Asbestos Companies’ Attempt to Bar Mesothelioma Expert Witnesses’ Testimony Denied
Malignant mesothelioma lawsuits represent high stakes to victims and defendants alike: Many companies that have exposed people to the asbestos that caused their devastating illnesses have been ordered to pay millions of dollars. This has led to aggressive legal strategies, including trying to bar valuable expert witness testimony. In a recent case, a U.S. Magistrate Judge denied a motion that came from multiple companies.
Mesothelioma Lawsuit Accuses Talc Companies of Negligence
The case was filed by Brian Joseph Gref, who was diagnosed with malignant peritoneal mesothelioma after years of using talcum powder. He filed claims against multiple cosmetic talc powder companies, accusing them of negligence in allowing their product to be contaminated with asbestos and failure to warn of the products’ dangers. He notified the court that expert witness testimony would include opinions from renowned occupational disease expert Dr. Jacqueline Moline.
When Dr. Moline provided her initial deposition she alerted attorneys from both sides that she had not yet been able to conduct asbestos dose calculations that were specific to the defendants’ talcum powder, and that she was basing her preliminary answers on data from a document prepared by someone else, before her deposition. She then conducted the investigation and relied on her own data for her second deposition.
Judge Denies Request to Dismiss Mesothelioma Experts’ Testimony
When the mesothelioma defendants’ attorneys learned at a later conference that Dr. Moline would be using data from an article that she’d written after the deposition as part of her testimony, they objected, arguing that the evidence was entered after the court’s deadline. They asked that she be entirely barred from testifying, and made the same request regarding three other expert witnesses, without offering any justification for their request.
The judge overseeing the case, U.S. Magistrate Judge Valerie Figueredo, denied the defendants’ request. Though she acknowledged the late entry of the evidence, she ruled that it was harmless and did not “merit the extreme sanction of preclusion.” She allowed Dr. Moline’s testimony in its entirety, as well as that of the other scheduled witnesses.
FREE Financial Compensation Packet
- Info on law firms that will recover your HIGHEST COMPENSATION
- Learn how to get paid in 90 days
- File for your share of $30 billion in trust funds
