Upload
doankien
View
217
Download
2
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
i
IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
Charlotte Division
IN RE:
GARLOCK SEALING TECHNOLOGIES LLC, et al.,
Debtors.1
Case No. 10-BK-31607
Chapter 11
Jointly Administered
DEBTORS’ BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION TO EXCLUDE OR STRIKE
COMMITTEE INDUSTRIAL HYGIENE WITNESS OPINIONS
1 The debtors in these jointly administered cases are Garlock Sealing Technologies LLC (“Garlock”); Garrison Litigation Management Group, Ltd. (“Garrison”); and The Anchor Packing Company (hereinafter, collectively, “Debtors”). The Official Committee of Asbestos Personal Injury Creditors is referred to as the “Committee.”
Case 10-31607 Doc 4463 Filed 04/01/15 Entered 04/01/15 14:20:07 Desc Main Document Page 1 of 69
ii
Table of Contents
Table of Authorities ........................................................................................................................ v
I. Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 1
II. Specific Opinions Challenged and Materials Supporting this Motion ............................... 4
III. Application of the Daubert Standard to Longo’s and Templin’s Opinions ........................ 7
A. Daubert Emphasis on Rigorous Compliance with Appropriate Methodology .. 7
B. Daubert Factors Are Applied with Greater Rigor to Litigation-Generated Opinions Like Longo’s ...................................................................................... 8
IV. Longo’s and Templin’s Opinions Are Not Based On Sufficient Facts or Data and Cannot Help the Court Determine the Facts at Issue in This Case. ................................................ 9
V. Longo’s Opinions Are Not Relevant to This Case Because They Are Based on Gasket Experiments Using Tools, Methods, and Gaskets Which Are Fundamentally Dissimilar to Real World Work Practices. ............................................................................................. 10
A. Longo’s Experiments Are Not Representative of Real World Work .............. 11
B. The Gaskets Longo Uses Are Not of the Condition in Which Typical Claimants Would Have Encountered Gaskets in The Real World. ................. 14
VI. Longo’s Gasket Experiments Are Unreliable Because They Fail to Adhere to Accepted Scientific Methodologies for Collection and Analysis of Air Samples. ........................... 15
A. Samples from Two Gasket Experiments Were Swapped, Causing Results to be Reported Inaccurately in Longo’s Published Paper. ........................................ 16
B. Longo’s Lab Did Not Use Accepted Methods to Collect and Analyze the Samples Taken During His Gasket Experiments. ............................................ 18
1. Failure to follow NIOSH 7400 quality control procedures in the early gaskets experiments, including published experiments ....... 20
2. Failure to follow NIOSH 7402 magnification requirements in later experiments ................................................................................... 21
3. Failure to follow the NIOSH 7402 3-grid preparation standard ... 21
4. Inaccurate Reporting of Data ........................................................ 22
5. Rounding in unscientific ways ...................................................... 23
6. Misidentification of Asbestos Fiber Type..................................... 25
7. Failure to adhere to NIOSH 7402 counting rules ......................... 26
8. Failure to adhere to protocols specified in the study design ......... 26
Case 10-31607 Doc 4463 Filed 04/01/15 Entered 04/01/15 14:20:07 Desc Main Document Page 2 of 69
iii
9. Neglecting to activate pumps at the start of Work Practice Study V (and providing false testimony about this error in 2010) .............. 27
10. Losing a sample during Work Practice Study III – Electric Wire Brushing ........................................................................................ 29
11. Failure to notice and remedy a malfunctioning pump during sampling ........................................................................................ 29
12. Methodological flaws in the MAS Spiral Wound Gasket Removal Study ............................................................................................. 30
13. Reliance on indirect TEM method ................................................ 30
14. Reliance on isolated samples of atypical activities over peer-reviewed studies ............................................................................ 31
15. Improper pump calibration ........................................................... 32
C. Longo’s Inconsistent Results Evince Their Unreliability ................................ 32
D. Longo’s Use of Tyndall Lighting is Mere Trial Theatrics, and Not a Scientifically Valid Asbestos Exposure Assessment Method. ......................... 33
