The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
DUKE ALLEN MACKLES CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS NO. 17-4002
BP EXPLORATION & SECTION: “H”
PRODUCTION, INC. ET AL.
____________________________________________________________________
LATONYA SHERELL ANDERSON CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS NO. 17-3022
BP EXPLORATION & SECTION: “H”
PRODUCTION, INC. ET AL.
____________________________________________________________________
HAKIM DUMAS CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS NO. 17-4322
BP EXPLORATION & SECTION: “H”
PRODUCTION, INC. ET AL.
____________________________________________________________________
CODIE JAMES SCOTT CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS NO. 17-4578
BP EXPLORATION & SECTION: “H”
PRODUCTION, INC. ET AL.
____________________________________________________________________
1
CHARLES D. STAPLETON CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS NO. 17-4588
BP EXPLORATION & SECTION: “H”
PRODUCTION, INC. ET AL.
____________________________________________________________________
JAMES DEWAYNE LAWRENCE CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS NO. 17-4654
BP EXPLORATION & SECTION: “H”
PRODUCTION, INC. ET AL.
____________________________________________________________________
ERIC BRADLEY CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS NO. 17-4136
BP EXPLORATION & SECTION: “H”
PRODUCTION, INC. ET AL.
____________________________________________________________________
REGINA BROWN CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS NO. 17-4142
BP EXPLORATION & SECTION: “H”
PRODUCTION, INC. ET AL.
____________________________________________________________________
KRYSTAL BARNES CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS NO. 17-3629
BP EXPLORATION & SECTION: “H”
PRODUCTION, INC. ET AL.
____________________________________________________________________
2
TONNIE LEE EASTERLING CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS NO. 17-3913
BP EXPLORATION & SECTION: “H”
PRODUCTION, INC. ET AL.
____________________________________________________________________
JOHNNY ELZEY CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS NO. 17-3985
BP EXPLORATION & SECTION: “H”
PRODUCTION, INC. ET AL.
___________________________________________________________________
DONNA BROWN CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS NO. 17-4141
BP EXPLORATION & SECTION: “H”
PRODUCTION, INC. ET AL.
____________________________________________________________________
RICARDO WHITE CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS NO. 17-4229
BP EXPLORATION & SECTION: “H”
PRODUCTION, INC. ET AL.
____________________________________________________________________
ANTHONY L. MOORE CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS NO. 17-4453
BP EXPLORATION & SECTION: “H”
PRODUCTION, INC. ET AL.
____________________________________________________________________
3
LINDA PACE CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS NO. 17-4471
BP EXPLORATION & SECTION: “H”
PRODUCTION, INC. ET AL.
____________________________________________________________________
DON POOLE ET AL. CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS NO. 17-4507
BP EXPLORATION & SECTION: “H”
PRODUCTION, INC. ET AL.
____________________________________________________________________
FRANK MICHAEL III CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS NO. 17-4563
BP EXPLORATION & SECTION: “H”
PRODUCTION, INC. ET AL.
____________________________________________________________________
ARLENE HINTON CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS NO. 17-4357
BP EXPLORATION & SECTION: “H”
PRODUCTION, INC. ET AL.
____________________________________________________________________
RAY SYLVESTER BROWN CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS NO. 17-3099
BP EXPLORATION & SECTION: “H”
PRODUCTION, INC. ET AL.
4
CHERYL LAKISHA FIELDER CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS NO. 17-3193
BP EXPLORATION & SECTION: “H”
PRODUCTION, INC. ET AL.
____________________________________________________________________
AMANDA VICTORIA UPCHURCH CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS NO. 17-3413
BP EXPLORATION & SECTION: “H”
PRODUCTION, INC. ET AL.
____________________________________________________________________
WILLIAM SHEPHARD FAST CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS NO. 17-3989
BP EXPLORATION & SECTION: “H”
PRODUCTION, INC. ET AL.
____________________________________________________________________
RICHARD TERRELL MAGEE CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS NO. 17-3549
BP EXPLORATION & SECTION: “H”
PRODUCTION, INC. ET AL.
____________________________________________________________________
CHARLENE JONES CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS NO. 17-3312
BP EXPLORATION & SECTION: “H”
PRODUCTION, INC. ET AL.
____________________________________________________________________
5
RODERICK CLIFTON BELTON CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS NO. 17-3480
BP EXPLORATION & SECTION: “H”
PRODUCTION, INC. ET AL.
