ORDER

WILLIAM H. STEELE, Chief District Judge.

This matter comes before the Court on defendant General Electric Company's Motion for Summary Judgment (doc. 262). The Motion has been briefed and is ripe for disposition.

I. Relevant Background.

This is an asbestos action pending against 11 defendants,1 alleging various state-law tort claims and a wrongful death cause of action based on the alleged exposure of plaintiff's decedent, Rueben Morgan, to asbestos-containing products at various times and locations. Morgan was diagnosed with malignant mesothelioma (a disease commonly linked to asbestos exposure) in or about February 2011. (Doc. 199, at Exh. A.) He died on or about November 5, 2012, at the age of 79. (Doc. 206, at Exh. A.)

On May 4, 2011, less than three months after his diagnosis, Morgan initiated this litigation against 42 named defendants (including General Electric). Morgan's pleadings alleged that he "was exposed to asbestos dust, asbestos particles, asbestos containing materials and products that were produced, manufactured, specified for use, installed, distributed, sold and/or placed into the stream of commerce by the producer and/or distributor Defendants during his employment as a machinist, engine room worker, and mechanic," as a result of which he was "diagnosed with an asbestos related disease." (Doc. 1, Exh. A-2, at 6.) On July 29, 2011, Morgan amended his Complaint to name certain additional defendants. (Doc. 4, Exh. B, at 1.)

Record facts concerning Morgan's interactions with General Electric Company ("GE") products are as follows:2 Morgan was in the United States Navy from 1950 to 1954, during which time he worked as a machinist aboard three different vessels. (Morgan Dep. I, at 35-36.)3 During a significant portion of that time, Morgan worked around generators and turbines that were "covered with asbestos" and that were "dusty because there was ... a lot of air flow and motion going on." (Id. at 42.) At times, Morgan would be present in the engine room when seamen were cutting, removing and replacing this asbestos insulation. (Id. at 43.) Both the boiler rooms and the engine rooms in which Morgan worked were dusty environments containing considerable asbestos dust. (Id. at 49.) Morgan recalled that the main propulsion plants (including turbines and generators) on certain of those Navy vessels were GE equipment that contained asbestos. (Morgan Dep. III, at 94-98, 101.)

From 1965 through 1967, Morgan was employed as a machinist at a civilian shipyard in Norfolk, Virginia. (Morgan Dep. I, at 78.) In this capacity, Morgan had occasion to work on GE motors by opening them up and machining the area where the brushes made contact. (Morgan Dep. III, at 101, 104.) Morgan testified that the GE motors contained asbestos fiberboard where those segments came together. (Id.; Morgan Dep. IV, at 225.) When working on the GE motors, Morgan would encounter dust on the motors that he would blow off with an air hose and subsequently breathe in as he performed his duties. (Morgan Dep. III, at 104.)

The record documents no further involvement between Morgan and GE products until the period of 1972-1974, when Morgan was employed as a multi-craft maintenance mechanic at a paper company called MacMillan Bloedel. (Morgan Dep. I, at 86.) This facility where Morgan worked produced a brown liner board used in cardboard boxes. (Id. at 88.) In his capacity as a mechanic, Morgan's job duties were to maintain the paper machine and related equipment. (Id. at 86.) During the time period that Morgan worked at McMillan Bloedel, he saw GE motors in use at that facility. (Morgan Dep. III, at 102, 105.)

Morgan separated from his employment at MacMillan Bloedel in 1974 or 1975. (Morgan Dep. I, at 86, 197; Morgan Dep. III, at 189.) From 1978 through 1992, he worked at the Alabama River Pulp paper mill. (Morgan Dep. I, at 95-96.) During his employment at Alabama River Pulp, Morgan never saw GE motors, but only motors made by a company called Reliance. (Morgan Dep. III, at 102.)4 He further testified that he did not remember seeing "any type of General Electric products or equipment or material at ARP" throughout the time that he worked there. (Id. at 103.) In a later deposition, however, Morgan testified that high-voltage electrical equipment at the ARP facility was manufactured by GE. (Morgan Dep. IV, at 99.) The contactor boards inside those high-voltage panel boxes at Alabama River Pulp contained asbestos. (Id. at 229.) In the course of his duties at ARP, Morgan never had occasion to work inside those panel boxes. (Id. at 45-46; 229-30.)5 The cabinets containing the high-voltage equipment remained closed when it was in operation. (Id. at 228.) However, Morgan saw a person named Nick from GE testing the panel boxes during annual shutdowns to make sure the equipment was working properly. (Id. at 229-31.)