1. Longo’s new “Pouring of Raw Chrysotile” experiment does not support his claims. ........................................................................ 36
2. Longo’s new “Cigarette Smoke” experiment does not support his claims. ........................................................................................... 37
VII. False and Misleading Representations Pervade Longo’s Expert Report and Rebuttal Report, Demonstrating Both Lack of Intellectual Rigor and Lack of Candor. ................. 38
A. Longo’s Lack of Candor in His Attempt to Rebut Debtors’ Experts ............... 39
B. False Statements about an Electric Grinder’s Capability of Damaging Flanges .......................................................................................................................... 40
C. Untrue Statements about Pipefitters and Machinists’ Exposure to Thermal Insulation .......................................................................................................... 41
1. Permanent asbestos insulation was commonly used on Navy ships until 1972. ..................................................................................... 42
2. Longo is wrong about the types of insulation covering valves onboard the USS Lexington. ......................................................... 42
3. Longo’s recent insulation “cut-back” removal experiment is not representative of real world work ................................................. 44
4. Longo is wrong in his accusations of Dr. Still’s supposed failure to disclose the existence of portable pads ......................................... 44
Case 10-31607 Doc 4463 Filed 04/01/15 Entered 04/01/15 14:20:07 Desc Main Document Page 3 of 69
iv
D. Misleading Statements about the Presence of Amphiboles in Garlock Gaskets .......................................................................................................................... 46
E. Cherry-Picking Data from the U.S. Navy Study .............................................. 47
F. Examples of Absolute Statements Made By Longo Which Are False ............ 48
G. Additional Untrue Statements .......................................................................... 50
VIII. Templin’s Opinions are Unreliable Because He Fails to Require the Studies Upon Which He Relies to Follow Accepted Scientific Methodologies. ................................................ 50
A. Using Only “General Accordance” with Accepted Methodology ................... 50
B. Misunderstanding of NIOSH 7402 Magnification Requirements ................... 51
IX. Templin Misrepresents Data in His Report, Demonstrating a Lack of Candor that Warrants Exclusion of his Opinions. ................................................................................ 52
A. Misrepresentation of Fiber Release Data from Gaskets and Packing .............. 52
B. Misrepresentation of the National Research Council’s Data for Nonoccupational Environmental Exposure Levels .......................................... 54
C. Templin’s Insupportable Attack on Exposure Science .................................... 55
D. Templin’s Misstatements on Epidemiology and Methodology for Causation Determinations ................................................................................................. 56
1. Insupportable opinions about the Bradford Hill Criteria. ............. 56
2. Espousing an “every exposure contributes” opinion on causation that has been rejected by the courts .............................................. 57
3. Lack of knowledge on statistical significance .............................. 58
E. Templin’s Insupportable Attack on Historical Statements about the Lack of Health Hazard in Gasket Use ........................................................................... 59
F. Templin’s Insupportable Reasons for Rejecting the U.S. Navy Study ............ 59
X. Conclusion ........................................................................................................................ 60
Case 10-31607 Doc 4463 Filed 04/01/15 Entered 04/01/15 14:20:07 Desc Main Document Page 4 of 69
v
Table of Authorities
Cases
Amorgianos v. National R. R. Passenger Corp., 303 F.3d 256 (2d Cir. 2002) ...................... 14, 21
Barbain v. Asten Johnson, Inc., 700 F.3d 428 (9th Cir. 2012), reh’g en banc granted, 710 F.3d
1074 (9th Cir. 2013) .......................................................................................................... 11
Bartel v. John Crane, Inc., 316 F. Supp. 2d 603 (N.D. Ohio 2004), aff’d sub nom ..................... 63
Betz v. Pneumo Abex, LLC, 44 A.3d 27 (Pa. 2012) ...................................................................... 63
Borg-Warner Corp. v. Flores, 232 S.W.3d 765 (Tex. 2007) ........................................................ 63
Brooks v. Stone Architecture, P.A., 934 So. 2d 350 (Miss. Ct. App. 2006) ................................. 63
Butler v. Union Carbide Corp., 712 S.E.2d 537 (Ga. Ct. App. 2011) .......................................... 63
