N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT

M AR IA VAR

NEY, Individually

and a s Pe rsona l R e pre s e ntat i ve for the Esta te of Dona ld Va

rne y , Pla i ntiff-Appe lla

nt,
v. GOODYEAR

TIR E & R

UB B ER C OM PANY; C R OSB Y VALVE, LLC ; JOHN C R

ANE, INC .; FLOW SER

VE US, INC .; W EIR

VALVES & C ONTR OLS USA INC ; WARR EN PUM PS LLC ; INGER SOLL-R

AND C OM PANY, De fe nda n ts-Appe lle e s,
and ALFA LAVAL, INC
. ; AR M STR ONG INTER NATIONAL, INC .; AUR OR A PUM P C OM PANY; B L AC KM ER PUM P C OM PANY; B NS C O.; B W/IP INTER NATIONAL; C ARR IER GLOB AL C ORPOR ATION; C B S C ORPOR

ATION; C LA-VAL C OM PANY; C LARKR ELIANC E C ORPOR

A TION; C R

ANE C O.; C R ANE ENVIR ONM ENTAL, INC
. ; No. 19-35859 D.C . No. 3:18-c v-05105-R JB
M EM O R ANDUM * 

# FIL ED

MAR 1 2021 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public a t ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.C R OW

N C ORK & SEAL C OM PANY INC .; DARIGOLD, INC .; ELLIOTT TUR B OM AC HINER

Y C O. INC .; FM C C ORPOR ATION; FR

YER -KNOW LES, INC .; FR YER -KNOW LES, INC .; GENER AL ELEC T R IC C OM PANY; THE GOR

M AN-R UPP C OM PANY; GOULDS PUM PS LLC ; GRINNELL LLC ; HOPEM AN B R OTHER S, INC .; IM O INDUSTR IES, INC .; ITT , LLC ; M C N ALLY INDUSTRIES, INC .; M ETR OPOLITAN LIFE INSUR ANC E C OM PANY; NASH ENGINEER ING C OM PANY; SB DEC KING, INC .; STERL ING FLUID SYSTEM S (USA) LLC ; SUPER IOR -LIDGER W OODM UNDY C ORPOR

ATION; TAC O, INC .; UNIR O YAL HOLDING, INC .; VIKING PUM P, INC .; W M . POW ELL C OM PANY,

De fe nda n ts. Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the W e ste rn Distric t of W a shington R obe rt J. B ry a

n, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d Fe brua

ry 1, 2021 ** San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia

* * The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without ora l a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a )(2). 2B e fore : SILER , *** R AW LINSON, a

nd B UM ATAY, C irc uit Judge s. Appe lla nt M aria Va rne y a ppe a ls the distric t

c o urt’ s e vide n tia

ry ruling tha

t a de c la ra tion from

he r husba

nd, Dona ld Va

rne y , sta t ing tha t his m e sothe liom a

wa s
c a use d by produc t s m anufa c ture d by Appe lle e s, 1 wa s ina dm issiblea s a dy ing de c la ra tion pursua

nt to Fe de ra l R

ule of Evide nc e 804(b)(2). M rs. Va rne y c onte nds that the distric t c ourt e rre d in holding tha t the e v ide nc e and te stim ony subm itte d during a n e vide ntia

ry he aring did not suffic ie ntly e s ta blish tha t M r. Varne y

ha d pe rsona l knowle dge of the de c l ara tion’ s c onte n ts. C ontra ry to M rs. Va

rne y ’ s a sse rtions, thedistric t c o urt c onduc te d a thorough
re vie w of the te stim ony , de positions, a nd sta te m e nts submitte d during the
e vide ntia ry he a ring, a nd did not a

buse its disc re tion in holding tha t the e v ide nc e did not e sta

blish who pre

pa re d the de c la

ration, thesourc e of the de ta i ls c onc e rning the m anufa c ture rs’ lia

bility and M r. Varne y ’ s e xposure to a sbe stos, tha t M r. Varne y re a d the de c la

ra tion, or tha

t M r. Varne y

ha d pe rsona l knowle d ge of the de c la ra tion’ s c o n te nts. Se e C

lare v . C lare , 982 F.3d 1199, 1201 (9th C ir. 2020)

