Edward Montelongo v. Bayer Cropscience, Inc., et al.

Summary

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana denied Huntington Ingalls Incorporated’s motion to partially exclude the testimony of Plaintiff Edward Montelongo’s industrial hygiene expert under Daubert and Federal Rule of Evidence 702. The court concluded that the expert’s opinions concerning asbestos being carried home on clothing and contaminating the plaintiff’s residence were sufficiently reliable, and that challenges to the supporting evidence were appropriate for cross-examination rather than exclusion.

Holdings

1. Baril's testimony was sufficiently reliable to satisfy the court's Daubert gatekeeping function, and the challenged opinions were not excluded.
2. Disagreements with the facts relied on by an expert or the expert's interpretation of those facts generally concern the weight of the testimony and are appropriately addressed through cross-examination and contrary evidence rather than exclusion under Rule 702.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Baril's opinions that Montelongo's work with and around asbestos-containing products contaminated his home through take-home asbestos fibers were sufficiently reliable and relevant for admission under Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and Daubert.
2. Whether alleged disputes concerning the factual basis and interpretation of Baril's opinions required exclusion of the testimony rather than cross-examination and presentation of contrary evidence.

Disposition

other