____________________________________________________________________
WILLIAM ARTHUR BOWDEN, JR. CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS NO. 17-3506
BP EXPLORATION & SECTION: “H”
PRODUCTION, INC. ET AL.
____________________________________________________________________
ORDER AND REASONS
Before the Court are nearly identical motions submitted in twenty-six
different cases. Plaintiffs have filed Motions to Reconsider the Court’s Orders
Granting Defendants’ Motions in Limine and Motions for Summary Judgment
in each of their cases. For the following reasons, these Motions are DENIED.
BACKGROUND
These twenty-six cases are among the “B3 bundle” of cases arising out of
the Deepwater Horizon oil spill.1 This bundle comprises “claims for personal
injury and wrongful death due to exposure to oil and/or other chemicals used
during the oil spill response (e.g., dispersant).”2 These cases were originally
1 See In Re: Oil Spill by the Oil Rig “Deepwater Horizon” in the Gulf of Mexico, on April 20,
2010, No. 10-md-02179, R. Doc. 26924 at 1 (E.D. La. Feb. 23, 2021).
2 Id.
6
part of a multidistrict litigation (“MDL”) pending in the Eastern District of
Louisiana before Judge Barbier. During this MDL, Judge Barbier approved the
Deepwater Horizon Medical Benefits Class Action Settlement Agreement, but
the B3 plaintiffs either opted out of this agreement or were excluded from its
class definition.3 Subsequently, Judge Barbier severed the B3 cases from the
MDL to be reallocated among the judges of this Court.4 The above cases were
reassigned to Section H.
Plaintiffs Eric Bradley; Latonya Sherell Anderson; Regina Brown; Duke
Allen Mackles; Jamie Dewayne Lawrence; Charles D. Stapleton; Hakim
Dumas; Codie James Scott; Krystal Barnes; Tonnie Lee Easterling; Johnny
Elzey; Donna Brown; Ricardo White; Anthony L. Moore; Linda Pace; Don
Poole; Frank Michael III; Arlene Hinton; Ray Sylvester Brown; Cheryl
Lakisha Fielder; Amanda Victoria Johnson Upchurch; William Shepard Fast;
Richard Terrell Magee; Marvin Jones; Roderick Clifton Belton; and William
Arthur Bowden, Jr. each filed lawsuits against Defendants based on their
alleged exposure to toxic chemicals following the Deepwater Horizon oil spill
in the Gulf of Mexico. Each plaintiff was allegedly involved in cleanup or
recovery work after the oil spill, and each contends that his or her resulting
exposure to crude oil and dispersants caused a litany of health conditions.
Plaintiffs bring claims for general maritime negligence, negligence per se, and
gross negligence against Defendants.
Now before the Court in each of the above-captioned cases are Plaintiffs’
Motions for Reconsideration under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e).5
3 Id. at 2 n.3.
4 Id. at 7–8.
5 Mackles v. BP Expl. & Prod., Inc., No. 17-4002, R. Doc. 76; Anderson v. BP Expl. & Prod.,
Inc., No. 17-3022, R. Doc. 80; Dumas v. BP Expl. & Prod., Inc., No. 17-4322, R. Doc. 66; Scott
v. BP Expl. & Prod., Inc., No. 17-4578, R. Doc. 70; Stapleton v. BP Expl. & Prod., Inc., No. 17-
7
Plaintiffs argue that the Court’s order granting the Defendants’ Motion in
Limine and Motion for Summary Judgment should be reconsidered because of
BP’s decision not to collect dermal and biometric data from cleanup workers.
Defendants BP Exploration & Production, Inc.; BP America Production
Company; BP p.l.c.; Transocean Holdings, LLC; Transocean Deepwater, Inc.;
Transocean Offshore Deepwater Drilling, Inc.; and Halliburton Energy
Services, Inc. (collectively, the “BP parties”) oppose.6
LEGAL STANDARD
A Rule 59(e) motion to alter or amend a judgment “serve[s] the narrow
purpose of allowing a party to correct manifest errors of law or fact or to present
newly discovered evidence.”7 “Such a motion is not the proper vehicle for
4588, R. Doc. 68; Lawrence v. BP Expl. & Prod., Inc., No. 17-4654, R. Doc. 68; Bradley v. BP
Expl. & Prod., Inc., No. 17-4136, R. Doc. 64; Brown v. BP Expl. & Prod., Inc., No. 17-4142, R.
