Krutz v. Huntington Ingalls Incorporated et al, No. 2:2020cv01722 - Document 206 (E.D. La. 2021)

Court Description: ORDER AND REASONS granting in part 176 Motion in Limine to Daubert Motion to Preclude Hopeman-Specific Testimony from Plaintiffs' Expert, Barry Castleman; granting 194 Motion For Order -Daubert Motion to Preclude Testimony from Plaintiffs Expert Barry Castleman for the reasons stated within document. Signed by Judge Sarah S. Vance on 8/25/2021. (mm)

Download PDF
Krutz v. Huntington Ingalls Incorporated et al Doc. 206 Case 2:20-cv-01722-SSV-DMD Document 206 Filed 08/25/21 Page 1 of 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA GARY KRUTZ, ET AL. CIVIL ACTION VERSUS NO. 20-1722 HUNTINGTON INGALLS INC., ET AL. SECTION “R” (3) ORDER AND REASONS Before the Court is plaintiffs’ consent motion 1 regarding Hopeman Brothers, Inc.’s (“Hopeman”) Daubert motion to preclude certain testimony by plaintiffs’ expert, Barry Castleman. 2 Plaintiffs’ motion is unopposed. 3 The Court considers the motion below. On July 30, 2021, defendant Hopeman filed a Daubert motion seeking to exclude “Hopeman-specific testimony from Plaintiffs’ State-of-the-Art Expert, Barry Castleman.”4 In its Daubert motion, defendant argued that plaintiffs’ expert made factually inaccurate statements regarding Hopeman’s connection to Johns Manville, the manufacturer of marinite core, a component of the wallboard panels Hopeman installed, some of which 1 2 3 4 R. Doc. 194. R. Doc. 176. R. Doc. 194 at 1. R. Doc. 176 at 1. Dockets.Justia.com Case 2:20-cv-01722-SSV-DMD Document 206 Filed 08/25/21 Page 2 of 3 contained asbestos. 5 Plaintiffs did not file an opposition to Hopeman’s Daubert motion. Instead, plaintiffs filed the present consent motion, representing that the parties have stipulated to a resolution of defendant’s motion. 6 To that end, the parties submit a proposed order, granting in part and denying in part defendant’s Daubert motion regarding the testimony of Barry Castleman. 7 Considering the foregoing, the Court GRANTS plaintiffs’ consent motion, 8 and thereby GRANTS in part defendant’s Daubert motion 9 to exclude portions of Mr. Castleman’s expert testimony and to strike corresponding sections from his expert report. Accordingly, it is ORDERED that Mr. Castleman shall not be permitted to testify at trial about the following allegations: (a) that Hopeman was a government contractor, (b) that Hopeman was a contractor for Johns Manville, (c) that Hopeman and Johns Manville had a legal or contractual relationship other than as buyer and seller, and (d) that Hopeman’s lawyers met with Johns Manville and were involved in creating warning labels that Johns Manville placed on its products. It is FURTHER ORDERED that any 5 6 7 8 9 R. Docs. 176-1 at 3-6 & 171-1 ¶¶ 4-6. R. Doc. 194. R. Doc. 194-1. R. Doc. 194. R. Doc. 176. 2 Case 2:20-cv-01722-SSV-DMD Document 206 Filed 08/25/21 Page 3 of 3 statements in Mr. Castleman’s expert report regarding the above subjects shall be stricken from the report. To the extent that defendant’s Daubert motion seeks relief other than the exclusions enumerated above, the motion is DENIED. 25th day of August, 2021. New Orleans, Louisiana, this _____ _____________________ SARAH S. VANCE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 3

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.