Williams v. BP Expl & Prod ( 2023 )

Case: 22-30393 Document: 00516938349 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/20/2023
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
____________ FILED
October 20, 2023
No. 22-30393 Lyle W. Cayce
Consolidated With Nos. Clerk
22-30394, 22-30395, 22-30396, 22-30397, 22-30496, 22-30499, 22-30500,
22-30501, 22-30502, 22-30503, 22-30504, 22-30505, 22-30506, 22-30508,
22-30512, 22-30513, 22-30514, 22-30515, 22-30516, 22-30517, 22-30518, 22-
30519, 22-30520, 22-30521, 22-30522, 22-30523, 22-30524, 22-30525, 22-
30528, 22-30529, 22-30532, 22-30535, 22-30536, 22-30542, 22-30592, 22-
30593, 22-30596, 22-30599, 22-30604
____________
Corey Darnell Street, Et Al.,
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,
______________________________
Appeals from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Louisiana
USDC Nos. 2:10-MD-2179, 2:17-CV-3619,
2:10-MD-2179, 2:17-CV-3548,
2:10-MD-2179, 2:17-CV-3582,
2:10-MD-2179, 2:17-CV-3308,
3
Case: 22-30393 Document: 00516938349 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/20/2023
2:10-MD-2179, 2:17-CV-3304,
2:10-MD-2179, 2:17-CV-4144,
2:10-MD-2179, 2:17-CV-3026,
2:10-MD-2179, 2:17-CV-4068,
2:10-MD-2179, 2:17-CV-4590,
2:10-MD-2179, 2:17-CV-3051,
2:10-MD-2179, 2:17-CV-4223,
2:10-MD-2179, 2:17-CV-3261,
2:10-MD-2179, 2:17-CV-4073,
2:10-MD-2179, 2:17-CV-4262,
2:10-MD-2179, 2:17-CV-4138,
2:10-MD-2179, 2:17-CV-3040,
2:10-MD-2179, 2:17-CV-4234,
2:10-MD-2179, 2:17-CV-4399,
2:10-MD-2179, 2:17-CV-3139,
2:10-MD-2179, 2:17-CV-3645,
2:10-MD-2179, 2:17-CV-4417,
2:10-MD-2179, 2:17-CV-4190,
2:10-MD-2179, 2:17-CV-3888,
2:10-MD-2179, 2:17-CV-4075,
2:10-MD-2179, 2:17-CV-3117,
2:10-MD-2179, 2:17-CV-3128,
2:10-MD-2179, 2:17-CV-3260,
2:10-MD-2179, 2:17-CV-4235,
2:10-MD-2179, 2:17-CV-4509,
2:10-MD-2179, 2:17-CV-3047,
2:10-MD-2179, 2:17-CV-4330,
2:10-MD-2179, 2:17-CV-3510,
2:10-MD-2179, 2:17-CV-3036,
2:10-MD-2179, 2:17-CV-3219,
2:10-MD-2179, 2:17-CV-3257,
2:10-MD-2179, 2:17-CV-3298,
2:10-MD-2179, 2:17-CV-3281,
2:10-MD-2179, 2:17-CV-4643,
2:10-MD-2179, 2:17-CV-4633,
2:10-MD-2179, 2:17-CV-4551
______________________________
2
Case: 22-30393 Document: 00516938349 Page: 3 Date Filed: 10/20/2023
No. 22-30393
c/w Nos. 22-30394, 22-30395, 22-30396, 22-30397, 22-30496, 22-30499, 22-30500, 22-
30501, 22-30502, 22-30503, 22-30504, 22-30505, 22-30506, 22-30508, 22-30512, 22-
30513, 22-30514, 22-30515, 22-30516, 22-30517, 22-30518, 22-30519, 22-30520, 22-30521,
22-30522, 22-30523, 22-30524, 22-30525, 22-30528, 22-30529, 22-30532, 22-30535, 22-
30536, 22-30542, 22-30592, 22-30593, 22-30596, 22-30599, 22-30604
Before Richman, Chief Judge, and Southwick, and Oldham, Circuit
Judges.