Doc. 60; Barnes v. BP Expl. & Prod., Inc., No. 17-3629, R. Docs. 81; Easterling v. BP Expl. &
Prod., Inc. No., 17-3913, R. Doc. 79; Elzey v. BP Expl. & Prod., Inc., No. 17-3985, R. Doc. 76;
Brown v. BP Expl. & Prod., Inc. No., 17-4141, R. Doc. 66; White v. BP Expl. & Prod., Inc. No.,
17-4229, R. Doc. 62; Moore v. BP Expl. & Prod., Inc., No. 17-4453, R. Doc. 71; Pace v. BP Expl.
& Prod., Inc., No. 17-4471, R. Doc. 68; Poole v. BP Expl. & Prod., Inc., No. 17-4507, R. Doc.
68; Michael v. BP Expl. & Prod., Inc., No. 17-4563, R. Doc. 68; Hinton v. BP Expl. & Prod.,
Inc., No. 17-4357, R. Doc. 73; Brown v. BP Expl. & Prod., Inc., No. 17-3099, R. Doc. 79; Fielder
v. BP Expl. & Prod., Inc., No. 17-3193, R. Doc. 79; Upchurch v. BP Expl. & Prod., Inc., No.
17-3413, R. Doc. 80; Fast v. BP Expl. & Prod., Inc., No. 17-3989, R. Doc. 70; Magee v. BP
Expl. & Prod., Inc., No. 17-3549, R. Doc. 75; Jones v. BP Expl. & Prod., Inc., No. 17-3312, R.
Doc. 90; Belton v. BP Expl. & Prod., Inc., No. 17-3480, R. Doc. 79; Bowden v. BP Expl. &
Prod., Inc., No. 17-3506, R. Doc. 77.
6 Mackles, No. 17-4002, R. Doc. 78; Anderson, No. 17-3022, R. Doc. 83; Dumas, No. 17-4322,
R. Doc. 68; Scott, No. 17-4578, R. Doc. 72; Stapleton, No. 17-4588, R. Doc. 70; Lawrence, No.
17-4654, R. Doc. 70; Bradley, No. 17-4136, R. Doc. 67; Brown, No. 17-4142, R. Doc. 62; Barnes,
No. 17-3629, R. Doc. 82; Easterling, No. 17-3913, R. Doc. 81; Elzey, No. 17-3985, R. Doc. 78;
Brown, No., 17-4141, R. Doc. 68; White, No., 17-4229, R. Doc. 64; Moore, No. 17-4453, R. Doc.
73; Pace, No. 17-4471, R. Doc. 70; Poole, No. 17-4507, R. Doc. 70; Michael, No. 17-4563, R.
Doc. 70; Hinton, No. 17-4357, R. Doc. 75; Brown, No. 17-3099, R. Doc. 81; Fielder, No. 17-
3193, R. Doc. 81; Upchurch, No. 17-3413, R. Doc. 82; Fast, No. 17-4471, R. Doc. 72; Magee,
No. 17-3549, R. Doc. 77; Jones, No. 17-3312, R. Doc. 92; Belton, No. 17-3480, R. Doc. 81;
Bowden, No. 17-3506, R. Doc. 79.
7 Waltman v. Int’l Paper Co., 875 F.2d 468, 473 (5th Cir. 1989) (internal quotations omitted).
8
rehashing evidence, legal theories, or arguments that could have been offered
or raised before the entry of judgment.”8 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e)
provides that “[a] motion to alter or amend a judgment must be filed no later
than 28 days after the entry of the judgment.” The Rule does not, however,
provide any standard for courts to use when determining when timely motions
should be granted.9 Courts have held that the moving party must show that
the motion is necessary based on at least one of the following criteria: (1)
“correct[ing] manifest errors of law or fact upon which the judgment is based;”
(2) “present[ing] newly discovered or previously unavailable evidence;” (3)
