Court Opinion

ID: 9402812
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-17 00:00:35.407501+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:02.714049
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-30654   Document: 00516790886   Page: 1    Date Filed: 06/16/2023

          United States Court of Appeals
               for the Fifth Circuit
                           ____________                     United States Court of Appeals
                                                                     Fifth Circuit

                                                                   FILED
                            No. 22-30654                       June 16, 2023
                          Summary Calendar
                          ____________                        Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                   Clerk
   George Arron Byrd,

                                                   Plaintiff—Appellant,

                                versus

   BP Exploration & Production, Incorporated; BP
   America Production Company; BP, P.L.C.; Transocean
   Holdings, L.L.C.; Transocean Deepwater,
   Incorporated; Transocean Offshore Deepwater
   Drilling, Incorporated; Halliburton Energy Services,
   Incorporated,

                                               Defendants—Appellees,

                        consolidated with
                          _____________

                            No. 22-30657
                          _____________

   Rebecca Yarbrough,

                                                   Plaintiff—Appellant,

                                versus
Case: 22-30654   Document: 00516790886   Page: 2    Date Filed: 06/16/2023

   BP Exploration & Production, Incorporated; BP
   America Production Company; BP, p.l.c.; Transocean
   Holdings, L.L.C.; Transocean Deepwater,
   Incorporated; Transocean Offshore Deepwater
   Drilling, Incorporated; Halliburton Energy Services,
   Incorporated,

                                               Defendants—Appellees,

                        consolidated with

                          _____________

                            No. 22-30661
                          _____________

   Jennifer Danielle Byrd,

                                                   Plaintiff—Appellant,

                                versus

   BP Exploration & Production, Incorporated; BP
   America Production Company; BP, p.l.c.; Transocean
   Holdings, L.L.C.; Transocean Deepwater,
   Incorporated; Transocean Offshore Deepwater
   Drilling, Incorporated; Halliburton Energy Services,
   Incorporated,

                                               Defendants—Appellees,

                        consolidated with
                          _____________

                            No. 22-30665
                          _____________

                                  2
Case: 22-30654   Document: 00516790886   Page: 3    Date Filed: 06/16/2023

   Joy Lashawn Beverly,

                                                   Plaintiff—Appellant,

                                versus

   BP Exploration & Production, Incorporated; BP
   America Production Company; BP, p.l.c.; Transocean
   Holdings, L.L.C.; Transocean Deepwater,
   Incorporated; Transocean Offshore Deepwater
   Drilling, Incorporated; Halliburton Energy Services,
   Incorporated,

                                               Defendants—Appellees,

                        consolidated with
                          _____________

                            No. 22-30666
                          _____________

   Lucy Ann Dailey,

                                                   Plaintiff—Appellant,

                                versus

   BP Exploration & Production, Incorporated; BP
   America Production Company; BP, p.l.c.; Transocean
   Holdings, L.L.C.; Transocean Deepwater,
   Incorporated; Transocean Offshore Deepwater
   Drilling, Incorporated; Halliburton Energy Services,
   Incorporated,

                                               Defendants—Appellees,

                        consolidated with

                                  3
Case: 22-30654   Document: 00516790886   Page: 4    Date Filed: 06/16/2023

                          _____________

                            No. 22-30667
                          _____________

   Sharitye Seay,

                                                   Plaintiff—Appellant,

                                versus

   BP Exploration & Production, Incorporated; BP
   America Production Company; BP, p.l.c.; Transocean
   Holdings, L.L.C.; Transocean Deepwater,
   Incorporated; Transocean Offshore Deepwater
   Drilling, Incorporated; Halliburton Energy Services,
   Incorporated,

                                               Defendants—Appellees,

                        consolidated with
                          _____________

                            No. 22-30668
                          _____________

   George Leonard Coon,

                                                   Plaintiff—Appellant,

                                versus

   BP Exploration & Production, Incorporated; BP
   America Production Company; BP, p.l.c.; Transocean
   Holdings, L.L.C.; Transocean Deepwater,
   Incorporated; Transocean Offshore Deepwater
   Drilling, Incorporated; Halliburton Energy Services,
   Incorporated,

                                  4
Case: 22-30654   Document: 00516790886   Page: 5     Date Filed: 06/16/2023

                                               Defendants—Appellees,

                        consolidated with

                          _____________

                            No. 22-30669
                          _____________

   Dennis Edward Bosarge; Lorinda Ruth Bosarge,

                                                   Plaintiffs—Appellants,

                                versus

   BP Exploration & Production, Incorporated; BP
   America Production Company; BP, p.l.c.; Transocean
   Holdings, L.L.C.; Transocean Deepwater,
   Incorporated; Transocean Offshore Deepwater
   Drilling, Incorporated; Halliburton Energy Services,
   Incorporated,