Leslie H. Southwick, Circuit Judge:
These consolidated cases continue this court’s saga of Deepwater
Horizon. These plaintiffs argue the district court judge abused his discretion
by failing to disqualify himself at their request. We conclude that any error
was harmless and AFFIRM.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
The issues surrounding Deepwater Horizon have been detailed in nu-
merous appeals in this court. See, e.g., In re Deepwater Horizon, 728 F.3d 491,
494–97 (5th Cir. 2013). We will only discuss the facts and procedural history
pertinent to these 40 consolidated cases. The plaintiff in the lead case among
the 40 is Corey Street. Counsel for all 40 appellants states that the “consol-
idated cases are nearly identical as far as the issues involved and the argu-
ments presented to the lower court.” We will refer to the parties as the Street
plaintiffs, or, at times, just the plaintiffs.
Before these plaintiffs’ cases were distributed to the district court,
these cases were part of MDL 2179, the multi-district litigation proceeding
before United States District Court Judge Carl J. Barbier in the Eastern Dis-
trict of Louisiana. Judge Barbier established what is known as the “B3 Bun-
dle” within the overall litigation. The B3 Bundle included claims for personal
injury and wrongful death due to exposure to oil and/or other chemicals used
during the response to the disaster. By a pre-trial order dated January 12,
2011, Judge Barbier ruled that claimants could intervene into the B3 Bundle
Master Complaint by filing a “Short-Form Joinder.” The Street plaintiffs
3
Case: 22-30393 Document: 00516938349 Page: 4 Date Filed: 10/20/2023
No. 22-30393
c/w Nos. 22-30394, 22-30395, 22-30396, 22-30397, 22-30496, 22-30499, 22-30500, 22-
30501, 22-30502, 22-30503, 22-30504, 22-30505, 22-30506, 22-30508, 22-30512, 22-
30513, 22-30514, 22-30515, 22-30516, 22-30517, 22-30518, 22-30519, 22-30520, 22-30521,
22-30522, 22-30523, 22-30524, 22-30525, 22-30528, 22-30529, 22-30532, 22-30535, 22-
30536, 22-30542, 22-30592, 22-30593, 22-30596, 22-30599, 22-30604
timely did so. After joining the Master Complaint, a class action settlement
of the B3 claims was reached in May 2012 and approved by a final order filed
on January 11, 2013. The Street plaintiffs timely opted out of the class settle-
ment.
The Phase One trial established liability for the oil spill and took place
from February 25 to April 17, 2013. The Street plaintiffs were parties to
MDL 2179 and the Phase One trial that established liability of certain defend-
ants for the oil spill. In this trial, the Stone Pigman law firm in New Orleans
represented Cameron International, the manufacturer of the blowout pre-
venter that failed and was alleged as a cause of the catastrophic BP Oil Spill.
As a potential contributor to the spill, Cameron was directly adverse to the
Street plaintiffs in the Phase One liability trial. The district court found that
BP Exploration & Production Inc. and BP America Production Co. were
“67%” responsible for the spill, and Transocean and Halliburton were re-
sponsible for the remainder. No liability was found as to Cameron, and the
district court dismissed all claims against Cameron.
After the finding of liability in the Phase One trial, the Street plaintiffs
were ordered to file individual lawsuits. These individual lawsuits named as
defendants all parties found to be liable for causing the BP oil spill. A master
complaint was drafted to cover claims for personal injuries, and no version of
that master complaint has named Cameron as a party. Individual complaints
were also filed, and none of the Street plaintiffs named Cameron. The Street
plaintiffs alleged that exposure to substances associated with the spill caused
various injuries. Thus, the Street plaintiffs have not alleged any liability
against Cameron in the B3 litigation, as that question was resolved to finality
in the separate Phase One trial.
