White v. BP Expl & Prod ( 2023 )

Case: 22-30654 Document: 00516790886 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/16/2023
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit
____________ United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
No. 22-30654 June 16, 2023
Summary Calendar
____________ Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
George Arron Byrd,
Plaintiff—Appellant,
versus
BP Exploration & Production, Incorporated; BP
America Production Company; BP, P.L.C.; Transocean
Holdings, L.L.C.; Transocean Deepwater,
Incorporated; Transocean Offshore Deepwater
Drilling, Incorporated; Halliburton Energy Services,
Incorporated,
Defendants—Appellees,
consolidated with
_____________
No. 22-30657
_____________
Rebecca Yarbrough,
Plaintiff—Appellant,
versus
Case: 22-30654 Document: 00516790886 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/16/2023
BP Exploration & Production, Incorporated; BP
America Production Company; BP, p.l.c.; Transocean
Holdings, L.L.C.; Transocean Deepwater,
Incorporated; Transocean Offshore Deepwater
Drilling, Incorporated; Halliburton Energy Services,
Incorporated,
Defendants—Appellees,
consolidated with
_____________
No. 22-30661
_____________
Jennifer Danielle Byrd,
Plaintiff—Appellant,
versus
BP Exploration & Production, Incorporated; BP
America Production Company; BP, p.l.c.; Transocean
Holdings, L.L.C.; Transocean Deepwater,
Incorporated; Transocean Offshore Deepwater
Drilling, Incorporated; Halliburton Energy Services,
Incorporated,
Defendants—Appellees,
consolidated with
_____________
No. 22-30665
_____________
2
Case: 22-30654 Document: 00516790886 Page: 3 Date Filed: 06/16/2023
Joy Lashawn Beverly,
Plaintiff—Appellant,
versus
BP Exploration & Production, Incorporated; BP
America Production Company; BP, p.l.c.; Transocean
Holdings, L.L.C.; Transocean Deepwater,
Incorporated; Transocean Offshore Deepwater
Drilling, Incorporated; Halliburton Energy Services,
Incorporated,
Defendants—Appellees,
consolidated with
_____________
No. 22-30666
_____________
Lucy Ann Dailey,
Plaintiff—Appellant,
versus
BP Exploration & Production, Incorporated; BP
America Production Company; BP, p.l.c.; Transocean
Holdings, L.L.C.; Transocean Deepwater,
Incorporated; Transocean Offshore Deepwater
Drilling, Incorporated; Halliburton Energy Services,
Incorporated,
Defendants—Appellees,
consolidated with
3
Case: 22-30654 Document: 00516790886 Page: 4 Date Filed: 06/16/2023
_____________
No. 22-30667
_____________
Sharitye Seay,
Plaintiff—Appellant,
versus
BP Exploration & Production, Incorporated; BP
America Production Company; BP, p.l.c.; Transocean
Holdings, L.L.C.; Transocean Deepwater,
Incorporated; Transocean Offshore Deepwater
Drilling, Incorporated; Halliburton Energy Services,
Incorporated,
Defendants—Appellees,
consolidated with
_____________
No. 22-30668
_____________
George Leonard Coon,
Plaintiff—Appellant,
versus
BP Exploration & Production, Incorporated; BP
America Production Company; BP, p.l.c.; Transocean
Holdings, L.L.C.; Transocean Deepwater,
Incorporated; Transocean Offshore Deepwater
Drilling, Incorporated; Halliburton Energy Services,
Incorporated,
4
Case: 22-30654 Document: 00516790886 Page: 5 Date Filed: 06/16/2023
Defendants—Appellees,
consolidated with
_____________
No. 22-30669
_____________
Dennis Edward Bosarge; Lorinda Ruth Bosarge,
Plaintiffs—Appellants,
versus
BP Exploration & Production, Incorporated; BP
America Production Company; BP, p.l.c.; Transocean
Holdings, L.L.C.; Transocean Deepwater,
Incorporated; Transocean Offshore Deepwater
Drilling, Incorporated; Halliburton Energy Services,
Incorporated,
Defendants—Appellees,
consolidated with
_____________
No. 22-30671
_____________
Reynard Lenderis Brown,
Plaintiff—Appellant,
versus
5
