Source: https://www.defenselitigationinsider.com/2017/08/
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 12:18:02+00:00

Document:
As previously reported, the issue of establishing personal jurisdiction when there is no causal link between defendant’s forum contacts and plaintiff’s claims was recently decided by the United States Supreme Court in Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court of California, 137 S. Ct. 1773 (2017). Last week, the Bristol-Myers decision was applied by Judge Kleifield, presiding judge of Department 324 at the Los Angeles Superior Court, which oversees state court asbestos litigation for Counties of Los Angeles, San Diego, and Orange.
In Bristol-Myers, the Supreme Court considered whether a state court could exercise personal jurisdiction over the claims of non-resident plaintiffs against a non-resident corporate defendant for tortious injuries that occurred out of state. Bristol-Myers, 137 S. Ct. at 1778. Bristol-Myers Squib Company (“BMS”), incorporated in Delaware and headquartered in New York, had been sued in California state court by a group of plaintiffs, most of whom were not California residents, who alleged that a BMS drug damaged their health outside of California. Id. The non-resident plaintiffs had not alleged that they: (1) obtained the drug from any California source; (2) ingested the drug in California; or (3) were injured by the drug in California Id. However, it was established that BMS had some connections with California, as it sold the drug in the state. Id. at 1778. The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the California Supreme Court, which had held that there was specific jurisdiction over BMS. Id. at 1777, 1781.
The Supreme Court ruled that specific jurisdiction necessitates “an affiliation between the forum and underlying controversy, principally, [an] activity or an occurrence that takes place in the forum State.” Bristol-Myers, 137 S. Ct. at 1781 (quoting Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown, 564 U.S. 915, 919 (2011)). It further held that in order for a state court to exercise specific jurisdiction, “the suit’ must ‘aris[e] out of or relat[e] to the defendant’s contacts with the forum.” Bristol-Myers, 137 S. Ct. at 1781 (quoting Daimler AGv. Bauman, 134 S. Ct. 746, 754 (2014)).
Applying those requirements, the Supreme Court found that California courts could not exercise specific jurisdiction over BMS with respect to non-residents’ claims because the non-residents did not claim to have suffered harm in California and all of the conduct giving rise to the non-residents’ claims occurred outside of California. Id. at 1782. Ultimately, the Supreme Court ruled that there was no specific jurisdiction because there was no connection between the forum and specific claims at issue. Id. at 1782.
In Herford, at al. v. AT&T Corp., et al., No. BC646315 (L.A. Super. Ct.), Tina Herford allegedly suffered exposure to asbestos-contaminated talc in California. The talc was allegedly supplied by defendant Whittaker, Clark & Daniels, Inc. (“WCD”). WCD and its successors, Brenntag North America, Inc. (“BNA”) and Brenntag Specialties, Inc. (“BSI”) moved to quash service of the summons for lack of personal jurisdiction.
California’s Senate Bill 632 seeks to impose a seven hour limit on depositions in asbestos cases at the expense of defendants’ due process rights. Specifically, SB 632 will require that “a deposition examination of the witness by all counsel, other than the witness’ counsel of record,” be limited to seven hours of total testimony in any civil action for injury or illness that involves a plaintiff with mesothelioma if a licensed physician attests that: (1) either the deponent suffers from mesothelioma, is over 70 years of age, and his or her health or well-being would be prejudiced by a deposition beyond seven hours; or (2) without regard to the deponent’s age, the deponent’s mesothelioma raises substantial medical doubt of survival beyond six months.
SB 632 allows for an additional seven hours, but no more than fourteen hours of total testimony, if the court makes a factual finding supporting the extension and determines that the health of the deponent does not appear to be endangered by the granting of additional time. Notably, however, SB 632 ensures that the time constraints do not apply to questioning by plaintiff’s counsel and eliminates judicial discretion allowing a deposition to go beyond the fourteen hour limit.
A shortened period for cross-examinations is inherently prejudicial because all defendants maintain an interest in properly and fairly preparing their defense and no party should be required to jeopardize that right. Imposing a seven hour limit on a key witness’ deposition will ensure that defendants’ due process rights will be violated by not allowing adequate time to defend the case at a deposition. As a hotbed for asbestos litigation, plaintiffs in California typically name dozens of defendants for a wide variety of alleged exposures in a myriad of industries and locations that generally consist of work histories spanning thirty to forty years. In addition, such time constraints will pin codefendants against each other as each attempts to jockey for more time to properly cross-examine a plaintiff in an effort to build their defense. The number of parties in a typical asbestos case coupled with the varying alleged exposures stretched over decades will make it impossible for a defendant to conduct an effective cross-examination under the time constraints proposed by SB 632.