“prevent[ing] manifest injustice,” and (4) accommodating “an intervening
change in the controlling law.”10 Rule 59(e) relief represents “an extraordinary
remedy that should be used sparingly.”11
LEGAL ANALYSIS
Plaintiffs move this Court for reconsideration under Rule 59(e) of its
order excluding Dr. Cook’s testimony and granting Defendants’ motion for
summary judgment. Plaintiffs state that the affidavit of Dr. Linda Birnbaum,
the Director of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences
(“NIEHS”) creates an issue of fact “as to whether biomonitoring would have
been required to adequately protect the workers from the known hazards of
exposure to crude oil.”12 Defendants respond that Plaintiffs are rehashing
8 Edionwe v. Bailey, 860 F.3d 287, 294 (5th Cir. 2017) (quoting Templet v. HydroChem Inc.,
367 F.3d 473, 479 (5th Cir. 2004)).
9 FED. R. CIV. P. 59.
10 Fields v. Pool Offshore, Inc., No. 97-3170, 1998 WL 43217, at *2 (E.D. La. Feb. 3, 1998).
11 Id.
12 Mackles, No. 17-4002, R. Doc. 76; Anderson, No. 17-3022, R. Doc. 80; Dumas, No. 17-4322,
R. Doc. 66; Scott., No. 17-4578, R. Doc. 70; Stapleton, No. 17-4588, R. Doc. 68; Lawrence, No.
17-4654, R Doc. 68; Bradley, No. 17-4136, R. Doc. 64; Brown, No. 17-4142, R. Doc. 60; Barnes,
No. 17-3629, R. Doc. 81; Easterling, No. 17-3913, R. Doc. 79; Elzey, No. 17-3985, R. Doc. 76;
9
arguments irrelevant to this suit and that they present no arguments unique
to their cases.
Plaintiffs do not identify which of the four Rule 59(e) criteria they believe
are satisfied here. Plaintiffs’ argument regarding Dr. Birnbaum’s affidavit is
irrelevant to the fact that Dr. Cook’s opinion is unhelpful and unreliable. In its
previous Orders, this Court, as well as others in this district, determined that
Dr. Cook’s expert report was inadmissible and these decisions did not depend
on the dermal and biometric data that BP allegedly failed to collect.
Specifically, another section of this Court has held that “Dr. Birnbaum’s
affidavit neither cures nor explains the deficiencies of [Dr.] Cook's report.”13
Dr. Birnbaum’s affidavit “appears to conflate general causation with specific
causation,” as general causation requires “evidence demonstrating that the
types of chemicals encountered by Plaintiff are actually capable of causing the
injuries alleged by Plaintiff.”14 The Fifth Circuit requires admissible general
causation expert testimony in toxic-tort cases, and Dr. Birnbaum’s affidavit
does not remedy this deficiency within Dr. Cook’s expert report.15
Brown, No., 17-4141, R. Doc. 66; White, No., 17-4229, R. Doc. 62; Moore, No. 17-4453, R. Doc.
71; Pace, No. 17-4471, R. Doc. 68; Poole, No. 17-4507, R. Doc. 68; Michael, No. 17-4563, R.
Doc. 68; Hinton, No. 17-4357, R. Doc. 73; Brown, No. 17-3099, R. Doc. 79; Fielder, No. 17-
3193, R. Doc. 79; Upchurch, No. 17-3413, R. Doc. 80; Fast, No. 17-4471, R. Doc. 70; Magee,
No. 17-3549, R. Doc. 75; Jones, No. 17-3312, R. Doc. 90; Belton, No. 17-3480, R. Doc. 79;
Bowden, No. 17-3506, R. Doc. 77.
13 Walker v. BP Expl. & Prod. Inc., No. CV 17-3012, 2022 WL 17987118 (E.D. La. Dec. 29,
2022); See also Kaoui v. BP Expl. & Prod., Inc., No. CV 17-3313, 2023 WL 330510, at *9 (E.D.
La. Jan. 12, 2023) (holding that “the Court does not find that Dr. Birnbaum's affidavit
corrects or explains the shortcomings of Dr. Cook's Report so as to render his opinions
admissible”).
14 Kaoui, 2023 WL 330510, at *9.
15 Campbell v. B.P. Expl. & Prod., Inc., No. CV 17-3119, 2022 WL 17251115, at *12 (E.D. La.
Nov. 28, 2022) (Vance, J.) (stating that ““Dr. Cook’s report is flawed in ways unrelated to BP’s
decision not to conduct monitoring.”).
10
Considering the above, Plaintiff have not presented any justification for
alteration or amendment pursuant to Rule 59(e). Moreover, this Court is not
alone in this decision, as another court in this district has also denied
reconsideration on the same grounds. !&
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs’ Motions for Reconsideration are
DENIED.
New Orleans, Louisiana this 22nd day of May, 20238.
wm,
g: JANE UL
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
16 Kaoui v. BP Expl. & Prod., Inc., No. CV 17-3313, 2023 WL 2403278, at *2 (E.D. La. Mar. 8,
2023) (“Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that this Court should either alter or amend its
prior Order in this case granting summary judgment in favor of Defendants.”); Lenard v. BP
Expl. & Prod., Inc., No. CV 17-3546, 2023 WL 2456079 (E.D. La. Mar. 10, 2023).
11