Case: 22-30654 Document: 00516790886 Page: 6 Date Filed: 06/16/2023
BP Exploration & Production, Incorporated; BP
America Production Company; BP, p.l.c.; Transocean
Holdings, L.L.C.; Transocean Deepwater,
Incorporated; Transocean Offshore Deepwater
Drilling, Incorporated; Halliburton Energy Services,
Incorporated,
Defendants—Appellees,
consolidated with
_____________
No. 22-30694
_____________
John D. Naples,
Plaintiff—Appellant,
versus
BP America Production Company; BP Exploration &
Production, Incorporated; BP, p.l.c.,
Defendants—Appellees,
consolidated with
_____________
No. 22-30724
_____________
Gary Joseph Terrebonne, Jr.,
Plaintiff—Appellant,
versus
6
Case: 22-30654 Document: 00516790886 Page: 7 Date Filed: 06/16/2023
BP Exploration & Production, Incorporated; BP
America Production Company; BP, p.l.c.; Transocean
Holdings, L.L.C.; Transocean Deepwater,
Incorporated; Transocean Offshore Deepwater
Drilling, Incorporated; Halliburton Energy Services,
Incorporated,
Defendants—Appellees,
consolidated with
_____________
No. 22-30725
_____________
John Earl Fountain,
Plaintiff—Appellant,
versus
BP Exploration & Production, Incorporated; BP
America Production Company; BP, p.l.c.; Transocean
Holdings, L.L.C.; Transocean Deepwater,
Incorporated; Transocean Offshore Deepwater
Drilling, Incorporated; Halliburton Energy Services,
Incorporated,
Defendants—Appellees,
consolidated with
_____________
No. 22-30726
_____________
Royce Lamar Fairley,
7
Case: 22-30654 Document: 00516790886 Page: 8 Date Filed: 06/16/2023
Plaintiff—Appellant,
versus
BP Exploration & Production, Incorporated; BP
America Production Company; BP, p.l.c.; Transocean
Holdings, L.L.C.; Transocean Deepwater,
Incorporated; Transocean Offshore Deepwater
Drilling, Incorporated; Halliburton Energy Services,
Incorporated,
Defendants—Appellees,
consolidated with
_____________
No. 22-30728
_____________
Alexis White,
Plaintiff—Appellant,
versus
BP Exploration & Production, Incorporated; BP
America Production Company; BP, p.l.c.; Transocean
Holdings, L.L.C.; Transocean Deepwater,
Incorporated; Transocean Offshore Deepwater
Drilling, Incorporated; Halliburton Energy Services,
Incorporated,
Defendants—Appellees,
consolidated with
_____________
No. 22-30731
8
Case: 22-30654 Document: 00516790886 Page: 9 Date Filed: 06/16/2023
_____________
Terry Hye,
Plaintiff—Appellant,
versus
BP Exploration & Production, Incorporated; BP
America Production Company; BP, p.l.c.; Transocean
Holdings, L.L.C.; Transocean Deepwater,
Incorporated; Transocean Offshore Deepwater
Drilling, Incorporated; Halliburton Energy Services,
Incorporated,
Defendants—Appellees.
______________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Louisiana
USDC Nos. 2:10-MD-2179, 2:17-CV-3070,
2:10-MD-2179, 2:17-CV-4292,
2:10-MD-2179, 2:17-CV-3642,
2:10-MD-2179, 2:17-CV-3045,
2:10-MD-2179, 2:17-CV-3528,
2:10-MD-2179, 2:17-CV-4244,
2:10-MD-2179, 2:17-CV-3686,
2:10-MD-2179, 2:17-CV-3639,
2:10-MD-2179, 2:17-CV-3104,
2:10-MD-2179, 2:12-CV-2564,
2:10-MD-2179, 2:17-CV-4192,
2:10-MD-2179, 2:17-CV-3200,
2:10-MD-2179, 2:17-CV-3188,
2:10-MD-2179, 2:17-CV-4227,
2:10-MD-2179, 2:17-CV-3293
______________________________
9
Case: 22-30654 Document: 00516790886 Page: 10 Date Filed: 06/16/2023
22-30654
c/w Nos. 22-30657, 22-30661, 22-30665, 22-30666, 22-30667, 22-30668, 22-30669, 22-
30671, 22-30694, 22-30724, 22-30725, 22-30726, 22-30728, 22-30731
Before Clement, Southwick, and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam: *
These fifteen cases are yet another chapter in the Deepwater Horizon
saga. We are asked here whether the district court abused its discretion by
declining to extend discovery deadlines and instead ruling on BP’s motion
for summary judgment. We conclude it did not and so AFFIRM.