Chase v. General Motors Corp., 856 F.2d 17 (4th Cir. 1988) ................................................ 17, 38
Claar v. Burlington Northern R. Co., 29 F.3d 499 (9th Cir. 1994) .............................................. 58
Cooper v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., 259 F.3d 194 (4th Cir. 2001) ............................................ 13, 20
Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, 43 F.3d 1311 (9th Cir. 1995) (“Daubert II”) ........... 14
Daubert v. Merrill Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993) .................................. passim
Dixon v. Ford Motor Co., 47 A.3d 1038 (Md. App.), cert. granted, 55 A.3d 906 (Md. 2012) .... 63
Elcock v. Kmart Corp., 233 F.3d 734 (3d Cir. 2000) ................................................................... 38
Frischhertz v. SmithKline Beecham Corp., 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 181507 (E.D. La. Dec. 21,
2012) ................................................................................................................................. 62
Gen. Elec. Co. v. Joiner, 522 U.S. 136 (1997) ....................................................................... 22, 34
Gladhill v. General Motors Corp.,743 F.2d 1049 (4th Cir. 1984) ......................................... 17, 38
Gregg v. V-J Auto Parts, Inc., 943 A.2d 216 (Pa. 2007) .............................................................. 63
Case 10-31607 Doc 4463 Filed 04/01/15 Entered 04/01/15 14:20:07 Desc Main Document Page 5 of 69
vi
Hoffman v. Ford Motor Co., 493 F. App’x 962 (10th Cir. 2012) cert. denied, 12-889, 2013 WL
230247 (U.S. May 28, 2013) ...................................................................................... 17, 38
In re Armstrong World Indus., Inc., 285 B.R. 864 (Bankr. D. Del. 2002) ............................... 9, 36
Johnson v. Manitowoc Boom Trucks, Inc., 484 F.3d 426 (6th Cir. 2007) ................................ 7, 14
Junk v. Terminix Int'l Co., 628 F.3d 439 (8th Cir. 2010) ........................................................ 16, 22
Kelley v. American Heyer-Schulte Corp., 957 F. Supp. 873 (W.D. Tex. 1997) ........................... 12
Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (1999) ........................................................... passim
Lawrence v. Raymond Corp., 501 F. App’x 515 (6th Cir. 2012) ................................................. 14
Lindstrom v. A-C Prod. Liab. Trust, 424 F.3d 488 (6th Cir. 2005) .............................................. 64
McClain v. Metabolife Int'l, Inc., 401 F.3d 1233 (11th Cir. 2005) ................................... 16, 21, 34
Pearson v. Young, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26263 (W.D. Okla. Feb. 5, 2002) ................. 15, 44, 58
Pritchett v. I-Flow Corp., 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 46302 (D. Colo. Mar. 28, 2012).............. 20, 25
Ruffin v. Shaw Indus., Inc., 149 F.3d 294 (4th Cir. 1998) ............................................................ 11
Seaboard Lumber Co. v. United States, 308 F.3d 1283 (Fed. Cir. 2002) ..................................... 11
Smith v. Ford Motor Co., 2013 WL 214378 (D. Utah Jan. 18, 2013) .......................................... 63
Smith v. Wyeth-Ayerst Labs. Co., 278 F. Supp. 2d 684 (W.D.N.C. 2003) ............................. 13, 20
Soldo v. Sandoz Pharms. Corp, 244 F. Supp. 2d 434 (W.D. Pa. 2003) ........................ 8, 32, 38, 57
Sweeney v. Saberhagen Holdings, Inc., 2011 WL 346822 (E.D. Pa. Jan. 13, 2011), adopted, 2011
WL 359696 (E.D. Pa. Feb. 3, 2011) ................................................................................. 64
Other Authorities
Federal Judicial Center Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence (3d ed. 2011) ....... 9, 61, 62, 63
Case 10-31607 Doc 4463 Filed 04/01/15 Entered 04/01/15 14:20:07 Desc Main Document Page 6 of 69
vii
Rules
Fed. R. B.R. 9017.......................................................................................................................... 13
Fed. R. Evid. 104 .......................................................................................................................... 11
Fed. R. Evid. 702 ................................................................................................................... passim
Case 10-31607 Doc 4463 Filed 04/01/15 Entered 04/01/15 14:20:07 Desc Main Document Page 7 of 69
1
The Committee designated William Longo, PhD and John Templin, CIH as expert
witnesses. Both Longo and Templin work for Longo’s company, MAS, LLC. The Committee
cannot meet its burden that their opinions are admissible under Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of
Evidence (applicable in this proceeding under Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 9017) and
the standards of Daubert v. Merrill Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993).
