Lutin v. BP Exploration & Production, Inc. ( 2022 )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA FREDRICK LUTIN CIVIL ACTION VERSUS NO. 17-4419 BP EXPLORATION & SECTION M (4) PRODUCTION INC., et al. ORDER & REASONS Before the Court is a motion by plaintiff Frederick Lutin to deem admissible the opinions of his purported general causation expert, Dr. Jerald Cook, because of the defendants’ alleged spoliation of evidence related to the oil-spill clean-up workers’ exposure to oil and other chemicals.1 Defendants BP Exploration & Production Inc., BP America Production Company, BP p.l.c., Halliburton Energy Services, Inc., Transocean Holdings LLC, Transocean Deepwater, Inc., and Transocean Offshore Deepwater Drilling, Inc. (collectively, “Defendants”) respond in opposition.2 Lutin’s spoliation motion is nearly identical to the one filed by the plaintiff and denied by this Court in Fairley v. BP Exploration & Production Inc., No. 17-3988, R. Doc. 89 (E.D. La. Nov. 3, 2022). Accordingly, for the reasons stated in the Orders & Reasons issued in Fairley, IT IS ORDERED that Lutin’s spoliation motion (R. Doc. 70) is DENIED. Also before the Court is Defendants’ Daubert motion in limine to exclude the general causation opinions of plaintiff’s medical expert Cook3 and Defendants’ motion for summary judgment arguing that the case should be dismissed because Lutin cannot prove general causation 1 R. Doc. 70. 2 R. Doc. 74. 3 R. Doc. 62. without Cook’s opinions.4 Lutin responds in opposition to both motions,5 and Defendants reply in further support of their motions.6 Defendants’ motions here are nearly identical to those filed by Defendants, and granted by this Court, in other B3 cases.7 See, e.g., Brister v. BP Expl. & Prod. Inc., 2022 WL 3586760 (E.D. La. Aug 22, 2022); Burns v. BP Expl. & Prod. Inc., 2022 WL 2952993 (E.D. La. July 25, 2022); Carpenter v. BP Expl. & Prod. Inc., 2022 WL 2757416 (E.D. La. July 14, 2022); Johns v. BP Expl. & Prod. Inc., 2022 WL 1811088 (E.D. La. June 2, 2022). Accordingly, for the reasons stated in the Orders & Reasons issued in those cases, IT IS ORDERED that Defendants’ Daubert motion to exclude Cook (R. Doc. 62) is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (R. Doc. 63) is GRANTED, and Lutin’s claims against them are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. New Orleans, Louisiana, this 3rd day of November, 2022. ________________________________ BARRY W. ASHE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 4 R. Doc. 63. 5 R. Docs. 66; 67. 6 R. Docs. 76; 78. 7 The March 14, 2022 version of Cook’s report was used in this case. R. Doc. 62-4. The Court has reviewed all versions of Cook’s report and concludes that none of the later versions cures the previously identified deficiencies in his prior reports; specifically, none of Cook’s reports provides admissible general causation opinions.