Constanza

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

ERICA DANDRY CONSTANZA, ET AL. CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS CASE NO. 24-871

SPARTA INSURANCE COMPANY, ET AL. SECTION: “G”(5)

ORDER AND REASONS

Before the Court is Defendant Huntington Ingalls Incorporated’s (“Avondale”)1 Motion in

Limine to Require Plaintiff to Disclose All Settlements.2 In this litigation, Plaintiffs Erica Dandry

Constanza and Monica Dandry Hallner (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) allege Decedent Michael P.

Dandry, Jr. (“Decedent”), while an employee for Avondale, was exposed to asbestos and asbestos-

containing products manufactured, distributed, sold, and/or handled by Avondale and other

parties.3 Plaintiffs allege this exposure caused and/or contributed to Decedent’s development of

mesothelioma and, ultimately, his death.4 Avondale moves the Court to issue an Order compelling

Plaintiffs to disclose all settlements with all parties to this case since the inception of this case,

including any settlements that occur prior to or during trial.5 Defendant Liberty Mutual Insurance

1 Huntington Ingalls, Inc. was formerly known as: Northrop Grumman Shipbuilding, Inc., Northrop

Grumman Ship Systems, Inc., Avondale Industries, Inc., Avondale Shipyard Inc., and Avondale Marine Ways, Inc.

2 Rec. Doc. 323.

3 Rec. Doc. 1-3 at 2. In addition to Avondale, Plaintiffs also named SPARTA Insurance Company, Bayer

CropScience, Inc., Foster-Wheeler, LLC, General Electric Company, Hopeman Brothers, Inc., Taylor-Seidenbach,

Inc., Paramount Global, Uniroyal, Inc., International Paper Company, Eagle, Inc., Uniroyal Holding, Inc., and Liberty

Mutual Insurance Company as defendants.

4 Id.

5 Rec. Doc. 323.

Company joins this motion.6 Plaintiffs oppose the motion.7 Considering the motion, the

memoranda in support and in opposition, the record, and the applicable law, the Court grants the

motion. Plaintiffs shall disclose to Defendants the identities of all parties with whom Plaintiffs

have entered into settlement at any time from the inception of the instant action through the

conclusion of trial.

I. Background

Plaintiffs allege Decedent was employed in various positions by Avondale between June 1,

1971, and August 16, 1971.8 During that time, Plaintiffs claim Decedent was exposed to asbestos

and asbestos-containing products on Avondale’s premises.9 Plaintiffs further assert Decedent was

exposed to asbestos carried home from his work at Avondale on his person, clothing, and other

items.10 Plaintiffs argue, as a result of breathing in these asbestos fibers, Decedent later developed

mesothelioma and other ill health effects, ultimately resulting in Decedent’s death.11 Plaintiffs

contend Defendants had “care, custody, and control of the asbestos, which asbestos was defective

and which presented an unreasonable risk of harm, which asbestos resulted in the injury of

[Decedent] and for which these defendants are strictly liable under Louisiana law.”12 Plaintiffs

claim “Avondale and its executive officers [ ] are answerable for the conduct of those handling

asbestos products on their premises” and that “Avondale failed to exercise reasonable care for the

6 Rec. Doc. 400.

7 Rec. Doc. 335.

8 Rec. Doc. 1-3 at 2.

9 Id.

10 Id.

11 Id. at 4.

12 Id. at 5.

safety of persons on or around their property” for which there were clear “standards” requiring

protection for workers.13

Plaintiffs also name numerous additional defendants who were in the business of

“manufacturing, fabricating, selling and/or distributing asbestos containing products.”14 Plaintiffs

allege that these defendants “sold, installed, removed and/or abated these products to and/or at

Avondale,” and Decedent was exposed to asbestos containing products as a result.15 Further,

Plaintiffs allege that these asbestos containing products were “unreasonably dangerous per se, were

defective in design, and constituted a breach of warranty from said manufacturers.”16

