Walls v. Ford Motor Co.

1

LAURA M. WALLS, Individually and as Executor of the Estate of ROBIE W. WALLS, Plaintiff, v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, et al., Defendants.

No. 1:20-CV-98

United States District Court, M.D. North Carolina

August 11, 2022

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Loretta C. Biggs, United States District Judge.

Plaintiff Laura Walls, individually and as executor of the estate of her now deceased husband Robie Walls, asserts claims for Mr Walls' alleged wrongful death from mesothelioma. (ECF No 138 ¶¶ 1, 2.) Before the Court are cross motions to exclude expert testimony under Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence and Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993). (ECF Nos. 307; 308; 309; 264; 262; 281; 253; 255.) For the reasons stated herein, Defendants' motions to exclude the expert testimony of Dr. Murray Finkelstein, Dr. Edwin Holstein, and Dr. John Maddox, (ECF Nos. 307- 09), will be granted in part and denied in part. Plaintiff's motion to exclude Defendant's naval researchers, (ECF No. 264), will be granted in part and denied in part. Plaintiff's motion to exclude cross-examination evidence concerning “manufactured chrysotile,” (ECF No. 262), will be denied. Plaintiff's motion to exclude testimony that asbestos exposure by vehicle mechanics cannot cause mesothelioma, (ECF No. 281), will be denied.

Plaintiff's motion to exclude quantification of relative asbestos fiber potency, (ECF No. 253), will be granted. Plaintiff's motion to exclude “No Observed Adverse Effect Level” testimony, (ECF No. 255), will be granted.

I. BACKGROUND^[1]

Mr. Walls served in the Navy from 1955 to 1959 and then worked as a tractor-trailer^[2]fleet mechanic for approximately 40 years from 1960 to 2002 in North Carolina and Virginia. (ECF No. 488 at 2.) As a fleet mechanic, Walls performed maintenance on tractor-trailer brakes, clutches, and engine gaskets manufactured by Defendants. (Id. at 2- 4.) These products all contained asbestos until the 1970s, and some contained asbestos into the 1990s. (Id. at 4-5.) Walls was diagnosed with mesothelioma-a form of lung cancer- on September 8, 2019, and died from the disease on October 15, 2020. (Id. at 5.)

Plaintiff and her husband filed this suit on January 30, 2020, against nineteen Defendants. (ECF No. 1.) Several Defendants have since been dismissed from this action. On February 25, 2022, this Court ruled on Plaintiff's and Defendants' motions for summary judgment. (ECF Nos. 487; 488.) Defendant Ford has moved the Court to reconsider its Order granting in part and denying in part Ford's motion for summary judgment, (ECF No. 512), and that motion is pending before this Court. This matter is set for jury trial on October 3, 2022. (ECF No. 486.)

Plaintiff and the remaining Defendants filed approximately twenty-five Daubert motions to exclude expert testimony.^[3] On March 16, 2022, this Court held a teleconference with counsel for the parties to discuss certain matters to include the need to eliminate duplication among the motions, clarification of the specific issues to be addressed, and the process by which a hearing related to this volume of motions could proceed most efficiently and effectively. (ECF No. 494.) Defendants subsequently moved to join Defendant Ford's Daubert motions and briefing, thereby “obviat[ing] the need for the Court to issue separate rulings on” Defendants' remaining motions. (ECF No. 499 at 2; see also ECF Nos. 500- 05.) This Court granted Defendants' motions to join on June 7, 2022. (ECF No. 512.) On June 15 and 16, 2022, this Court heard oral argument from the parties on the remaining Daubert motions. (ECF No. 522.) The motions are now fully briefed and argued and are ripe for decision.

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

The admissibility of expert opinion is governed by Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence and the Supreme Court's landmark ruling in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993). Rule 702 provides that a witness “who is qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education may testify in the form of an opinion or otherwise if:”

(a) the expert's scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will help the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue;

(b) the testimony is based on sufficient facts or data;

(c) the testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods; and (d) the expert has reliably applied the principles and methods to the facts of the case.

Fed. R. Evid. 702. Thus, expert testimony is admissible only if: (1) the expert is qualified, (2) the testimony is relevant, and (3) the testimony is based on reliable scientific methodology.^[4] See Daubert, 509 U.S. at 594-95. The Court must find these elements “at the outset, . . . by a preponderance of proof.” Id. at 592, 592 n.10.