Sometime in the early 1980s, Morgan went back to the MacMillan Bloedel facility "to get the dimensions and pattern to make a belt grinding attachment for Alabama River Pulp's roll grinder." (Morgan Dep. III, at 192.) Morgan spent no more than "a couple of days or so" at MacMillan Bloedel on this assignment. (Morgan Dep. IV, at 246.) During the course of performing this task, Morgan had occasion to be in a "refiner" area of the plant where a GE motor was in use. (Morgan Dep. III, at 106-08; Morgan Dep. IV, at 223.) However, Morgan also testified that he did not see anyone performing repair work on GE motors at the MacMillan Bloedel facility while he was there to measure the belt attachment. (Morgan Dep. IV, at 223.) He also specified that he breathed in "whatever dust was created from the dryer section or whatever was going on up on the machine floor" through an opening that was used to move rolls of paper. (Morgan Dep. III, at 107-09.)

II. Summary Judgment Standard.

Summary judgment should be granted only "if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Rule 56(a), Fed.R.Civ.P. The party seeking summary judgment bears "the initial burden to show the district court, by reference to materials on file, that there are no genuine issues of material fact that should be decided at trial." Clark v. Coats & Clark, Inc., 929 F.2d 604, 608 (11th Cir. 1991). Once the moving party has satisfied its responsibility, the burden shifts to the non-movant to show the existence of a genuine issue of material fact. Id. "If the nonmoving party fails to make `a sufficient showing on an essential element of her case with respect to which she has the burden of proof,' the moving party is entitled to summary judgment." Id. (quoting Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986)) (footnote omitted). "In reviewing whether the nonmoving party has met its burden, the court must stop short of weighing the evidence and making credibility determinations of the truth of the matter. Instead, the evidence of the non-movant is to be believed, and all justifiable inferences are to be drawn in his favor." Tipton v. Bergrohr GMBH-Siegen, 965 F.2d 994, 999 (11th Cir. 1992) (internal citations and quotations omitted). "Summary judgment is justified only for those cases devoid of any need for factual determinations." Offshore Aviation v. Transcon Lines, Inc., 831 F.2d 1013, 1016 (11th Cir. 1987) (citation omitted).

III. Analysis.

GE's Motion for Summary Judgment proceeds from the premise that plaintiff lacks evidence that Morgan has any timely claims of sufficient exposure to GE's asbestos-containing products to support liability under Alabama law. In analyzing this question, the Court considers the following categories of evidence in turn: (i) evidence of Morgan's exposure to GE equipment during his employment in the Navy, at the Norfolk shipyard, and at the MacMillan Bloedel facility (spanning portions of the time frame from 1950 through 1974); (ii) evidence of Morgan's exposure to GE products during the early 1980s when he visited the MacMillan Bloedel plant to take measurements; (iii) evidence of GE motors in use at Alabama River Pulp during Morgan's employment; and (iv) evidence of GE high-voltage equipment in panel boxes at Alabama River Pulp during Morgan's employment.