4
Case: 22-30393 Document: 00516938349 Page: 5 Date Filed: 10/20/2023
No. 22-30393
c/w Nos. 22-30394, 22-30395, 22-30396, 22-30397, 22-30496, 22-30499, 22-30500, 22-
30501, 22-30502, 22-30503, 22-30504, 22-30505, 22-30506, 22-30508, 22-30512, 22-
30513, 22-30514, 22-30515, 22-30516, 22-30517, 22-30518, 22-30519, 22-30520, 22-30521,
22-30522, 22-30523, 22-30524, 22-30525, 22-30528, 22-30529, 22-30532, 22-30535, 22-
30536, 22-30542, 22-30592, 22-30593, 22-30596, 22-30599, 22-30604
Following Judge Barbier’s severance order, 85 B3 cases were assigned
to District Judge Barry Ashe. Judge Ashe has been a federal district judge
since 2018. Before his confirmation, he was a longtime partner at the Stone
Pigman law firm. His history with Stone Pigman is a well-known fact among
lawyers who practice in New Orleans. Upon having their cases assigned to
Judge Ashe, no B3 plaintiff, including the Street plaintiffs, raised any objec-
tion to his consideration of their cases. Plaintiffs’ counsel in this appeal,
though, asserts he was unaware of Judge Ashe’s background.
After the cases were assigned to him, Judge Ashe began issuing dis-
covery orders, complete with schedules for expert reports and dispositive
motion practice. For example, Judge Ashe held a scheduling conference in
the current case on September 15, 2021. He gave the parties three months to
amend their complaints and answers. Street was ordered to designate his ex-
perts by April 11, 2022. The district judge further ordered that all “pretrial
motions, including dispositive motions and motions in limine regarding the
admissibility of expert testimony, shall be filed and served in sufficient time
to permit hearing thereon no later than June 2, 2022.” This gave the parties
more than nine months to conduct discovery in the 40 consolidated cases, in
addition to the extensive information exchanges that had already occurred
before the cases were severed from the MDL.
The Street plaintiffs, along with hundreds of other B3 plaintiffs, re-
tained Dr. Jerald Cook as their causation expert. On June 2, 2022, following
discovery and briefing and consistent with the timeline set forth in the sched-
uling order, Judge Ashe excluded Dr. Cook’s report in five B3 cases, includ-
ing Street’s, because Dr. Cook’s “opinions on general causation d[id] not
meet the Daubert standard of reliability.” See Daubert v. Merrell Dow
5
Case: 22-30393 Document: 00516938349 Page: 6 Date Filed: 10/20/2023
No. 22-30393
c/w Nos. 22-30394, 22-30395, 22-30396, 22-30397, 22-30496, 22-30499, 22-30500, 22-
30501, 22-30502, 22-30503, 22-30504, 22-30505, 22-30506, 22-30508, 22-30512, 22-
30513, 22-30514, 22-30515, 22-30516, 22-30517, 22-30518, 22-30519, 22-30520, 22-30521,
22-30522, 22-30523, 22-30524, 22-30525, 22-30528, 22-30529, 22-30532, 22-30535, 22-
30536, 22-30542, 22-30592, 22-30593, 22-30596, 22-30599, 22-30604
Pharms., Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 593–95 (1993). Those plaintiffs offered no ad-
missible expert testimony regarding general causation. Therefore, Judge
Ashe granted summary judgment to the BP defendants.
On June 17, 2022, a little more than two weeks after Judge Ashe began
granting summary judgments following exclusion of Dr. Cook, Street’s coun-
sel moved to disqualify Judge Ashe in the five cases in which he had excluded
Dr. Cook and in other cases where Daubert and summary judgment motions
were still pending. These motions sought Judge Ashe’s disqualification on
two grounds: (1) he was a partner at Stone Pigman when other lawyers there
represented Cameron in the Phase One trial, allegedly requiring disqualifica-
tion under 28 U.S.C. § 455(b)(2); and (2) he previously represented Noble
Energy, a company that allegedly “was and is a joint venture partner with the
BP Defendants in numerous Gulf of Mexico oil lease transactions,” thus po-
tentially triggering disqualification under 28 U.S.C. § 455(a).
