Brewer v. BP Exploration & Production, Inc. ( 2023 )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA JOHN BREWER CIVIL ACTION VERSUS NO. 17-3079 BP EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION, SECTION: D (5) INC., ET AL. ORDER AND REASONS Before the Court is Plaintiff John Brewer’s Motion to Reconsider Order Granting Summary Judgment to Defendants.1 The 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”) oppose this Motion.2 After careful consideration of the parties’ memoranda, the record, and the applicable law, the Court DENIES the Motion. I. FACTUAL & PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND This case arises from the Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico in 2010 and the subsequent cleanup efforts of the Gulf Coast. The Court has previously detailed the factual background of this case;3 accordingly, the Court only discusses the relevant background as it pertains to the instant Motion. On February 9, 2023, this Court granted Defendants’ Daubert Motion to Exclude the General Causation Opinions of Plaintiff’s expert, Dr. Jerald Cook4, and 1 R. Doc. 97. 2 R. Doc. 101. 3 See R. Doc. 94 at pp. 2–4. 4 R. Doc. 74. Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment Due to Plaintiff’s Inability to Prove Medical Causation5 for the reasons stated in that Order.6 Plaintiff filed the present Motion on March 9, 2023, asking this Court to reconsider its previous Order granting summary judgment for Defendants in light of the claims raised in a November 2022 affidavit of Dr. Linda Birnbaum (“Dr. Birnbaum”), the Director of the National Institute of Environmental Health and Sciences from 2009 to 2019.7 Plaintiff argues that Dr. Birnbaum’s affidavit “creates material issues of fact” sufficient for the Court to reconsider its prior Order granting summary judgment in favor of Defendants.8 The Defendants filed a response in opposition to the Motion, pointing out that the Court has already considered Dr. Birnbaum’s affidavit, finding it to be irrelevant to the reliability of Plaintiff’s general causation expert, Dr. Jerald Cook.9 The Defendants also contend that Plaintiff has wholly failed to provide any new reason for the granting of the Motion not already considered and rejected by this Court and has failed to address any of the relevant factors for reconsideration of a judgment after entry.10 II. LEGAL STANDARD Because the Court’s February 9, 2023 Order dismissing Plaintiff’s exposure claims did not adjudicate all of the claims brought by Plaintiff against the Defendants, and because the Court has not entered a final judgment in this case, the 5 R. Doc. 75. 6 R. Doc. 94. 7 See R. Doc. 97; R. Doc. 97-2. 8 R. Doc. 97 at p. 1. 9 R. Doc. 101 at p. 2. 10 Id. at p. 7. Court finds it appropriate to construe Plaintiff’s Motion as a Rule 54(b) motion for reconsideration of an interlocutory order rather than as a Rule 59(e) motion as the Plaintiff argues. “It is a well established rule of trial procedure that a district court may reconsider and reverse a previous interlocutory order at its discretion.”11 Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b), “any order or other decision, however designated, that adjudicates fewer than all the claims . . . does not end the action as to any of the claims or parties and may be revised at any time before the entry of a judgment adjudicating all the claims and all the parties’ rights and liabilities.”12 The broad authority to reconsider an interlocutory order under Rule 54(b) “must be exercised sparingly in order to forestall the perpetual reexamination of orders and the resulting burdens and delays.”13 To that end, courts in this district evaluate Rule 54(b) motions to reconsider interlocutory orders under the same standards as a Rule 59(e) motion to alter or amend a judgment.14 “A moving party must satisfy at least one of the following four criteria to prevail on a Rule 59(e) motion: (1) the movant demonstrates the motion is necessary to correct manifest errors of law or fact upon which the judgment is based; (2) the movant presents new evidence; (3) the motion is necessary in order to prevent manifest injustice; and, (4) the motion is justified by an intervening change in the controlling law.”15 11 Holoway v. Triola, 172 F.3d 866, at *1 (5th Cir. 1999) (per curiam). 12 Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b). 13 S. Snow Mfg. Co. v. SnoWizard Holdings, Inc., 921 F. Supp. 2d 548, 564–65 (E.D. La. 2013) (Brown, J.) (citing 18B Charles A. Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Fed. Prac. & Proc. § 4478.1 (2d ed. 2002)). 14 Id. at 565 (citations omitted). 15 Jupiter v. BellSouth Telecomms., Inc., Civ. A. No. 99-0628, 1999 WL 796218, at *1 (E.D. La. Oct. 5, 1999) (Vance, J.)) (internal quotation marks omitted); accord Castrillo v. American Home Mortg. Servicing, Inc., Civ. A. No. 09-4369, 2010 WL 1424398, at *4 (E.D. La. Apr. 5, 2010) (Vance, J.) (citing authority). Like Rule 59(e) motions, Rule 54(b) motions are “not the proper vehicle for rehashing evidence, legal theories, or arguments that could have been offered or raised before the entry of judgment.”16 III. ANALYSIS Plaintiff relies on evidence already considered and rejected by this Court. As the Court has explained elsewhere, Dr. Birnbaum “appears to conflate general causation with specific causation” and “Dr. Birnbaum’s affidavit [neither] corrects [n]or explains the shortcomings of Dr. Cook’s Report so as to render his opinions admissible.”17 Plaintiff’s Motion relies solely on Dr. Birnbaum’s affidavit and does not include any new argument or evidence. Plaintiff’s reliance on evidence already considered by the Court alone justifies denial of Plaintiff’s Motion. Simply rehashing the same arguments which the Court has already deemed insufficient and irrelevant is inappropriate for a motion for reconsideration and a waste of judicial resources. Moreover, as Defendants point out, Plaintiff has failed to address any of the factors considered by courts in this district when determining whether reconsideration of a order is merited. In sum, Plaintiff’s rehashing of arguments already considered and rejected by this Court fails to carry Plaintiff’s burden in persuading the Court to grant the remedy of a Rule 54(b) motion. Plaintiff fails to show that the Motion should be 16 Templet v. HydroChem Inc., 367 F.3d 473, 479 (5th Cir. 2004) (citing Simon v. United States, 891 F.2d 1154, 1159 (5th Cir. 1990)); accord SnoWizard Holdings, 921 F. Supp. 2d at 565. 17 See Kaoui v. BP Expl. & Prod., Inc., No. CV 17-3313, 2023 WL 330510, at *9 (E.D. La. Jan. 12, 2023). This Court relied upon its analysis in Kaoui in the instant case regarding the reliability and relevancy of the May 31, 2022 version of Dr. Cook’s Report. granted in order to correct manifest errors of law or fact or to prevent injustice. □□ Further, Plaintiff has presented no new relevant evidence nor shown that the motion is “justified by an intervening change in the controlling law.”!9 Accordingly, the Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that this Court should either alter or amend its prior Order in this case granting summary judgment in favor of Defendants. IV. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion to Reconsider Order Granting Summary Judgment to Defendants2° is DENIED. New Orleans, Louisiana, April 17, 2023. WENDY B. tt United States District Judge 18 Jupiter, 1999 WL 796218, at *1. 19 Td, 20 R. Doc. 97.