Coleman v. Anco Insulations, Inc.
3:15-cv-00821
M.D. La.May 8, 2017Background
- Decedent William D. Coleman was diagnosed with malignant mesothelioma in 2015 and died in 2016; plaintiffs allege exposure to asbestos at the Libbey-Owens-Ford (LOF) Shreveport plant where Decedent and his father worked in the 1940s–1971 period.
- Plaintiffs served a Rule 30(b)(6) notice seeking corporate representative testimony from Pilkington North America, Inc. (PNA) on numerous topics concerning asbestos, "excessive dust," plant studies, warnings, insurance communications, worker’s compensation, corporate programs, trade affiliations, and a relationship with Aeroquip-Vickers.
- PNA opposed parts of the notice as vague, overly broad, burdensome, and seeking information outside the relevant time period (post-1971), but agreed to present a representative on asbestos during the period of Decedent’s and his father’s employment.
- Plaintiffs argued that corporate practices on nuisance dust and industrial hygiene (including post-employment materials) could bear on foreseeability and a continuing duty to warn, and they sought testimony on Aeroquip-Vickers because those employer records appear in Decedent’s SSA history.
- The magistrate judge analyzed Rule 26(b)(1), Rule 26(b)(2)(C), and Rule 30(b)(6) principles, and limited topics as overly broad, cumulative, or temporally irrelevant to the exposure period, granting only certain requests.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether PNA must produce 30(b)(6) testimony on topics about "excessive dust" and general plant conditions | Dust/industrial hygiene practices relevant to foreseeability of asbestos injury and household exposure | "Dust" is vague; toxin at issue is asbestos; non-asbestos dust is irrelevant and burdensome | Denied as to topics seeking generalized "excessive dust" (topics 12,22,32,37,38,15,25,35); granted limitedly for topic 40 (environmental/industrial hygiene studies) but only for pre-1972 period |
| Whether PNA must produce testimony on asbestos-related corporate knowledge, literature, warnings, research, insurance discussions, worker’s comp, programs, and trade affiliations for all time periods | Post-employment materials may show continuing duty to warn or location of asbestos; relevant under continuing-duty theories | Relevant period is exposure period (pre-1972); post-employment information is not causative and is irrelevant; continuing duty to warn limited to manufacturers | Denied to the extent these topics seek information after Decedent’s employment (1972–present); PNA must produce for pre-1972 materials where relevant (PNA already agreed to pre-1972 asbestos testimony) |
| Whether PNA must provide testimony about its relation to Aeroquip-Vickers (possible employer identity) | Aeroquip appears in SSA records; testimony needed to clarify employment identity and avoid trial disputes | (No specific response from PNA in opposition) | Granted for topic 52; PNA must produce testimony and documents concerning relationship with Aeroquip-Vickers |
| Whether the 30(b)(6) topics are cumulative or disproportional given more specific asbestos topics | General dust topics overlap with asbestos-specific topics and are cumulative | Producing broader corporate history and post-1972 materials is burdensome and unnecessary | Court treated generalized dust topics as cumulative and denied them; limited discovery to asbestos-specific and temporally relevant topics |
Key Cases Cited
- Rando v. Anco Insulations, Inc., 16 So. 3d 1065 (La. 2009) (plaintiff must show exposure to the specific product and significant exposure to be a substantial factor in causing injury)
- Cole v. Celotex Corp., 599 So. 2d 1058 (La. 1992) (exposure theory: claims in long-latency occupational disease cases are tied to the period of repeated exposures)
- Bunge Corp. v. GATX Corp., 557 So. 2d 1376 (La. 1990) (continuing duty to warn for manufacturers can exist; duty to warn is continuing where applicable)
- Roberts v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp., 878 So. 2d 631 (La. App. 1 Cir. 2004) (discussing scope of foreseeability and industrial hygiene evidence in asbestos cases)
- Dornak v. Lafayette Gen. Hosp., 399 So. 2d 168 (La. 1981) (relationship-based duties can create obligations to disclose discovered hazards)