Court: United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana

Plaintiffs Erica Dandry Constanza and Monica Dandry Hallner allege the decedent, Michael P. Dandry Jr., had occupational exposure to asbestos by multiple defendants, including Avondale. In particular, plaintiffs allege the decedent had asbestos exposure from his employment with Avondale between June 1, 1971 and August 16, 1971. Plaintiffs allege this exposure caused and/or contributed to decedent’s development of mesothelioma and, ultimately, his death.

Discovery ultimately concluded. A trial was scheduled to begin on March 9, 2026. On November 11, 2025, Avondale filed a motion in limine to require plaintiffs to disclose settlements with all parties to this case.

On November 18, 2025, plaintiffs opposed Avondale’s motion in limine.

Federal Rule of Evidence 408 governs the admissibility of settlement agreements. This rule prohibits evidence of compromise negotiations, as well as conduct or statements made during 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.” However, such evidence is admissible to show the bias or prejudice of a witness. 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. Notwithstanding, “Whether to permit the evidence for another purpose is within the discretion of the trial court.”

In the case at bar, Avondale’s motion requests plaintiffs should be compelled to disclose settlements with all parties to this case because if a party settle prior to trial, the other defendants should receive a virile share credit for proving that party’s liability at trial. As such, 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. Avondale further argued that it is not seeking information regarding the amounts of those settlements nor will it offer the settlement documents to be published to the jury. On the contrary, plaintiffs argued Avondale’s motion is not evidentiary but is more akin to a discovery motion. Notwithstanding, plaintiffs argued evidence regarding the settlements is inadmissible under the Federal Rules of Evidence.

After considering all arguments, the court found Avondale’s motion was not evidentiary in nature. Rather, the motion sought an order compelling production of information and documents – specifically, Avondale’s motion is seeking the identities of those parties with whom plaintiffs have settled since the inception of this action. As such, the court granted Avondale’s motion in limine in its entirety. The court therefore ordered plaintiffs to immediately disclose to Avondale 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.

Read the full decision here.