                                               Defendants—Appellees,

                        consolidated with

                          _____________

                            No. 22-30671
                          _____________

   Reynard Lenderis Brown,

                                                    Plaintiff—Appellant,

                                versus

                                  5
Case: 22-30654   Document: 00516790886   Page: 6    Date Filed: 06/16/2023

   BP Exploration & Production, Incorporated; BP
   America Production Company; BP, p.l.c.; Transocean
   Holdings, L.L.C.; Transocean Deepwater,
   Incorporated; Transocean Offshore Deepwater
   Drilling, Incorporated; Halliburton Energy Services,
   Incorporated,

                                               Defendants—Appellees,

                        consolidated with

                          _____________

                            No. 22-30694
                          _____________

   John D. Naples,

                                                   Plaintiff—Appellant,

                                versus

   BP America Production Company; BP Exploration &
   Production, Incorporated; BP, p.l.c.,

                                               Defendants—Appellees,

                        consolidated with

                          _____________

                            No. 22-30724
                          _____________

   Gary Joseph Terrebonne, Jr.,

                                                   Plaintiff—Appellant,
                                versus

                                  6
Case: 22-30654   Document: 00516790886   Page: 7    Date Filed: 06/16/2023

   BP Exploration & Production, Incorporated; BP
   America Production Company; BP, p.l.c.; Transocean
   Holdings, L.L.C.; Transocean Deepwater,
   Incorporated; Transocean Offshore Deepwater
   Drilling, Incorporated; Halliburton Energy Services,
   Incorporated,

                                               Defendants—Appellees,

                        consolidated with
                          _____________

                            No. 22-30725
                          _____________

   John Earl Fountain,

                                                   Plaintiff—Appellant,

                                versus

   BP Exploration & Production, Incorporated; BP
   America Production Company; BP, p.l.c.; Transocean
   Holdings, L.L.C.; Transocean Deepwater,
   Incorporated; Transocean Offshore Deepwater
   Drilling, Incorporated; Halliburton Energy Services,
   Incorporated,

                                               Defendants—Appellees,

                        consolidated with
                          _____________

                            No. 22-30726
                          _____________

   Royce Lamar Fairley,

                                  7
Case: 22-30654   Document: 00516790886     Page: 8    Date Filed: 06/16/2023

                                                     Plaintiff—Appellant,

                                versus

   BP Exploration & Production, Incorporated; BP
   America Production Company; BP, p.l.c.; Transocean
   Holdings, L.L.C.; Transocean Deepwater,
   Incorporated; Transocean Offshore Deepwater
   Drilling, Incorporated; Halliburton Energy Services,
   Incorporated,

                                                 Defendants—Appellees,

                        consolidated with
                          _____________

                            No. 22-30728
                          _____________

   Alexis White,

                                                     Plaintiff—Appellant,

                                versus

   BP Exploration & Production, Incorporated; BP
   America Production Company; BP, p.l.c.; Transocean
   Holdings, L.L.C.; Transocean Deepwater,
   Incorporated; Transocean Offshore Deepwater
   Drilling, Incorporated; Halliburton Energy Services,
   Incorporated,

                                                 Defendants—Appellees,

                        consolidated with
                          _____________

                            No. 22-30731

                                  8
Case: 22-30654    Document: 00516790886       Page: 9    Date Filed: 06/16/2023

                             _____________

   Terry Hye,

                                                        Plaintiff—Appellant,

                                    versus

   BP Exploration & Production, Incorporated; BP
   America Production Company; BP, p.l.c.; Transocean
   Holdings, L.L.C.; Transocean Deepwater,
   Incorporated; Transocean Offshore Deepwater
   Drilling, Incorporated; Halliburton Energy Services,
   Incorporated,

                                                     Defendants—Appellees.