I. Introduction
In trying to construct a case against gasket and packing manufacturers including Garlock,
the plaintiffs’ bar faced a problem. Historically, leading advocates for asbestos worker safety
recognized that gaskets and packing posed no health hazards in normal usage and made no
meaningful contribution to causing any disease.2 Early systematic studies unrelated to litigation
provided data confirming the absence of disease risk from normal workplace activities with
gaskets.3
As bankruptcies of the companies responsible for the insulation products that cause
mesothelioma loomed, Dr. Longo recognized an opportunity to offer the asbestos plaintiffs’ bar
ammunition they could use to focus cases on new target defendants. Longo, a litigation
entrepreneur of the first order—the “quintessential expert for hire,” Johnson v. Manitowoc Boom
Trucks, Inc., 484 F.3d 426, 435 (6th Cir. 2007)—began offering new, purported “workplace
simulations” of gasket and packing use. Not only did Longo create new evidence, Longo’s
“testimonial charisma” enabled him to present his experiments as credible when taken at face
2 Selikoff I, Lee D. Asbestos and Disease p. 467 (1978) (Appx. C Ex. 1). 3 Liukonen LR, Still KR, Beckett RR. “Asbestos Exposure from Gasket Operations.” Industrial Hygiene Branch, Occupational and Environmental Health Service, Naval Regional Medical Center, Bremerton, WA (May 1978) (also referred to as the “U.S. Navy Study” or “the Bremerton Study”) (Appx. C Ex. 2).
Case 10-31607 Doc 4463 Filed 04/01/15 Entered 04/01/15 14:20:07 Desc Main Document Page 8 of 69
2
value.4 It is only when a judge studies them in detail that it becomes obvious these “studies” are
“junk science” that do not pass muster under Daubert, that Longo’s testimony “relies on evasion
and misdirection,” and that his opinions are “unsupported by any respectable community of
scientists.”5
Indisputably, Longo’s gasket and packing fiber release findings are well outside the range
found in systematic and thorough studies of usual workplace activities. Although recognition of
many of the flaws in his methods require comparison to technical protocols for proper testing,
some become obvious by the application of common sense to the specifics of his reported
findings. For example, one of his highest reported fiber release values occurred during a rest
period when no work with gaskets was occurring.6
Longo’s lack of intellectual rigor, the hallmark of Daubert analysis,7 is demonstrated not
only by his experiments’ poor design and improper sample collection and analysis
methodologies, but also by the many errors in reporting the data in his experiment summaries, in
the reports he has submitted in this case, and even in the only article he has ever published
regarding gaskets. It is telling that since that article appeared and was criticized in the industrial
hygiene literature, Longo has not since published the litigation-driven experiments he now cites
to the Court. Absence of peer review and litigation motivation are two key indicia of lack of
reliability under Daubert.
The full range of machinations Dr. Longo and his laboratory use to achieve the results
they report will probably never be fully discovered. Just one example of his use of techniques
4 See Order, In re: Lamar County Asbestos Litigation Cases Filed or to be Filed by Waters & Kraus in Lamar County, Texas, in the 6th District Court for Lamar County, Texas (entered July 5, 2001), p. 12 (Appx. C Ex. 3). 5 Id. at pp. 2, 12. 6 Longo Dep. pp. 238-240 (Appx. C Ex. 4). See Section VI.B.9 of this brief, infra. 7 Soldo v. Sandoz Pharms. Corp, 244 F. Supp. 2d 434, 559 (W.D. Pa. 2003).
