28/2018. (jrin)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Goodrich et al v. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation et al Doc. 171 FILED a i UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA SFP 2 8 2818 Newport News Division CLEhK.U.S.DISTRKiT COURT NORFOLK. VA HARRY L. GOODRICH and AGNES P. GOODRICH, Plaintiffs, V. ACTI0NN0.4:17cv9 JOHN CRANE, INC., Defendant. OMNIBUS OPINION AND ORDER CONCERNING PLAINTIFFS' AND DEFENDANT'S MOTIONS INLIMINE This matter comes before the Court on assorted motions in limine filed by plaintiffs, Harry and Agnes Goodrich, and defendant, John Crane, Inc. Plaintiffs' motions in limine seek: (1) to limit the testimony of Captain Margaret McCloskey; (2) to limit the testimony of John Henshaw; (3) to bar testimony about and reliance upon certain studies addressing asbestos fiber potency ratios; and (4) to limit defense expert testimony relying upon dose reconstruction. ECF Nos. 68-69, 71, 73. Defendant filed oppositions in response thereto, ECF Nos. 111-12, 114, 117, and plaintiffs filed replies in support of their motions, ECF Nos. 130-31, 133, 135. Defendant's motion in limine seeks to prohibit evidence of regulatory and policy statements as evidence of medical causation. ECF No. 87. Plaintiffs filed a response in opposition thereto, ECF No, 125, and defendant filed a reply in support of its motion, ECF No. 137. On September Dockets.Justia.com
]]>
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.