On June 30, 2022, while briefing regarding disqualification was ongo-
ing, plaintiffs Street, Johns, Johnson, Macon, and Murray (all of whom are
appellants here) appealed Judge Ashe’s decisions excluding Dr. Cook’s tes-
timony and granting summary judgment to BP. Accordingly, on July 12,
2022, Judge Ashe concluded that, as to those five plaintiffs, he no longer had
jurisdiction to decide their disqualification motions. On July 14, 2022, Judge
Ashe denied the remaining disqualification motions as untimely and merit-
less.
In July 2022, after Judge Ashe and other judges began excluding Dr.
Cook’s testimony, hundreds of B3 plaintiffs moved to suspend the deadlines
for dispositive motions. As relevant to these consolidated appeals, on July
6
Case: 22-30393 Document: 00516938349 Page: 7 Date Filed: 10/20/2023
No. 22-30393
c/w Nos. 22-30394, 22-30395, 22-30396, 22-30397, 22-30496, 22-30499, 22-30500, 22-
30501, 22-30502, 22-30503, 22-30504, 22-30505, 22-30506, 22-30508, 22-30512, 22-
30513, 22-30514, 22-30515, 22-30516, 22-30517, 22-30518, 22-30519, 22-30520, 22-30521,
22-30522, 22-30523, 22-30524, 22-30525, 22-30528, 22-30529, 22-30532, 22-30535, 22-
30536, 22-30542, 22-30592, 22-30593, 22-30596, 22-30599, 22-30604
11, 2022, the plaintiffs other than Street, Johns, Johnson, Macon, and Murray
— who already filed their notices of appeal — began moving to suspend
Judge Ashe’s deadlines for dispositive motions. These motions faulted BP
for Dr. Cook’s inability to offer admissible general-causation testimony, ar-
guing that BP’s and the federal government’s failure to collect biomonitoring
and dermal testing data prevented Dr. Cook from admissible testimony.
These challenges arose after a discovery dispute in another Eastern
District of Louisiana case (not a B3 case), where the plaintiffs filed a “Back-
End Litigation Option” claim and took a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition of a former
BP employee. See Torres-Lugo v. BP Expl. & Prod. Inc., No. CV 20-210, 2022
WL 2806420 (E.D. La. July 18, 2022). The many B3 plaintiffs who sought
to extend their dispositive motion deadlines, including the Street plaintiffs,
all invoked the Torres-Lugo discovery dispute as the basis for their requests.
These requests were rejected by multiple district judges because the discov-
ery dispute issue did not resolve the insufficiency of Dr. Cook’s expert testi-
mony to establish general causation. Judge Ashe concluded the same and
rejected the requests. After that ruling, the Street plaintiffs filed disqualifi-
cation motions, essentially identical to those previously denied, and these
motions were likewise denied.
The Street plaintiffs timely appealed Judge Ashe’s final judgments in
BP’s favor, and this court consolidated these 40 appeals. To be precise, 39
of the 40 cases in this consolidated appeal used Dr. Cook as their expert. For
those, Judge Ashe granted BP’s Daubert motion to exclude and BP’s motion
for summary judgment. In the remaining appeal, Judge Ashe granted sum-
mary judgment to BP because that plaintiff neither filed an expert report nor
opposed BP’s motion for summary judgment.
7
Case: 22-30393 Document: 00516938349 Page: 8 Date Filed: 10/20/2023
No. 22-30393
c/w Nos. 22-30394, 22-30395, 22-30396, 22-30397, 22-30496, 22-30499, 22-30500, 22-
30501, 22-30502, 22-30503, 22-30504, 22-30505, 22-30506, 22-30508, 22-30512, 22-
30513, 22-30514, 22-30515, 22-30516, 22-30517, 22-30518, 22-30519, 22-30520, 22-30521,
22-30522, 22-30523, 22-30524, 22-30525, 22-30528, 22-30529, 22-30532, 22-30535, 22-
30536, 22-30542, 22-30592, 22-30593, 22-30596, 22-30599, 22-30604
DISCUSSION
The Street plaintiffs do not challenge Judge Ashe’s decision to ex-
clude Dr. Cook’s testimony under Daubert, nor do they raise any argument
on the merits as to why his granting of summary judgment to BP was errone-
ous. In the briefing before this court, the two arguments raised were that
Judge Ashe should have disqualified himself, and, in the alternative, that he
should have extended the case-management deadlines. Plaintiff’s counsel
was unclear at oral argument whether he was abandoning the second issue.