A. Morgan's Exposure to GE Products from 1950 through 1974.

The parties' summary judgment briefs devote considerable attention to discussing evidence that Morgan encountered and worked directly with asbestos-containing products when he was in the U.S. Navy from 1950 to 1954, when he worked at the Norfolk shipyard from 1965 to 1967, and when he worked at the MacMillan Bloedel paper mill from 1972 to 1974. Under well-established, unambiguous Alabama law, however, any claims against GE for such exposures are time-barred by the applicable Alabama limitations period. See Ala. Code § 6-2-38(l) ("All actions for any injury to the person or rights of another not arising from contract and not specifically enumerated in this section must be brought within two years.").6

Historically, Alabama applied a "last exposure rule" governing commencement of the limitations period for claims alleging personal injuries resulting from exposure to a harmful substance, regardless of when those injuries were manifested. See Garrett v. Raytheon Co., 368 So.2d 516, 521 (Ala. 1979) ("[W]e hold that the statute of limitations ... began to run when plaintiff was last exposed to radiation and plaintiff's ignorance of the tort or injury, there being no fraudulent concealment, does not postpone the running of the statute until the tort or injury is discovered.").

Shortly after Garrett was decided, the Alabama legislature stepped in to modify the judge-made accrual rule in the asbestos context, enacting the following provision: "A civil action for any injury ... resulting from exposure to asbestos, including asbestos-containing products, shall be deemed to accrue on the first date the injured party, through reasonable diligence, should have reason to discover the injury giving rise to such civil action." Ala. Code § 6-2-30(b). This "discovery rule" for accrual of personal injury claims in asbestos cases took effect on May 19, 1980. The following year, the Alabama Supreme Court examined the retroactivity of § 6-2-30(b), and held that if, before the effective date of that provision, "one year had elapsed between the date of plaintiff's exposure and the date on which plaintiff's action was commenced, then that claim is nevertheless barred by the statute of limitations." Tyson v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp., 399 So.2d 263, 267 (Ala. 1981). Subject to that important caveat, the Tyson Court expressly upheld § 6-2-30(b)'s establishment of "a discovery rule for the accrual of asbestos injury actions in Alabama." Id. at 272.

In the three decades since Tyson was decided, Alabama courts have consistently hewed to the principle that if a plaintiff's last exposure to a defendant's asbestos-containing product predated May 19, 1979, then the resulting personal injury claims were time-barred before § 6-2-30(b) was ever enacted and cannot be revived by operation of that statute. See, e.g., Henderson v. MeadWestvaco Corp., 23 So.3d 625, 630 (Ala. 2009) (following Tyson's determination that asbestos claims are time-barred if, as of May 19, 1980, one year had elapsed between the date of exposure and date of commencement of suit); Johnson v. Garlock, Inc., 682 So.2d 25, 28 (Ala. 1996) (reaffirming principle that "§ 6-2-30 cannot apply retroactively to actions already barred by the statute of limitations as interpreted and applied in Garrett").7

The net result, then, is that Alabama has different rules for accrual of personal injury actions relating to asbestos exposure, depending on whether the last exposure occurred prior to May 19, 1979 (in which case the Garrett "last exposure rule" governs) or whether the last exposure occurred thereafter (in which case the § 6-2-30(b) "discovery rule" applies).8 See In re Asbestos Products Liability Litigation (No. VI), 2011 WL 3240827, *2 (E.D. Pa. July 29, 2011) ("Under Alabama law, all claims for pre-1979 exposure to asbestos must be filed within one year of the last date of exposure. For any exposure to asbestos after May 17, 1980, the claim accrues upon discovery of an asbestos-related disease.").

As the foregoing discussion demonstrates, any claims relating to Morgan's exposure to GE's asbestos-containing products during the 1950-1974 time period are time-barred by straightforward application of black-letter Alabama law, as set forth in Tyson and its progeny. See, e.g., Henderson, 23 So.3d at 630 ("Tony Henderson's claim of personal injury resulting from exposure to asbestos would have accrued in 1972, on the date of his last exposure to asbestos at CAPCO. Based on the one-year statute of limitations applicable to personal injury claims at the time ..., his claim was time-barred in 1973.").