I
The appellants here are workers hired by BP (through sub-
contractors) to clean up the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. Because they allege
that this work caused them acute, chronic medical conditions, they declined
to participate in BP’s previous class action settlement and chose to proceed
individually.
For this collection of cases, the district court gave the workers over a
year to submit expert reports concerning causation. The workers relied on
Dr. Jerald Cook as their general causation expert. Dr. Cook concluded that
several categories of injury can result from exposure to crude oil or
dispersants, including harm to lungs, skin, and eyes.
Meanwhile, the workers tried to depose Dr. David Dutton, BP’s main
fact witness regarding the health and safety of clean-up workers. Aside from
a short deposition that the workers found unsatisfactory, they were unable to
do so. This, says the workers, kept them from presenting evidence on BP’s
_____________________
*
This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
10
Case: 22-30654 Document: 00516790886 Page: 11 Date Filed: 06/16/2023
22-30654
c/w Nos. 22-30657, 22-30661, 22-30665, 22-30666, 22-30667, 22-30668, 22-30669, 22-
30671, 22-30694, 22-30724, 22-30725, 22-30726, 22-30728, 22-30731
decision-making regarding dermal testing and biomonitoring of clean-up
crews. 1
Despite that discovery issue, the district court here excluded Dr.
Cook’s report and granted summary judgment to BP. It first found that Dr.
Cook did not identify “the harmful level of exposure to a chemical” at issue,
a baseline requirement of general causation in these sorts of cases. Then,
because the workers provided no other evidence of general causation, the
district court awarded summary judgment to BP. It explained that even if the
workers were correct that BP willfully declined to collect dermal testing and
biomonitoring data, such a failure was irrelevant to general causation. The
workers now appeal.
II
Before diving into the merits, we note that the appellants here do not
challenge the exclusion of Dr. Cook’s report. 2 Instead, they argue only that
the district court erred in granting summary judgment before they had a
chance to depose a BP executive with regards to dermal testing and
biomonitoring.
The court reviews the district court’s denial of a Rule 56(d) motion
for abuse of discretion. Am. Family Life Assurance Co. of Columbus v. Biles, 714
F.3d 887, 894 (5th Cir. 2013) (per curiam). The district court “has broad
discretion in all discovery matters, and such discretion will not be disturbed
ordinarily unless there are unusual circumstances showing a clear abuse.”
_____________________
1
In a different case, BP produced another witness to testify on those topics, but
that deposition was completed after the dismissals here.
2
In each filed notice of appeal, the appellants claim to appeal the orders excluding
Dr. Cook’s report. They don’t, however, make any argument here as to why that exclusion
was wrong or why Dr. Cook’s report satisfies the Daubert standard.
11
Case: 22-30654 Document: 00516790886 Page: 12 Date Filed: 06/16/2023
22-30654
c/w Nos. 22-30657, 22-30661, 22-30665, 22-30666, 22-30667, 22-30668, 22-30669, 22-
30671, 22-30694, 22-30724, 22-30725, 22-30726, 22-30728, 22-30731
Kelly v. Syria Shell Petroleum Dev. B.V., 213 F.3d 841, 855 (5th Cir. 2000)
(quotations and citation omitted).