* * * The Honora

ble Euge ne E. Sile r, Unite d State s C irc uit Judgefor the U.S. C ourt of Appe a l s for the Sixth C irc uit, sitting by de signa t ion.
1 On De c e m

be r 17, 2020, wea dm inistra tive l y c lose d the a

ppe a l a s to Inge rsoll-R and C om

pa ny due to its pe nding ba

nkruptc y proc e e d ings a

nd im position of the a

utom atic sta

y . B a se d on the pa

rtie s ’ stipula

tion, Air & Liquid C orp. ha s be e n volunta rily dism isse d from

this a ppe a l
. 3(artic ulating tha t “ [w] e re v ie w e vide n tia

ry rulings for a

n a buse of disc re tion e ve n whe n the rulings de te rm i ne the outc om e of a m otion for sum m ary judgm e nt” ) (c ita tion a nd inte rna l quota

tion m arks om itte d); se e also Endy v . C ty . of Los Ange le s , 975 F.3d 757, 763 (9th C ir. 2020) (e xpla ining tha t “ a ffidavits or de c la ra tions supporting [a

n] opposition [to sum

m ary judgm e nt] m

ust be m a de on pe rsona l knowle dge ” ) (c ita tion a nd inte rna l quota

tion m arks om i tte d). The distric t c ourt a l so prope rly de te rm ine d tha

t the te stim ony

did not re solve the d isc re pa

nc i e s be twe e n M r. Varne y ’ s inte rroga torie s tha t he “ be lie ve [d] [his]
a ttorne y s ha [d] inform a tion sugge sting tha t [he ] wa s e xpose d to the de fe nda n ts’ a sbe stos produc ts,” and de ta ils subse que ntly provide d in M r. Varne y ’ s de c la ra tion tha t h e ha d pe rsona l knowle dge of the spe c ific produc ts re sulting in his
a sbe stos e xposure . As a re sult, M rs. Va rne y fa ils to suffic ie n t ly

e s ta blish tha t the distric t c o urt c le a

rly e rre d in its fa c tua l findings in support of its ruling tha t M r. Varne y ’ s de c la

ra tion wa s ina d

m issiblea s a

dy ing de c la

ration. Se e In reN

at’l C olle giate Athle tic Ass’n Grant-In-Aid C a p Antitrust Litig. , 958 F.3d 1239, 1252- 53 (9th C ir. 2020) (e xp la ining tha t “ [u] nde r c le ar e rror re vie w, we m u st a c c e pt the distric t c o urt’ s findings of fa c t unle ss we are le ft with thede finite and firm
c onvic tion tha

t a m ista ke ha s be e n c o m

m itte d” ) (c i tations a

nd inte rna l quota

tion

4m arks om itte d). 2 B e y ond he r e v ide ntia ry c ha lle nge , M rs. Va

rne y doe s not othe rwise a

ppe a l the distric t c ourt’ s e n try of sum m ary judgm e nt in fa

vor of Appe l le e s be c a

use , without Mr. Varne y ’ s de c la ra tion, shewa s una

ble to de m onstra

te the re quisite c a

usation in support of he

r c l a im s. AFFIRM E D.

2 The distric t c ourt’ s fa c t

ua l findings also support its ruling tha t the de c la ra tion wa s not a dm i ssible unde r Fe de ra l R ule of Evide nc e 807(a ). Se e Fe d. R
. Evid. 807(a)(1) (e xc luding sta te m e nt from

he a rsa y rule if “ the sta

te m e n t is supporte d by suffic i e nt gua ran te e s of trustworthine ss –a fte r c onside ring the tota lity of c irc um sta

nc e s unde r whic h it wa s m a de and e vide n c e , if a ny , c orroborating the sta te m e nt” ); se e also Unite d State s v . $11,500.00 in U.S. C

urre nc y , 710 F.3d 1006, 1014 n.3 (9th C ir. 2013) (e xpla ining tha t “ a sta te m e nt qua lify i ng unde r the re sidua l e xc e ption [provide d in Fe d. R . Evid. 807(a)(1)] m ust ha v e e quiva le n t c irc um s ta ntia l gua rante e s of trustworthine ss” ) (c ita tion a nd inte rna l quota

tion m arks om itte d). 5