Williams v. Boeing, 23f4th507

Background

Frank Williams worked at NASA’s Michoud Assembly Facility (MAF) from 1974–2008 as a mechanical engineer, primarily drafting; asbestos was documented in multiple MAF buildings and abatement occurred in the mid–to–late 1980s.
Co-worker testimony and expert reports (medical and industrial hygiene) indicated deteriorating asbestos and likely above‑average ambient asbestos exposure while Williams worked/visited certain buildings.
Williams sued (later substituted by his children after his death); the case was centralized in the Asbestos MDL in E.D. Pa.; Boeing was added as a defendant in early 2013.
Discovery time limits, Boeing’s motion to dismiss/protective order, and the timing of Boeing’s service constrained plaintiffs’ discovery efforts; the MDL magistrate denied reopening broad discovery requests.
The MDL court granted summary judgment for Boeing on (1) the survival action for lack of causation (no evidence Williams inhaled respirable asbestos from Boeing custody areas) and (2) wrongful death claims as prescribed; the Fifth Circuit reversed as to the survival claim, remanded to reconsider discovery, and affirmed dismissal of wrongful death claims.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether summary judgment on survival claim was proper (causation)	Evidence and expert opinions permit a reasonable jury to infer Williams was exposed to respirable asbestos at MAF; MDL improperly weighed evidence against plaintiffs	No evidence Williams was present during asbestos releases or remediation; evidence too speculative to show causation	Reversed in part: MDL improperly weighed evidence; a reasonable jury could find exposure — summary judgment on survival action reversed and remanded
Whether MDL misapplied Louisiana "garde" (custody) doctrine	MDL failed to apply garde and overlooked Boeing’s custodial/control responsibilities at MAF	Boeing argued plaintiffs couldn’t show Boeing’s custody caused exposure	Court found MDL considered garde-equivalent facts (Boeing’s role acknowledged) but still erred in weighing inferences; gardé issue considered but causation remains triable
Whether denial of plaintiffs’ motion to reopen discovery was an abuse of discretion	Delay is excusable given late discovery of Boeing’s role and Boeing’s motions that delayed document production; additional discovery could be outcome-determinative	Plaintiffs unduly delayed service after adding Boeing; requests were overbroad and filed after discovery closed; magistrate’s denial was reasonable	Remanded: Fifth Circuit declined to reverse outright; district court must determine what plaintiffs could have obtained in MDL and reconsider whether additional discovery is appropriate
Whether wrongful death claims relate back or were timely	Plaintiffs argued their later wrongful death allegations were preserved or relate back to earlier filings and substitution	Boeing: survival and wrongful death are distinct; plaintiffs failed to timely assert wrongful death, so those claims prescribed	Affirmed: wrongful death claims are time‑barred and do not relate back under Louisiana law

Key Cases Cited

Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574 (summary judgment: draw inferences for nonmoving party)
Rando v. Anco Insulations, Inc., 16 So. 3d 1065 (La. 2009) (Louisiana standard: significant exposure as substantial factor in asbestos causation)
Mills v. Davis Oil Co., 11 F.3d 1298 (5th Cir. 1994) (standard of appellate review for summary judgment)
Held v. Avondale Indus., Inc., 672 So. 2d 1106 (La. App. 4 Cir. 1996) (slight exposures may suffice to defeat summary judgment in asbestos cases)
Walls v. American Optical Corp., 740 So. 2d 1262 (La. 1999) (survival and wrongful death are distinct causes of action)
Giroir v. South La. Med. Ctr., 475 So. 2d 1040 (La. 1985) (relation‑back principles where timely claim by related plaintiff exists)
Williams v. Seidenbach, Inc., 958 F.3d 341 (5th Cir. 2020) (resolving related jurisdictional issues affecting these appeals)