Under Alabama law, Morgan's claims of personal injury resulting from exposure to GE's asbestos-containing turbines and generators during his employment in the U.S. Navy would have accrued in 1954, when he was last exposed to GE products there. Likewise, his claims of personal injury concerning exposure to GE's asbestos-containing motors at the Norfolk shipyard would have accrued in 1967, and his claims of personal injury concerning exposure to GE's asbestos-containing motors during his employment at MacMillan Bloedel would have accrued in 1974. Based on the one-year statute of limitations applicable at the time, Morgan's claims for these exposures would have become time-barred in 1955, 1968, and 1975, respectively, several decades before he sued GE. By operation of the Tyson line of Alabama Supreme Court decisions, those time-barred claims were not revived, revitalized or resuscitated by the Alabama legislature's subsequent enactment of § 6-2-30(b). Plaintiff has offered no persuasive argument or authority that might allow these claims for pre-1979 exposure to asbestos-containing products of GE to be deemed timely under Alabama law; therefore, GE's Motion for Summary Judgment will be granted insofar as it relates to those pre-1979 events and exposures during Morgan's employment in the Navy, at the Norfolk shipyard, and at the MacMillan Bloedel facility.9

B. Morgan's Exposure to GE Products at MacMillan Bloedel in the 1980s.

"Under Alabama law, when a plaintiff shows post-1979 exposure to asbestos, his or her action does not `accrue' until the individual knew or should have known of an asbestos-related disease." In re Asbestos, 2011 WL 3240827, at *3. To avail himself of this more lenient discovery rule, the plaintiff must satisfy the condition precedent of showing evidence of a post-1979 exposure to the defendant's products containing asbestos.10 Plaintiff endeavors to establish such exposure by pointing to evidence that he was in the presence of a GE motor on a single occasion in the early 1980s when he returned to the MacMillan Bloedel plant, that there were GE motors at the Alabama River Pulp facility, and that there was GE high-voltage switch gear at the Alabama River Pulp facility.

With regard to the first of these purported exposures, plaintiff's evidence is quite weak. To be sure, Morgan testified that when he was at the MacMillan Bloedel plant for a couple of days in the early 1980s to take measurements for a belt grinding attachment, there was a GE motor in use, as "things called refiner[s], they were driven by a GE motor." (Morgan Dep. III, at 108.)11 Importantly, however, Morgan testified that no one was doing repair work on the GE motor when he present at the facility. Assuming the GE motor that Morgan observed at MacMillan Bloedel contained asbestos at all (which is something of a stretch on this record, even taking the evidence in the light most favorable to plaintiff), there is still no evidence that the motor was emitting asbestos particles or blowing asbestos dust into the air during the time that Morgan was on the premises.12 Thus, plaintiff's presence at the MacMillan Bloedel facility for a day or two in the 1980s when a GE motor purportedly containing asbestos was in operation does not create a jury question as to causation, absent evidence (which has not been presented) that Morgan was exposed to airborne asbestos fibers released by that GE motor during his visit. See Sheffield v. Owens-Corning Fiberglass Corp., 595 So.2d 443, 457 (Ala. 1992) (affirming dismissal of plaintiffs' claims for exposure to boilers containing asbestos "rings," where "the evidence fails to show how the plaintiffs could have been exposed to airborne asbestos fibers released by the rings," "[t]here was no evidence that any of the Foster-Wheeler boilers were ever disassembled or assembled during the periods in which the plaintiffs served aboard the vessels," and "[t]here was no evidence that ... plaintiffs had ever seen or handled the rings or knew of their existence"). Plaintiff cannot defeat GE's Rule 56 Motion by referencing Morgan's testimony about the GE motor at MacMillan Bloedel in the 1980s.

C. Morgan's Exposure to GE Motors at Alabama River Pulp.

Plaintiff's next argument for exposure to asbestos via GE products is that "GE motors were present at ARP," and that "electricians would clean motors and that dust from the electrical shop ... would drift about the plant." (Doc. 313, at 21.) The glaring problem with this theory is that plaintiff selectively focuses on the portions of Morgan's testimony that advance this argument, while disregarding other, contrary testimony by Morgan that negates this argument.