Per Rule 56(d), a district court may defer or deny a summary judgment
motion, or allow additional time for discovery, if a “nonmovant shows by
affidavit or declaration that, for specified reasons, it cannot present facts
essential to justify its opposition.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(d). To win on a Rule
56(d) motion, the moving party must “show (1) why she needs additional
discovery and (2) how that discovery will create a genuine issue of material
fact.” Beattie v. Madison Cnty. Sch. Dist., 254 F.3d 595, 606 (5th Cir. 2001)
(citation omitted). It’s not enough to “simply rely on vague assertions that
additional discovery will produce needed, but unspecified facts.” Biles, 714
F.3d at 894 (quotations and citation omitted). Instead, the movant “must set
forth a plausible basis for believing that specified facts, susceptible of
collection within a reasonable time frame, probably exist and indicate how
the emergent facts, if adduced, will influence the outcome of the pending
summary judgment motion.” Raby v. Livingston, 600 F.3d 552, 561 (5th Cir.
2010) (quotations and citation omitted) (emphasis added). The movant
“must also have diligently pursued discovery.” Jacked Up, L.L.C. v. Sara Lee
Corp., 854 F.3d 797, 816 (5th Cir. 2017) (quotations and citation omitted).
In denying the workers’ Rule 56(d) motions, the district court
explained that the evidence the workers sought (on whether BP failed to
conduct dermal testing and biomonitoring) was “irrelevant to the general
causation inquiry.” And even if the court were to consider any such evidence,
the reasoning went, that evidence “would not cure the lack of ‘fit’ between
Dr. Cook’s general causation report and the facts of plaintiff[s’] case[s].” As
such, the district court concluded that any stay of discovery deadlines was
unwarranted, and that summary judgment was proper.
12
Case: 22-30654 Document: 00516790886 Page: 13 Date Filed: 06/16/2023
22-30654
c/w Nos. 22-30657, 22-30661, 22-30665, 22-30666, 22-30667, 22-30668, 22-30669, 22-
30671, 22-30694, 22-30724, 22-30725, 22-30726, 22-30728, 22-30731
The appellants deem that denial an abuse of discretion. We disagree.
We’ve repeatedly held that plaintiffs alleging injury due to exposure to toxic
substances must prove both general and specific causation. Knight v. Kirby
Inland Marine Inc., 482 F.3d 347, 351 (5th Cir. 2007). The former concerns
“whether a substance is capable of causing a particular injury or condition in
the general population[.]” Id. (citation omitted). Once a court concludes that
a substance can produce the plaintiff’s particular injury, it must determine
whether the substance did produce that injury. Id. That’s specific causation.
In these toxic-tort cases, we demand scientific—i.e., expert—
“knowledge of the harmful level of exposure to a chemical” as a “minimal
fact[] necessary to sustain the plaintiffs’ burden[.]” Allen v. Pa. Eng’g Corp.,
102 F.3d 194, 199 (5th Cir. 1996); see also Seaman v. Seacor Marine, LLC, 326
F. App’x 721, 724 (5th Cir. 2009) (same). Exposure data collected (or not)
from the incident almost always bears on specific causation. It does not bear
on whether, per the scientific literature, exposure to a chemical can cause a
specific injury in the general population. As the district court rightly explained,
“even assuming that BP had an affirmative duty to conduct dermal testing or
biomonitoring after the oil spill, the lack of this information is not what
renders Dr. Cook’s expert report unreliable, unhelpful, and inadmissible.”
And what’s more, the appellants aren’t even seeking the data from the
incident. 3 They seek only to “gather factual information regarding the safety
decisions made by BP,” which they argue are “critical to the analysis of BP’s
duty to protect its workers and how BP failed in fulfilling that duty.” While
we agree that such information is important, it does not provide what the
_____________________
3
The allegation, of course, is that it doesn’t exist, and so obviously cannot be
discovered.
13
Case: 22-30654 Document: 00516790886 Page: 14 Date Filed: 06/16/2023
22-30654
c/w Nos. 22-30657, 22-30661, 22-30665, 22-30666, 22-30667, 22-30668, 22-30669, 22-
30671, 22-30694, 22-30724, 22-30725, 22-30726, 22-30728, 22-30731
district court concluded the appellants lack: expert evidence that specific
chemicals can cause specific injuries in the general population.
Because the appellants do not explain how the evidence they seek
would allow them to prove general causation, and because they do not
otherwise challenge the exclusion of Dr. Cook’s report, we cannot conclude
that the district court abused its discretion here.
III
The district court is AFFIRMED.
14