![if gte IE 9]><![endif]><![if gte IE 9]><![endif]><![if gte IE 9]><![endif]>
Thank You For Submiting Feedback!
United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
November 15, 2013, Filed
[*514] PER CURIAM:1
Appellants Craig Moore ("Moore") and Toni Jeanne Labat Moore sued Appellee International Paint, L.L.C. ("IP") under the Louisiana Products Liability Act ("LPLA"), alleging that Moore developed multiple myeloma due to his exposure to benzene [**2] contained in IP's paints and paint thinners during his work at the Avondale Shipyards ("Avondale") from 1988 to 1990. In support of their claims, Appellants retained Dr. Bhaskar Kura to provide expert testimony concerning, among other things, Moore's cumulative benzene exposure while using IP's products at Avondale.
After Dr. Kura submitted his expert report, IP filed a motion in limine to exclude Dr. Kura's opinion under Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, 509 U.S. 579, 113 S. Ct. 2786, 125 L. Ed. 2d 469 (1993). On November 30, 2012, the district court issued a 21-page order granting the motion. Among other things, the district court found that Dr. Kura's opinion as to Moore's cumulative benzene exposure was insufficiently reliable to pass muster under Daubert because Dr. Kura lacked a sufficient factual basis for his conclusions. Five days later, the court granted IP's motion for summary judgment with respect to all the LPLA claims, partly on the ground that without Dr. Kura's testimony, the Appellants could not prove essential elements of those claims. On appeal, Appellants contend that the district court erred in excluding Dr. Kura's testimony and granting IP's motion for summary [**3] judgment. For the following reasons, we AFFIRM.
] This court reviews rulings on the admissibility of expert testimony for abuse of discretion. Moore v. Ashland Chem. Inc., 151 F.3d 269, 274 (5th Cir. 1998) (en banc). "[W]e have recognized that district courts are given wide latitude in determining the admissibility of expert testimony, and the discretion of the trial judge will not be disturbed on appeal unless manifestly erroneous." United States v. Cooks, 589 F.3d 173, 179 (5th Cir. 2009) (internal alteration and quotation marks omitted). In particular, "a district court has broad discretion to determine whether a body of evidence relied upon by an expert is sufficient to support that expert's opinion." Knight v. Kirby Inland Marine Inc., 482 F.3d 347, 354 (5th Cir. 2007).
Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.
547 Fed. Appx. 513 *; 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 23113 **; 92 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. (Callaghan) 1223; CCH Prod. Liab. Rep. P19,275; 2013 WL 6044220
CRAIG MOORE, Individually and on behalf of minor child, A.D.M.; TONI JEANNE LABAT MOORE, Individually and on behalf of minor child A.D.M, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. INTERNATIONAL PAINT, L.L.C., Defendant-Appellee.
Notice: PLEASE REFER TO FEDERAL RULES OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE RULE 32.1 GOVERNING THE CITATION TO UNPUBLISHED OPINIONS.
Prior History: [**1] Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana. Civil Action No. 2:11-CV-1001.
Moore v. BASF Corp., 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 171816 (E.D. La., Dec. 3, 2012)Moore v. BASF Corp., 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 170411 (E.D. La., Nov. 30, 2012)
district court, painting, expert testimony, exposure, benzene, reliability, cumulative, deposition, products
Civil Procedure, Appeals, Standards of Review, Abuse of Discretion, Evidence, Admissibility, Expert Witnesses, Reversible Errors, Expert Witnesses, Daubert Standard, Methods of Discovery, Depositions, Oral Depositions