In re E.I. Du Pont De Nemours and Company C-8 Personal Injury Litigation, 2:13-md-2433. (2019)
Court: District Court, S.D. Ohio
Number: infdco20191226766
Visitors: 16
Filed: Dec. 18, 2019
Latest Update: Dec. 18, 2019
Summary: DISPOSITIVE MOTIONS ORDER NO. 35 Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment Related to Specific Causation EDMUND A. SARGUS, JR. , District Judge . This matter is before the Court on Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment Based on Specific Causation (ECF No. 47, Swartz Docket 1 ), Plaintiff's Memorandum in Opposition to Defendant's Motion (ECF No. 64), and Defendant's Reply in Support of its Motion (ECF No. 76). In its Motion, Defendant E.I. Du Pont de Nemours and Company ("DuPont") argu
Summary: DISPOSITIVE MOTIONS ORDER NO. 35 Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment Related to Specific Causation EDMUND A. SARGUS, JR. , District Judge . This matter is before the Court on Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment Based on Specific Causation (ECF No. 47, Swartz Docket 1 ), Plaintiff's Memorandum in Opposition to Defendant's Motion (ECF No. 64), and Defendant's Reply in Support of its Motion (ECF No. 76). In its Motion, Defendant E.I. Du Pont de Nemours and Company ("DuPont") argue..
More
DISPOSITIVE MOTIONS ORDER NO. 35
Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment Related to Specific Causation
EDMUND A. SARGUS, JR., District Judge.
This matter is before the Court on Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment Based on Specific Causation (ECF No. 47, Swartz Docket1), Plaintiff's Memorandum in Opposition to Defendant's Motion (ECF No. 64), and Defendant's Reply in Support of its Motion (ECF No. 76).
In its Motion, Defendant E.I. Du Pont de Nemours and Company ("DuPont") argues that it is entitled to "summary judgment on all claims asserted by Plaintiff Angela Swartz because she cannot establish that her claimed exposure to C-8 was more likely than not the cause of her kidney cancer, or that her kidney cancer would not have occurred but for her claimed exposure to C-8." (Def's Mot. for Summ. J. at 1, ECF No. 47.) The entirety of DuPont's argument is as follows:
Plaintiff Angela Swartz cannot satisfy her burden of proving that her claimed intermittent exposure to drinking water containing trace amounts of C-8 from DuPont's Washington Works facility specifically caused her kidney cancer because the proffered expert opinions of Plaintiff's sole specific causation expert, Dr. Vitaly Margulis, are inadmissible because they are based on an unreliable methodology and otherwise violate the requirements of Daubert and the Federal Rules of Evidence. Because, as a matter of Ohio law, Plaintiff cannot meet her burden to prove specific causation without reliable expert testimony, summary judgment should be entered for DuPont, and this case should be dismissed with prejudice.
Id. at 1-2 (noting that it incorporated the separately filed Motion to Exclude the Specific Causation Testimony of Dr. Vitaly Margulis).
On December 18, 2019, this Court denied Dupont's request to exclude the opinions of Dr. Margulis. Consequently, DuPont is left with no support for its request for summary judgment. Thus, the Court DENIES DuPont's Motion for Summary Judgment Based on Specific Causation. (ECF No. 47.)
IT IS SO OREDERED.
FootNotes
1. Unless otherwise noted the ECF references are to the docket in Swartz, 2:18-cv-136.
Source: Leagle