In what asbestos litigation defendants hope will become a growing trend, the United States District Court for the District of Maryland recently drew a clear distinction between expert testimony as it relates to causation of both pleural mesothelioma (affecting the lining of the lung) and peritoneal mesothelioma (affecting the stomach). In Rockman v. Union Carbide Corp, et al., 1:16-cv-01169-RBD, 2017 WL 3022969, the court recently granted defendant Union Carbide and Georgia-Pacific’s motion to preclude expert testimony as to causation and in turn, sustained defendants’ motions for summary judgment.
Rockman involves plaintiff Jeffrey Rockman, who allegedly developed peritoneal mesothelioma resulting from asbestos exposure during three minor home repair projects in 1965, 1973 and 1976; all lasting no more than several weeks in total. It is undisputed that plaintiff did not perform those home repairs himself, but rather hired a handyman. Mr. Rockman contends that Georgia-Pacific “Ready Mix” joint compound was used in all three repairs, that it contained Union Carbide asbestos, and that its use generated asbestos-containing dust, to which he was exposed. Plaintiff was merely a bystander.
In support of his claims, plaintiff submitted the expert testimony of Dr. Jerrold Abraham, Dr. Arthur Frank and Dr. Arnold Brody who specifically concluded that plaintiff’s alleged exposures to Union Carbide chrysotile asbestos contained in Georgia-Pacific’s Ready Mix joint compound caused him to develop peritoneal mesothelioma. Additionally, Dr. Brody concluded that “each and every” exposure to asbestos “cumulates” and should therefore be considered a cause of the injury, regardless of the type of mesothelioma, the exposure dosage, or the type of asbestos. In reaching these conclusions, plaintiff’s experts relied on numerous studies of pleural mesothelioma despite reports from Dr. Abraham and Dr. Brody acknowledging that peritoneal mesothelioma is typically caused by higher exposure levels than pleural mesothelioma.
In assessing the reliability of plaintiff’s expert’s testimony, the court turned to Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence as well as the long established U.S. Supreme Court interpretation of Rule 702 set forth in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 588 (1993) and recently reaffirmed in Bresler v. Wilmington Trust Co., 855 F.3d 178, 195 (4th Cir. 2017) allowing the courts to “act as a gatekeeper to ensure that testimony is relevant and reliable”. Id. In assessing the validity of the methodology employed by a proposed expert witness, a court may consider whether the expert witness’ theory or technique: (1) can be or has been tested; (2) has been subject to peer review and publication; (3) has a high known or potential rate of error; and (4) is generally accepted within a relevant scientific community. Id.
Mineral talc, as a raw material, was determined to be “inherently safe” by Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Maren Nelson in the days leading up to the first Johnson & Johnson California ovarian cancer trial in the Johnson & Johnson Talcum Powder Cases, number JCCP4872. According to Law360.com, on July 10 the judge dismissed Imerys Talc based on her finding that talc is “inherently safe.” This ruling could have a profound effect on talc litigation, at least in California, as it may serve to protect Imerys and other suppliers of raw talc from further liability.
The court based its decision on the 1998 California appellate case of Artiglio v. General Electric. See 61 Cal. App. 4th 830, 839 (1998). The Artiglio decision is based on the Restatement Third of Torts and stands for the proposition that component and raw material suppliers are not liable to ultimate consumers when the goods or material they supply are: (1) not inherently dangerous; (2) they sell goods or material in bulk to a sophisticated buyer; (3) the material is substantially changed during the manufacturing process; and (4) the supplier has a limited role in developing and designing the end product. See id.
A number of other states, including Massachusetts, have similar jurisprudence that recognize the “bulk supplier,” “sophisticated user,” and “component part” doctrines which may lead to similar results for raw material suppliers, such as talc suppliers, in ovarian cancer talc litigation. See Carrel v. Nat’l Cord & Braid Corp., 447 Mass. 431, 441 (2006); Hoffman v. Houghton Chem. Corp., 434 Mass. 624, 629 (2001).
Unlike California courts, though, Massachusetts courts have not conglomerated the sophisticated user doctrine and the bulk supplier doctrine into one rule that deals with “inherently safe” raw materials. Massachusetts courts have, however, held that the components of the Artiglio rule (the bulk supplier doctrine and the sophisticated user doctrine) are recognized defenses in Massachusetts. See Hoffman, 434 Mass. at 629; See Artiglio 61 Cal. App. 4th at 839. Additionally, Massachusetts courts have recognized the component parts doctrine, which in California, is a counterpart of the Artiglio rule. See 61 Cal. App. 4th at 839. Therefore, talc defendants certainly have a strong argument for dismissal.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.