During one of Morgan's trial depositions, his lawyer asked him, "How about at ARP? Did you see any GE motors at ARP at that time?" (Morgan Dep. III, at 102.) Morgan answered, "I really can't remember nothing but the Reliance motors." (Id.) Plaintiff's counsel did not elicit further testimony or explanation from Morgan on this point, but instead let this answer lie. Yet plaintiff now opposes GE's Rule 56 Motion by arguing that "Mr. Morgan testified that GE motors were present at ARP." (Doc. 313, at 21.) To support this contention, plaintiff cites an excerpt from one of Morgan's discovery depositions, in which he answered, "Yes. Uh-huh," when asked if he had "a specific recollection of there being GE motors at ARP." (Morgan Dep. II, at 283.) Plaintiff does not acknowledge, address or otherwise respond to the fact that Morgan testified a week later that he did not remember seeing any motors other than Reliance motors at the Alabama River Pulp plant.

The Eleventh Circuit has roundly condemned the practice of a summary judgment nonmovant selectively emphasizing bits and pieces of his evidence to oppose summary judgment, while ignoring contrary aspects of his own sworn testimony. In that regard, the law is clear that "[o]ur duty to read the record in the nonmovant's favor stops short of not crediting the nonmovant's testimony in whole or part: the courts owe a nonmovant no duty to disbelieve his sworn testimony which he chooses to submit for use in the case to be decided." Evans v. Stephens, 407 F.3d 1272, 1278 (11th Cir. 2005) (en banc); Williamson v. Clarke County Dep't of Human Resources, 834 F.Supp.2d 1310, 1315 n.6 (S.D. Ala. 2011) (nonmovant "cannot create a genuine issue of material fact on summary judgment by stating the facts one way in his affidavit, and another way in his brief"); Sharpe v. Global Sec. Intern., 766 F.Supp.2d 1272, 1286 n.17 (S.D. Ala. 2011) ("Plaintiff has not explained the obvious inconsistency or justified any improper request that the Court credit one aspect of his testimony and discredit another part on summary judgment.").13

Morgan testified under oath at a trial deposition that the only motors he remembered seeing at Alabama River Pulp were Reliance motors, not GE motors. Having chosen to provide that sworn testimony in his trial deposition, plaintiff cannot retreat from it now or have this Court erase it in favor of discovery deposition testimony he had given a week earlier. Again, plaintiff does not get to pick and choose the fragments of his own evidence that best suit his purposes on summary judgment, and then stitch those pieces together while urging the Court to disregard his own unfavorable, contrary testimony.14 If Morgan's testimony is credited in whole (as it must be, under binding precedent), then he cannot withstand summary judgment analysis on the theory that GE motors were present at Alabama River Pulp, because his own trial deposition testimony expressly denies that he ever saw any motors other than Reliance motors at that location.

D. Morgan's Exposure to GE Switch Gear at Alabama River Pulp.

In a final attempt to establish causation between GE asbestos-containing products and Morgan's injuries, plaintiff points to evidence that Alabama River Pulp had GE high-voltage switch gear housed in panel boxes with asbestos-containing contactor boards. Plaintiff's theory is that Morgan was exposed to the asbestos in these panel boxes because (i) he "would occasionally fabricate components for the switch gear, which would require him to take measurements inside the cabinets;" and (ii) "[w]hen this occurred, [Morgan] would be exposed to the dust from the inside of the cabinets and would have inhaled this dust." (Doc. 313, at 21-22.)

The fundamental trouble with plaintiff's theory is that Morgan's deposition testimony was exactly to the contrary. Indeed, Morgan unambiguously answered, "I never did inside," when asked if he had worked on high-voltage equipment inside the panel boxes. (Morgan Dep. IV, at 229.) He elaborated by saying that while he had seen the panel boxes at Alabama River Pulp open during annual inspections, "as far as me having my hands in there, I haven't been there." (Id. at 230.) So the fact scenario on which plaintiff relies to establish a causal relationship between GE high-voltage equipment and Morgan's exposure to airborne asbestos fibers after 1979 — that Morgan worked inside the panel boxes by taking measurements for components, at which time he breathed asbestos dust from the contactor boards — is conclusively rebutted by Morgan's own sworn testimony. Plaintiff cannot overcome GE's Motion for Summary Judgment on this basis.

