Estate of Henry Barabin v. Astenjohnson, Inc.
740 F.3d 457
| 9th Cir. | 2014Background
- Barabin worked at Crown-Zellerbach paper mill from 1968 to 2001; dryer felts containing asbestos supplied by AstenJohnson and Scapa were used in the mill.
- Barabin was diagnosed with pleural mesothelioma in 2006 allegedly from asbestos exposure at the mill.
- Barabin and spouse sued AstenJohnson and Scapa for damages; two Barabin experts supported causation theory.
- District court excluded Cohen due to credentials and allowed Millette with limiting caveats; allowed “every exposure” theory despite controversy.
- During trial, both sides presented expert testimony, objections were overruled, and the jury awarded $10.2 million; post-trial motions and remittitur processes occurred.
- The appellate panel held the district court abused its gatekeeping role under Daubert; case was remanded for a new trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court properly gatekept expert testimony under Rule 702/Daubert | Barabin contends district court failed to assess reliability/relevancy | AstenJohnson/Scapa argue gatekeeping not properly required or applied | Abuse of discretion; gatekeeping failure |
| Whether the erroneous admission of expert testimony was harmless error | Admission prejudiced Barabins’ case | If admissible, not prejudicial; verdict could stand | Not harmless; remand for new trial |
| Whether the court should remand for a post-hoc Daubert hearing or remand for new trial | Daubert evaluation needed; new trial appropriate | If admissible, verdict could stand; otherwise new trial | Remand for a new trial; or conditional remand for Daubert determination |
| Whether Mukhtar limits on post-Mukhtar remands apply to gatekeeping failures | Rule allows remand for Daubert findings by reviewing court | Mukhtar controls; district court should determine admissibility | Court overrules Mukhtar; remand for Daubert evaluation |
| Whether the district court’s approach to the “every exposure” theory was proper | Theory could be relevant; must be reliably tested | Court should not admit theory lacking reliability | Admissibility unresolved; due to gatekeeping failure, remand |
Key Cases Cited
- Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (Sup. Ct. 1993) (established test for reliability/relevancy of expert testimony)
- Kumho Tire Co., Ltd. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (Sup. Ct. 1999) (flexible reliability standards; gatekeeping)
- Primiano v. Cook, 598 F.3d 558 (9th Cir. 2010) (test for Daubert reliability; gatekeeping duty)
- United States v. Laurienti, 611 F.3d 530 (9th Cir. 2010) (harmless error and admissibility considerations in expert evidence)
- United States v. Echavarria-Olarte, 904 F.2d 1391 (9th Cir. 1990) (harmless error; admissibility issues in expert testimony)