                 ______________________________

                 Appeal from the United States District Court
                    for the Eastern District of Louisiana
                  USDC Nos. 2:10-MD-2179, 2:17-CV-3070,
                        2:10-MD-2179, 2:17-CV-4292,
                        2:10-MD-2179, 2:17-CV-3642,
                        2:10-MD-2179, 2:17-CV-3045,
                        2:10-MD-2179, 2:17-CV-3528,
                        2:10-MD-2179, 2:17-CV-4244,
                        2:10-MD-2179, 2:17-CV-3686,
                        2:10-MD-2179, 2:17-CV-3639,
                        2:10-MD-2179, 2:17-CV-3104,
                        2:10-MD-2179, 2:12-CV-2564,
                        2:10-MD-2179, 2:17-CV-4192,
                        2:10-MD-2179, 2:17-CV-3200,
                        2:10-MD-2179, 2:17-CV-3188,
                        2:10-MD-2179, 2:17-CV-4227,
                        2:10-MD-2179, 2:17-CV-3293
                 ______________________________

                                      9
Case: 22-30654         Document: 00516790886             Page: 10      Date Filed: 06/16/2023

                                        22-30654
    c/w Nos. 22-30657, 22-30661, 22-30665, 22-30666, 22-30667, 22-30668, 22-30669, 22-
           30671, 22-30694, 22-30724, 22-30725, 22-30726, 22-30728, 22-30731

   Before Clement, Southwick, and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
          These fifteen cases are yet another chapter in the Deepwater Horizon
   saga. We are asked here whether the district court abused its discretion by
   declining to extend discovery deadlines and instead ruling on BP’s motion
   for summary judgment. We conclude it did not and so AFFIRM.
                                                I
          The appellants here are workers hired by BP (through sub-
   contractors) to clean up the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. Because they allege
   that this work caused them acute, chronic medical conditions, they declined
   to participate in BP’s previous class action settlement and chose to proceed
   individually.
          For this collection of cases, the district court gave the workers over a
   year to submit expert reports concerning causation. The workers relied on
   Dr. Jerald Cook as their general causation expert. Dr. Cook concluded that
   several categories of injury can result from exposure to crude oil or
   dispersants, including harm to lungs, skin, and eyes.
          Meanwhile, the workers tried to depose Dr. David Dutton, BP’s main
   fact witness regarding the health and safety of clean-up workers. Aside from
   a short deposition that the workers found unsatisfactory, they were unable to
   do so. This, says the workers, kept them from presenting evidence on BP’s

          _____________________
          *
              This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.

                                                10
Case: 22-30654       Document: 00516790886              Page: 11       Date Filed: 06/16/2023

                                        22-30654
    c/w Nos. 22-30657, 22-30661, 22-30665, 22-30666, 22-30667, 22-30668, 22-30669, 22-
           30671, 22-30694, 22-30724, 22-30725, 22-30726, 22-30728, 22-30731

   decision-making regarding dermal testing and biomonitoring of clean-up
   crews. 1
           Despite that discovery issue, the district court here excluded Dr.
   Cook’s report and granted summary judgment to BP. It first found that Dr.
   Cook did not identify “the harmful level of exposure to a chemical” at issue,
   a baseline requirement of general causation in these sorts of cases. Then,
   because the workers provided no other evidence of general causation, the
   district court awarded summary judgment to BP. It explained that even if the
   workers were correct that BP willfully declined to collect dermal testing and
   biomonitoring data, such a failure was irrelevant to general causation. The
   workers now appeal.
                                               II
           Before diving into the merits, we note that the appellants here do not
   challenge the exclusion of Dr. Cook’s report. 2 Instead, they argue only that
   the district court erred in granting summary judgment before they had a
   chance to depose a BP executive with regards to dermal testing and
   biomonitoring.
           The court reviews the district court’s denial of a Rule 56(d) motion
   for abuse of discretion. Am. Family Life Assurance Co. of Columbus v. Biles, 714
   F.3d 887, 894 (5th Cir. 2013) (per curiam). The district court “has broad
   discretion in all discovery matters, and such discretion will not be disturbed
   ordinarily unless there are unusual circumstances showing a clear abuse.”
           _____________________
           1
            In a different case, BP produced another witness to testify on those topics, but
   that deposition was completed after the dismissals here.
           2
           In each filed notice of appeal, the appellants claim to appeal the orders excluding
   Dr. Cook’s report. They don’t, however, make any argument here as to why that exclusion
   was wrong or why Dr. Cook’s report satisfies the Daubert standard.

                                                11
Case: 22-30654      Document: 00516790886           Page: 12      Date Filed: 06/16/2023

                                        22-30654
    c/w Nos. 22-30657, 22-30661, 22-30665, 22-30666, 22-30667, 22-30668, 22-30669, 22-
           30671, 22-30694, 22-30724, 22-30725, 22-30726, 22-30728, 22-30731