An expert is qualified if he or she has “specialized knowledge that will assist the trier of fact in understanding the evidence or determining a fact in issue.” United States v. Young, 916 F.3d 368, 379 (4th Cir. 2019). A witness' qualifications are “liberally judged by Rule 702,” and “a person may qualify to render expert testimony in any one of the five ways listed” by the Rule: “knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education.” Kopf v. Skyrm, 993 F.2d 374, 377 (4th Cir. 1993); see Cooper v. Lab'y Corp. of Am. Holdings, 150 F.3d 376, 380 (4th Cir. 1998).

An expert who is qualified must provide testimony that is relevant. An expert's opinion is relevant if it “fit[s]” the facts of the case, meaning it has “a valid scientific connection to the pertinent inquiry.” Daubert, 509 U.S. at 591-92. “This ensures that the expert ‘helps the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue.'” Sardis v. Overhead Door Corp., 10 F.4th 268, 281 (4th Cir. 2021) (quoting Nease v. Ford Motor Co., 848 F.3d 219, 229 (4th Cir. 2017)). “Simply put, if an opinion is not relevant to a fact at issue, Daubert requires that it be excluded.” Id. at 281.

Finally, relevant testimony must also by reliable. An expert's opinion is reliable if it is “based on scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge and not on belief or speculation.” Id. (emphasis omitted) (quoting Oglesby v. Gen. Motors Corp., 190 F.3d 244, 250 (4th Cir. 1999)). While the subject of scientific testimony must not “be ‘known' to a certainty,” it must be “derived by the scientific method” and “supported by appropriate validation-i.e., ‘good grounds,' based on what is known.” Daubert, 509 U.S. at 590. Reliability is a “flexible” inquiry that must focus “solely on principles and methodology, not on the conclusions that they generate.” Id. at 594-95. In Daubert, the Court outlined a nonexhaustive list of factors to guide lower courts in assessing reliability, including: (1) whether the theory can be (and has been) tested; (2) whether it has been subjected to peer review and publication; (3) its potential rate of error; (4) whether standards exist to control the technique's operation; and (5) the degree of acceptance of the methodology within the relevant scientific community. Id. at 593-94. These factors “may or may not be pertinent in assessing reliability, depending on the nature of the issue, the expert's particular expertise, and the subject of his testimony,” and courts have “broad latitude” in choosing which factors are “reasonable measures of reliability in a particular case.” Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137, 150, 153 (1999).

“Expert evidence can be both powerful and quite misleading because of the difficulty in evaluating it. Because of this risk, the judge . . . exercises more control over experts than over lay witnesses.” Daubert, 509 U.S. at 595. Rule 702 “imposes a special gatekeeping obligation on the trial judge to ensure that an expert's testimony both rests on a reliable foundation and is relevant to the task at hand.” Sardis, 10 F.4th at 281 (internal quotations omitted). A court cannot “abandon the gatekeeping function” by deferring its responsibility to the jury. Id. at 282 (quoting Kumho, 526 U.S. at 159 (Scalia, J., concurring)). Ultimately, a district court's Rule 702 analysis “necessarily amount[s] to an exercise of broad discretion guided by the overarching criteria of relevance and reliability.” Belville v. Ford Motor Co., 919 F.3d 224, 233 (4th Cir. 2019) (quoting Oglesby, 190 F.3d at 250).

Although Rule 702 “is not intended to serve as a replacement for the adversary system,” In re Lipitor (Atorvastatin Calcium) Mktg., Sales Pracs. & Prod. Liab. Litig. (No II) MDL 2502, 892 F.3d 624, 631 (4th Cir. 2018), this Court takes seriously its gatekeeping role to protect lay jurors from “powerful and quite misleading” expert testimony, Daubert, 509 U.S. at 595. The Court will address each motion to exclude expert testimony in turn.

III. DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS (ECF Nos. 307; 308; 309)

Defendants move to exclude the testimony of Dr. Murray Finkelstein, Dr. Edwin Holstein, and Dr. John Maddox. (ECF Nos. 307; 308; 309.) Defendants do not challenge Finkelstein's, Holstein's, or Maddox's qualifications. (June 16 Tr. at 12:7-10.) Rather, Defendants argue that these experts' general causation opinions-that chrysotile asbestos from vehicle friction products can cause mesothelioma-and specific causation opinions- that Defendants' products caused Walls' mesothelioma-are unreliable and do not fit the facts of this case. (ECF No. 477 at 1.)

The Court finds that Plaintiff's experts are qualified to offer the challenged opinions in this case. Finkelstein is a physician and epidemiologist with over forty years of experience. (ECF No. 479-49 at 1-3.) He holds a master's degree and Ph.D. in Physics from Case-Western Reserve University and a Medicine Doctorem et Chirurgia Magistrum (M.D.C...