Later, when responding to BP’s Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 28(j)
letter, Plaintiffs’ counsel unambiguously abandoned it by stating that “the
sole issue in this appeal [is] whether Judge Ashe should have recused him-
self.” Thus, that is the only issue we address.
This court reviews the denial of a motion to disqualify under an abuse
of discretion standard. In re Hipp, Inc., 5 F.3d 109, 116 (5th Cir. 1993). The
Street plaintiffs argue that Judge Ashe abused his discretion for not disquali-
fying himself under 28 U.S.C. § 455(b)(2) because he was a partner at Stone
Pigman when it represented Cameron in the Phase One liability trial.
Section 455(b)(2) provides that a judge shall disqualify himself
“[w]here in private practice[,] he served as [a] lawyer in the matter in contro-
versy, or a lawyer with whom he previously practiced law served during such
association as a lawyer concerning the matter, or the judge or such lawyer has
been a material witness concerning it.” (emphasis added). The Street plain-
tiffs argue Judge Ashe was required to recuse under this provision — that he
had no discretion. They argue extensively that Judge Ashe’s position at
Stone Pigman was “exactly the adverse relationship that requires mandatory
8
Case: 22-30393 Document: 00516938349 Page: 9 Date Filed: 10/20/2023
No. 22-30393
c/w Nos. 22-30394, 22-30395, 22-30396, 22-30397, 22-30496, 22-30499, 22-30500, 22-
30501, 22-30502, 22-30503, 22-30504, 22-30505, 22-30506, 22-30508, 22-30512, 22-
30513, 22-30514, 22-30515, 22-30516, 22-30517, 22-30518, 22-30519, 22-30520, 22-30521,
22-30522, 22-30523, 22-30524, 22-30525, 22-30528, 22-30529, 22-30532, 22-30535, 22-
30536, 22-30542, 22-30592, 22-30593, 22-30596, 22-30599, 22-30604
disqualification.” They do not, however, cite authority in support of their
position.
Judge Ashe held that these motions to disqualify were all untimely.
Nonetheless, he issued an order with his reasons for denying the motions,
and he rejected the arguments as untimely and meritless. 1
As to timeliness, Judge Ashe explained that his prior employment with
Stone Pigman was so “widely known” that “[i]t is hard to believe that [these
plaintiffs’] attorneys had no knowledge of these facts until two weeks after
this Court granted motions for summary judgment dismissing other B3
cases.” Indeed, the motions “came fourteen months after” these cases were
assigned to Judge Ashe and were “based on facts that are generally public
knowledge — and presumably even better known to lawyers long part of the
Deepwater Horizon MDL.” Judge Ashe further observed that four of the law-
yers on the disqualification motions’ signature blocks practiced in “the New
Orleans area.” Judge Ashe also faulted their failure to “explain how or why
[these] attorneys only learned or acquired this information after these five
other B3 cases were dismissed and judgment entered.” He thus found that,
in light of “the totality of the circumstances,” those motions “appear[ed] to
be an attempt to manipulate the system and [were] not filed timely.”
Judge Ashe also denied the disqualification motions as meritless. Spe-
cifically, he concluded that “Stone Pigman’s representation of Cameron in
_____________________
1
Judge Ashe’s order denying the disqualification motions was issued in the case of
plaintiff Carpenter, also an appellant, and all other orders adopted that discussion and
ruling.
