From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Fairley v. BP Expl. & Prod.

United States District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana
Nov 3, 2022
Civil Action 17-3988 (E.D. La. Nov. 3, 2022)
Download
PDF
Check
Treatment

Summary

In Fairley, this Court found that the plaintiff did not meet his burden to prove spoliation because there was no allegation that BP destroyed, altered, or failed to preserve any existing evidence, there was no proof that BP had a duty to conduct a monitoring program to create evidence in order to preserve it, there was no evidence that BP acted in bad faith, and finally, the proposed remedy of deeming Cook's opinions relevant would not cure the deficiencies in his report.

Summary of this case from Williams v. BP Expl. & Prod.
See 7 Summaries

Opinion

Civil Action 17-3988

11-03-2022

FREDDIE FAIRLEY v. BP EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION INC., et al.

BARRY W. ASHE, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

SECTION M (4)

ORDER & REASONS

BARRY W. ASHE, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Before the Court is a Daubert motion in limine to exclude the general causation opinions of plaintiff's medical expert Dr. Jerald Cook filed by 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”). Plaintiff Freddie Fairley responds in opposition. Defendants reply in further support of their motion.

R. Doc. 70.

R. Doc. 74.

R. Doc. 87.

Also before the Court is Defendants' motion for summary judgment in which they argue that the case should be dismissed because Fairley cannot prove general causation without Cook's opinions. Fairley responds in opposition. Defendants reply in further support of their motion.

R. Doc. 72.

R. Doc. 75.

R. Doc. 85.

Defendants' motions here are nearly identical to those filed by Defendants, and granted by this Court, in other B3 cases. 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).

The third version of Cook's report, dated May 31, 2022, was used in this case. R. Doc. 70-4. The Court has reviewed all versions of Cook's report and concludes that none of the later versions cures the previously identified deficiencies in Cook's prior reports; specifically, none of his reports provides admissible general causation opinions.

Accordingly, for the reasons stated in the Orders & Reasons issued in the cited B3 cases, IT IS ORDERED that Defendants' Daubert motion to exclude Cook (R. Doc. 70) is GRANTED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants' motion for summary judgment (R. Doc. 72) is GRANTED, and Fairley's claims against them are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

Summaries of

Fairley v. BP Expl. & Prod.

United States District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana
Nov 3, 2022
Civil Action 17-3988 (E.D. La. Nov. 3, 2022)

In Fairley, this Court found that the plaintiff did not meet his burden to prove spoliation because there was no allegation that BP destroyed, altered, or failed to preserve any existing evidence, there was no proof that BP had a duty to conduct a monitoring program to create evidence in order to preserve it, there was no evidence that BP acted in bad faith, and finally, the proposed remedy of deeming Cook's opinions relevant would not cure the deficiencies in his report.

Summary of this case from Williams v. BP Expl. & Prod.

In Fairley, this Court found that the plaintiff did not meet his burden to prove spoliation because there was no allegation that BP destroyed, altered, or failed to preserve any existing evidence, there was no proof that BP had a duty to conduct a monitoring program to create evidence in order to preserve it, there was no evidence that BP acted in bad faith, and finally, the proposed remedy of deeming Cook's opinions relevant would not cure the deficiencies in his report.

Summary of this case from Shannon v. BP Expl. & Prod.

excluding Version 4

Summary of this case from Bruton v. BP Expl. & Prod.

In Fairley, this Court found that the plaintiff did not meet his burden to prove spoliation because there was no allegation that BP destroyed, altered, or failed to preserve any existing evidence, there was no proof that BP had a duty to conduct a monitoring program to create evidence in order to preserve it, there was no evidence that BP acted in bad faith, and finally, the proposed remedy of deeming Cook's opinions relevant would not cure the deficiencies in his report.

Summary of this case from Huddleston v. BP Expl. & Prod.

In Fairley, this Court found that the plaintiff did not meet his burden to prove spoliation because there was no allegation that BP destroyed, altered, or failed to preserve any existing evidence, there was no proof that BP had a duty to conduct a monitoring program to create evidence in order to preserve it, there was no evidence that BP acted in bad faith, and finally, the proposed remedy of deeming the purported general causation expert's opinions relevant would not cure the deficiencies in his expert report.

Summary of this case from Griffin v. BP Expl. & Prod.

In Fairley, this Court found that the plaintiff did not meet his burden to prove spoliation because there was no allegation that BP destroyed, altered, or failed to preserve any existing evidence, there was no proof that BP had a duty to conduct a monitoring program to create evidence in order to preserve it, there was no evidence that BP acted in bad faith, and finally, the proposed remedy of deeming the purported general causation expert's opinions relevant would not cure the deficiencies in his expert report.

Summary of this case from Martin v. BP Expl. & Prod.

In Fairley, this Court found that the plaintiff did not meet his burden to prove spoliation because there was no allegation that BP destroyed, altered, or failed to preserve any existing evidence, there was no proof that BP had a duty to conduct a monitoring program to create evidence in order to preserve it, there was no evidence that BP acted in bad faith, and finally, the proposed remedy of deeming Cook's opinions relevant would not cure the deficiencies in his report.

Summary of this case from Jenkins v. BP Expl. & Prod.
Case details for

Fairley v. BP Expl. & Prod.

Case Details

Full title:FREDDIE FAIRLEY v. BP EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION INC., et al.

Court:United States District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana

Date published: Nov 3, 2022

Citations

Civil Action 17-3988 (E.D. La. Nov. 3, 2022)

Citing Cases

Bruton v. BP Expl. & Prod.

In more than 300 cases, ten judges of this district have reviewed either Version 1, 2, 3, or 4 of Dr. Cook's…

Williams v. BP Expl. & Prod.

A court may sanction a party for spoliation evidence under the court's inherent sanction power.Fairley v. BP…

89 Citing Cases