This decision deals with two motions to strike plaintiffs’ air-monitoring expert and report filed by defendants, Avondale and Bayer CropScience, Inc. In this litigation, plaintiffs allege 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. Plaintiffs allege this exposure caused and/or contributed to decedent’s development of mesothelioma and, ultimately, his death. On the other hand, defendants advance an alternative theory of asbestos exposure from other sources, including on properties near decedent’s childhood home and workplace.
Reagan Maloney was originally hired by Avondale to take soil samples and test for asbestos contamination from various addresses in Marrero, Louisiana, the city where decedent lived and worked. On Feb. 23, 2026, the court granted in part plaintiffs’ motion to exclude the testimony and report of Reagan Maloney—and the portions of other experts’ reports and testimony that rely on Maloney’s report and soil samples—because Avondale destroyed the soil samples after they were tested. Thus, plaintiffs were denied the right to examine and/or test the samples. The court further ordered that the parties must request leave of court and present good cause to conduct any additional discovery or to file any motions related to the new soil samples.
Plaintiffs also opposed both motions to strike their air-monitoring expert and report brought by Avondale and Bayer CropScience. Plaintiffs disputed defendants’ assertion that the air-monitoring results should be excluded for the same reason the original soil sampling was excluded. Plaintiffs submitted that their issue with Reagan Maloney’s report was that the samples were not preserved and that the correct property was not tested. Plaintiffs further submitted that their expert had preserved the air samples that he took, took photographs during the air sampling, and all photographs had been produced to defendants. Plaintiffs asserted that defendants should not be allowed to dictate what type of evidence plaintiffs choose to offer to rebut defendants’ soil sampling expert reports, and stated that they did not even know what expert reports would be needed until obtaining and reviewing the reports of defendants’ experts.
The court agreed with defendants that plaintiffs should have requested leave of court before conducting the air monitoring. The March 2, 2026 order reopened discovery “for the narrow and limited purpose of taking and testing the soil samples.” The court further ordered that “the parties must request leave of court and present good cause to conduct any additional discovery or to file any motions related to the new soil samples.’ However, the defendants have not shown or proved that the exclusion of the air monitoring is warranted.
The court determined there was no prejudice to defendants and the exclusion of plaintiffs expert was unwarranted. Therefore, the motions were denied.