Trial in this matter is set to begin on March 9, 2026. On November 11, 2025, Avondale

filed the instant Motion in Limine to Require Plaintiff to Disclose All Settlements.17 On November

18, 2025, Plaintiffs opposed the motion.18 Thereafter, Defendant Liberty Mutual Insurance

Company joined the motion.19

II. Parties’ Arguments

A. Avondale’s Arguments in Support of the Motion

In the motion, Avondale request that the Court issue an Order compelling Plaintiffs to

disclose settlements with all parties to this case.20 Avondale asserts that if a party settles prior to

13 Id.

14 Id. at 18.

15 Id. at 19.

16 Id.

17 Rec. Doc. 323.

18 Rec. Doc. 335.

19 Rec. Docs. 371, 400.

20 Rec. Doc. 323-1 at 1.

trial, the other defendants will receive a virile share credit for proving that party’s liability at trial.21

Therefore, Avondale argues it is critical to know the status of settlements prior to and during trial,

and to know the specific identity of all released entities.22 Avondale states that it is not seeking

information regarding the amounts of those settlements.23 Moreover, Avondale states it will not

offer the settlements to prove or disprove the validity or amount of the disputed claim, nor will the

settlement documents be published to the jury.24

B. Plaintiffs’ Arguments in Opposition to the Motion

As an initial matter, Plaintiffs note that Avondale’s motion is not evidentiary, but it is more

akin to a discovery motion.25 To the extent that this motion is seeking only the identities of those

parties with whom Plaintiffs have settled since the inception of the instant action, Plaintiffs state

that they have no objection to identifying those parties with whom they have settled.26 However,

Plaintiffs argue that evidence regarding the settlements is inadmissible under Federal Rule of

Evidence 408.27

III. Legal Standard

Federal Rule of Evidence 408 governs the admissibility of settlement agreements.28 Rule

408 prohibits evidence of compromise negotiations, as well as conduct or statements made during

21 Id. (citing Romano v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., 2016-0954 (La. App. 4 Cir. 5/24/17), 221 So. 3d 176, 181).

22 Id. at 2.

23 Id.

24 Id. at 2–3.

25 Rec. Doc. 335 at 1.

26 Id. at 2.

27 Id. at 2–5.

28 Fed. R. Evid. 408.

compromise negotiations, from being admitted “either to prove or disprove the validity or amount

of a disputed claim or to impeach by a prior inconsistent statement or contradiction.”29 However,

such evidence is admissible to show the bias or prejudice of a witness.30 Although the contents or

amount of a settlement is typically inadmissible, the existence of a settlement may be admissible

to reduce a jury’s confusion about absent defendants.31 “Whether to permit the evidence for another

purpose is within the discretion of the trial court.”32

IV. Analysis

In the motion, Avondale request an order compelling Plaintiffs to disclose settlements with

all parties to this case. The instant motion is not evidentiary in nature. Instead, the motion seeks

an order compelling production of certain information and documents. Nevertheless, to the extent

that this motion is seeking the identities of those parties with whom Plaintiffs have settled since

the inception of the instant action, Plaintiffs state that they have no objection to identifying those

parties with whom they have settled.

Accordingly,

29 Fed. R. Evid. 408(a)(1).

30 Fed. R. Evid. 408(b).

31 Latiolais v. Cravins, 574 F. App’x 429, 435 (5th Cir. 2014).

32 Branch v. Fid. & Cas. Co. of New York, 783 F.2d 1289, 1294 (5th Cir. 1986).

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Avondale’s Motion in Limine to Require Plaintiff to

Disclose All Settlements*? is GRANTED. Plaintiffs shall immediately disclose to Defendants the

identities of all parties with whom Plaintiffs have entered into settlement at any time from the

inception of the instant action through the conclusion of trial.

NEW ORLEANS, LOUISIANA, this 11th day of February, 2026.

NANNETTE J ¢ Jou BROWN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

33 Rec. Doc. 323.