It is no answer to argue, as plaintiff does, that the testimony of Morgan's son, Ronald Morgan, creates a genuine issue of material fact on this point. To be sure, Ronald Morgan testified that he knew Morgan had fabricated components for GE switch gear at Alabama River Pulp, and that Morgan would have breathed asbestos dust from those panel boxes because, in "manipulating parts and pieces, you're going to disturb the residual dust that was in the cabinet, so it was just part of the process of gaining access to the equipment." (Ronald Morgan Dep., at 217-18, 290-92.) But governing law is clear that a summary judgment nonmovant cannot create a genuine issue of material fact by presenting evidence or testimony that contradicts the nonmovant's own sworn testimony on the subject. Indeed, "[w]hen the nonmovant has testified to events, we do not ... pick and choose bits from other witnesses' essentially incompatible accounts (in effect, declining to credit some of the nonmovant's own testimony) and then string together those portions of the record to form the story that we deem most helpful to the nonmovant." Evans, 407 F.3d at 1278; see also Jones v. UPS Ground Freight, 683 F.3d 1283, 1295 (11th Cir. 2012) (reaffirming principle that "we should not consider for summary judgment purposes even non-hearsay testimony of a witness that is more favorable on a factual issue than the nonmoving party's own testimony"); Sullivan v. City of Satsuma, 2005 WL 2895983, *5 (S.D. Ala. Oct. 28, 2005) ("Evans counsels that when a plaintiff stakes himself to a version of the facts in his sworn deposition testimony, he cannot create a genuine issue of material fact by pointing to other evidence that contradicts his testimony, effectively asking the district court to disregard his own version of the facts."). Because Morgan's testimony leaves no doubt that he "never had his hands" in the GE panel boxes and therefore could not have disturbed residual asbestos dust in the boxes that he then inhaled, plaintiff cannot rely on Ronald Morgan's contrary testimony to create an issue of material fact on summary judgment.

IV. Conclusion.

"Where the record taken as a whole could not lead a rational trier of fact to find for the nonmoving party, there is no genuine issue for trial." Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372, 380, 127 S.Ct. 1769, 167 L.Ed.2d 686 (2007) (citation omitted). This record, taken as a whole, could not lead a rational trier of fact to find that Morgan was ever exposed to asbestos from GE products after May 19, 1979. In other words, no reasonable jury could conclude from this evidence that Morgan's illness and death were caused by asbestos exposure that (i) was attributable to GE and (ii) occurred after the effective date of the discovery rule of accrual fashioned by § 6-2-30(b).15 Accordingly, GE is entitled to summary judgment on grounds that the record lacks sufficient evidence of product identification/causation within the applicable limitations period. See Lee v. Celotex Corp., 764 F.2d 1489, 1491 (11th Cir. 1985) (defendant entitled to summary judgment where "[t]he allegation that plaintiff was exposed to defendant's asbestos-containing product is not supported by reasonable inferences arising from the undisputed facts, but is based on speculation and conjecture that renders them mere guesses or possibilities"); Blackston v. Shook and Fletcher Insulation Co., 764 F.2d 1480, 1481 (11th Cir. 1985) (rejecting notion that plaintiff can show that he "was exposed to the asbestos in a defendant's products by simply showing that he worked at a job site at a time when the defendant's asbestos-containing products were used").

For all of the foregoing reasons, the Court finds that there are no genuine issues of material fact, and that movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Defendant General Electric Company's Motion for Summary Judgment (doc. 262) is granted, and plaintiff's claims against that defendant are dismissed with prejudice. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate General Electric as a party defendant.

DONE and ORDERED.