9
Case: 22-30393 Document: 00516938349 Page: 10 Date Filed: 10/20/2023
No. 22-30393
c/w Nos. 22-30394, 22-30395, 22-30396, 22-30397, 22-30496, 22-30499, 22-30500, 22-
30501, 22-30502, 22-30503, 22-30504, 22-30505, 22-30506, 22-30508, 22-30512, 22-
30513, 22-30514, 22-30515, 22-30516, 22-30517, 22-30518, 22-30519, 22-30520, 22-30521,
22-30522, 22-30523, 22-30524, 22-30525, 22-30528, 22-30529, 22-30532, 22-30535, 22-
30536, 22-30542, 22-30592, 22-30593, 22-30596, 22-30599, 22-30604
the phase one liability trial is sufficiently unrelated to the case presently be-
fore the [c]ourt as not to trigger the [§ 455(b)(2)] ‘matter in controversy’
requirement” because, among other reasons, “Cameron has never been a
party to the B3 cases, and its liability has never been a question in these
cases.” According to Judge Ashe, the matter in controversy in the B3 cases
“involves issues that are discrete, separate, and distinct from the issues han-
dled by [Judge Ashe’s] former partners.” 2 The Street plaintiffs’ claims, both
in the district court and on appeal, “raise issues concerning causation and
damages for [] personal injuries,” not “what caused the oil spill and who was
responsible.” Accordingly, Judge Ashe observed, he “will not be asked to
address the merits of any issue in which his former partners were involved.”
Judge Ashe explained that “[t]here is no indication that Noble was a party to
any Deepwater Horizon litigation or had any involvement at all with that oil
well,” nor was he “even aware of Noble’s joint ventures with BP when he
represented Noble.” He thus concluded that “a well-informed, thoughtful,
and objective observer would not question [his] impartiality.” 3
The Street plaintiffs do not challenge the judge’s actual impartiality
on appeal. Instead, they rely solely on the “matter in controversy” language
found in Section 455(b)(2) and argue that recusal was mandatory. Yet even
mandatory recusal under Section 455(b)(2) can be harmless. We have ex-
pressed “confiden[ce] that [Section] 455(b) violations are also subject to the
_____________________
2
Judge Ashe also conducted an analysis of impartiality under 28 U.S.C. § 455(a)
and (b)(1), but neither of those bases for disqualification is raised on appeal.
3
The Street plaintiffs do not brief any argument regarding Noble Energy.
10
Case: 22-30393 Document: 00516938349 Page: 11 Date Filed: 10/20/2023
No. 22-30393
c/w Nos. 22-30394, 22-30395, 22-30396, 22-30397, 22-30496, 22-30499, 22-30500, 22-
30501, 22-30502, 22-30503, 22-30504, 22-30505, 22-30506, 22-30508, 22-30512, 22-
30513, 22-30514, 22-30515, 22-30516, 22-30517, 22-30518, 22-30519, 22-30520, 22-30521,
22-30522, 22-30523, 22-30524, 22-30525, 22-30528, 22-30529, 22-30532, 22-30535, 22-
30536, 22-30542, 22-30592, 22-30593, 22-30596, 22-30599, 22-30604
doctrine of harmless error,” not just Section 455(a) violations. Patterson v.
Mobil Oil Corp., 335 F.3d 476, 485 (5th Cir. 2003).
For possible harmlessness of a failure to recuse, we apply these fac-
tors: “(1) the risk of injustice to the parties in this case; (2) the risk that denial
of relief will create injustice in other cases; and (3) ‘the risk of undermining
the public’s confidence in the judicial process.’” Id. (quoting Liljeberg v.
Health Servs. Acquisition Corp., 486 U.S. 847, 864 (1988)).
Relevant facts include that Judge Ashe’s 30-year association with
Stone Pigman ended in 2018. That law firm’s representation of Cameron
occurred early in the Deepwater Horizon litigation a decade ago, and there is
no evidence in the record that suggests lawyer Ashe worked on that litigation.
As to possible injustice to the parties, our review of the summary judg-
ment granted in this case is de novo. National Oilwell Varco, L.P. v. Auto-Dril,
Inc., 68 F.4th 206, 216 (5th Cir. 2023). The Street plaintiffs do not even chal-
lenge the merits of the decision. Further, eight other district court judges
have reached the same conclusion regarding the exclusion of Dr. Cook’s tes-
timony and the plaintiffs’ failure to produce expert testimony complying with
the strictures of Daubert. 4 There is no basis for a belief that these consistent
results have been the result of Judge Ashe’s actions in this case.