   Kelly v. Syria Shell Petroleum Dev. B.V., 213 F.3d 841, 855 (5th Cir. 2000)
   (quotations and citation omitted).
          Per Rule 56(d), a district court may defer or deny a summary judgment
   motion, or allow additional time for discovery, if a “nonmovant shows by
   affidavit or declaration that, for specified reasons, it cannot present facts
   essential to justify its opposition.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(d). To win on a Rule
   56(d) motion, the moving party must “show (1) why she needs additional
   discovery and (2) how that discovery will create a genuine issue of material
   fact.” Beattie v. Madison Cnty. Sch. Dist., 254 F.3d 595, 606 (5th Cir. 2001)
   (citation omitted). It’s not enough to “simply rely on vague assertions that
   additional discovery will produce needed, but unspecified facts.” Biles, 714
   F.3d at 894 (quotations and citation omitted). Instead, the movant “must set
   forth a plausible basis for believing that specified facts, susceptible of
   collection within a reasonable time frame, probably exist and indicate how
   the emergent facts, if adduced, will influence the outcome of the pending
   summary judgment motion.” Raby v. Livingston, 600 F.3d 552, 561 (5th Cir.
   2010) (quotations and citation omitted) (emphasis added). The movant
   “must also have diligently pursued discovery.” Jacked Up, L.L.C. v. Sara Lee
   Corp., 854 F.3d 797, 816 (5th Cir. 2017) (quotations and citation omitted).
          In denying the workers’ Rule 56(d) motions, the district court
   explained that the evidence the workers sought (on whether BP failed to
   conduct dermal testing and biomonitoring) was “irrelevant to the general
   causation inquiry.” And even if the court were to consider any such evidence,
   the reasoning went, that evidence “would not cure the lack of ‘fit’ between
   Dr. Cook’s general causation report and the facts of plaintiff[s’] case[s].” As
   such, the district court concluded that any stay of discovery deadlines was
   unwarranted, and that summary judgment was proper.

                                            12
Case: 22-30654       Document: 00516790886            Page: 13       Date Filed: 06/16/2023

                                        22-30654
    c/w Nos. 22-30657, 22-30661, 22-30665, 22-30666, 22-30667, 22-30668, 22-30669, 22-
           30671, 22-30694, 22-30724, 22-30725, 22-30726, 22-30728, 22-30731

          The appellants deem that denial an abuse of discretion. We disagree.
   We’ve repeatedly held that plaintiffs alleging injury due to exposure to toxic
   substances must prove both general and specific causation. Knight v. Kirby
   Inland Marine Inc., 482 F.3d 347, 351 (5th Cir. 2007). The former concerns
   “whether a substance is capable of causing a particular injury or condition in
   the general population[.]” Id. (citation omitted). Once a court concludes that
   a substance can produce the plaintiff’s particular injury, it must determine
   whether the substance did produce that injury. Id. That’s specific causation.
          In these toxic-tort cases, we demand scientific—i.e., expert—
   “knowledge of the harmful level of exposure to a chemical” as a “minimal
   fact[] necessary to sustain the plaintiffs’ burden[.]” Allen v. Pa. Eng’g Corp.,
   102 F.3d 194, 199 (5th Cir. 1996); see also Seaman v. Seacor Marine, LLC, 326
   F. App’x 721, 724 (5th Cir. 2009) (same). Exposure data collected (or not)
   from the incident almost always bears on specific causation. It does not bear
   on whether, per the scientific literature, exposure to a chemical can cause a
   specific injury in the general population. As the district court rightly explained,
   “even assuming that BP had an affirmative duty to conduct dermal testing or
   biomonitoring after the oil spill, the lack of this information is not what
   renders Dr. Cook’s expert report unreliable, unhelpful, and inadmissible.”
          And what’s more, the appellants aren’t even seeking the data from the
   incident. 3 They seek only to “gather factual information regarding the safety
   decisions made by BP,” which they argue are “critical to the analysis of BP’s
   duty to protect its workers and how BP failed in fulfilling that duty.” While
   we agree that such information is important, it does not provide what the

           _____________________
          3
            The allegation, of course, is that it doesn’t exist, and so obviously cannot be
   discovered.

                                              13
Case: 22-30654      Document: 00516790886           Page: 14      Date Filed: 06/16/2023

                                        22-30654
    c/w Nos. 22-30657, 22-30661, 22-30665, 22-30666, 22-30667, 22-30668, 22-30669, 22-
           30671, 22-30694, 22-30724, 22-30725, 22-30726, 22-30728, 22-30731

   district court concluded the appellants lack: expert evidence that specific
   chemicals can cause specific injuries in the general population.
          Because the appellants do not explain how the evidence they seek
   would allow them to prove general causation, and because they do not
   otherwise challenge the exclusion of Dr. Cook’s report, we cannot conclude
   that the district court abused its discretion here.
                                           III
          The district court is AFFIRMED.

                                            14