_____________________
4
Turner v. BP Expl. & Prod. Inc., 2022 WL 2967441, at *5 (E.D. La. July 27, 2022)
(Africk, J.) (excluding Dr. Cook’s testimony because he “fails to identify a particular
chemical and corresponding dose to which [the plaintiff] was exposed”); Barkley v. BP
Expl. & Prod. Inc., 2022 WL 2342474, at *4 (E.D. La. June 29, 2022) (Barbier, J.) (“Dr.
Cook fails to identify the dose of any such chemical that would result in the adverse health
effects contained in his report, and his report is therefore unreliable and inadmissible.”);
Harrison v. BP Expl. & Prod. Inc., 2022 WL 2390733, at *6 (E.D. La. July 1, 2022) (Morgan,
11
Case: 22-30393 Document: 00516938349 Page: 12 Date Filed: 10/20/2023
No. 22-30393
c/w Nos. 22-30394, 22-30395, 22-30396, 22-30397, 22-30496, 22-30499, 22-30500, 22-
30501, 22-30502, 22-30503, 22-30504, 22-30505, 22-30506, 22-30508, 22-30512, 22-
30513, 22-30514, 22-30515, 22-30516, 22-30517, 22-30518, 22-30519, 22-30520, 22-30521,
22-30522, 22-30523, 22-30524, 22-30525, 22-30528, 22-30529, 22-30532, 22-30535, 22-
30536, 22-30542, 22-30592, 22-30593, 22-30596, 22-30599, 22-30604
Finally, “the public’s confidence in the judicial process” is not under-
mined once, after a review of the records in the consolidated cases before us
on appeal, it can be seen that Judge Ashe has made the same rulings as his
colleagues who have been presented with the same issues.
If Judge Ashe erred when he failed to recuse in these cases, that error
was harmless. Nonetheless, as the arguments on this appeal support, poten-
tial conflicts of interest must be taken seriously by every member of the judi-
ciary. The litigants and the public need to be confident in the impartiality of
those who will decide legal disputes. This appeal is fair warning to each of us
of the importance of assuring the reality and appearance of that impartiality.
AFFIRMED.
_____________________
J.) (“Cook’s expert report includes no identification of the necessary dose of exposure for
any of Plaintiff’s complained-of symptoms to manifest.”); Harris v. BP Expl. & Prod. Inc.,
2022 WL 2789037, at *7 (E.D. La. July 15, 2022) (Vance, J.) (“Dr. Cook’s failure to
identify the level of exposure to a relevant chemical that can cause the conditions asserted
in plaintiff’s complaint renders his opinion unreliable, unhelpful, and incapable of
establishing general causation.”); Hill v. BP Expl. & Prod. Inc., 2022 WL 4534747, at *6
(E.D. La. Sept. 28, 2022) (Vitter, J.) (“Dr. Cook does not even specify the exact chemicals
that Plaintiff was allegedly exposed to, let alone provide evidence regarding the level of
exposure at which Plaintiff’s symptoms might manifest.”); see also Laster v. BP Expl. &
Prod. Inc., 2022 WL 5165019, at *1 (E.D. La. Sept. 13, 2022) (Guidry, J.) (“[F]or the
previous reasons cited by this Court as well as the seven other judges of this Court, both
the Daubert Motion and the Motion for Summary Judgment shall be granted.”); Reed v. BP
Expl. & Prod. Inc., 2022 WL 3099925, at *3 (E.D. La. Aug. 4, 2022) (Milazzo, J.) (“[F]or
the same reasons articulated by Judges Ashe, Vance, Barbier, Morgan, and Zainey, the
Court grants Defendants’ Motion in Limine.”); Barksdale v. BP Expl. & Prod. Inc., 2022 WL
2789022, at *3 (E.D. La. July 15, 2022) (Zainey, J.) (excluding Dr. Cook’s testimony “[f]or
the same reasons given by Judges Vance, Barbier, Morgan, and Ashe”).
12