Case 10-31607 Doc 4463 Filed 04/01/15 Entered 04/01/15 14:20:07 Desc Main Document Page 9 of 69
3
known to inflate results is his use of a method for processing samples called the “indirect
method.” The “indirect method” has been rejected under Daubert in an asbestos Bankruptcy
case opinion. In re Armstrong World Indus., Inc., 285 B.R. 864, *7-10, *15 (Bankr. D. Del.
2002).
Longo’s lab has in the past overstated results, and in his report in this case he has resorted
to outright falsehood.8 What is known—and known beyond doubt—is that Longo’s work lacks
the primary indicia of reliability sufficient to survive a Daubert challenge: Longo does not
adhere to valid methodology.
The other MAS witness, Mr. Templin, makes a host of assertions in his reports that are
insupportable. As with Longo, many require detailed review, but others are so blatant that they
conflict with both good science and the law. He would have the Court believe that retrospective
exposure assessment is not science.9 The Federal Judicial Center’s Reference Manual on
Scientific Evidence (3d ed. 2011) contains a Reference Guide on Exposure Science, and another
Committee expert, Dr. Brodkin, concedes exposure assessments are a proper scientific approach
to making decisions about groups of exposed persons:
Q. In scientific research into asbestos disease, researchers have, however, looked at various groups of workers and considered them collectively for making decisions, correct?
A. Certainly. Q. And in that context especially, retrospective dose reconstruction is quite
helpful; is that correct? A. I would agree with that.10
8 See Section VI, infra. 9 Templin Report, unnumbered pp. 13-14 (Appx. A Ex. 5). 10 Brodkin Dep. pp. 39-40 (Appx. C Ex. 25).
Case 10-31607 Doc 4463 Filed 04/01/15 Entered 04/01/15 14:20:07 Desc Main Document Page 10 of 69
4
Templin also purports to opine on medical issues, and in doing so contradicts established
case law on how epidemiology is evaluated for causal determination. (See infra). Similarly, his
attack on the historical view that gaskets and packing pose no health hazard is an unfounded and
insupportable attack on the lack of “sound judgment” of the 1970s’ foremost advocate against
unsafe asbestos products. And like Longo, he proffers untrue assumptions to rationalize his
rejection of the U.S. Navy’s highly-relevant, systematic, non-litigation study of the safety of
gasket use.
The experiments on which Longo and Templin base their opinions are not only irrelevant
to this matter because they fail to replicate the real world experience of the claimants at issue; the
methodological flaws, coupled with the misrepresentations of fact and science, are so pervasive
and so severe, that they render the experiments unreliable. For this reason, the reasons outlined
below, and others that will be shown at the Estimation trial, the Court should strike these experts’
opinions as inadmissible under Rule 702.
II. Specific Opinions Challenged and Materials Supporting this Motion
Because the flaws in their methods and approach to their role as expert witness are so
pervasive, Debtors first ask that these witnesses’ opinions be excluded in their entirety.
Alternatively, the following opinions or testimony, if proffered, should be excluded:
• Testimony about the results of any MAS gasket and packing experiments.
• Opinions that asbestos gaskets or packing produce dangerous levels of asbestos under ordinary conditions of use.
• Opinions about the levels of asbestos exposure experienced by any claimant who has submitted PIQ information—data that these witnesses have not reviewed and cannot, therefore, opine about.
• Opinions about the levels of asbestos exposure of any persons who currently have or in the future may assert claims against Debtors.
Case 10-31607 Doc 4463 Filed 04/01/15 Entered 04/01/15 14:20:07 Desc Main Document Page 11 of 69
5
• Opinions that retrospective exposure estimates performed in this case are not reliable.
• Opinions on medical issues of general or specific causation.
• Opinions on epidemiology, an area in which these witnesses are not qualified.
• Opinions on the alleged amphibole content of Garlock gaskets.
Rule 702 and Daubert apply to all federal civil proceedings, including bench trials and
jury trials. See Seaboard Lumber Co. v. United States, 308 F.3d 1283, 1301-2 (Fed. Cir. 2002).
Accordingly, Debtors request that the Court make a Rule 104 determination on the admissibility
of the opinions of these experts. When a party raises a Daubert challenge to an expert’s
opinions, Federal Rule of Evidence 104(a) requires the trial court to make an admissibility
determination. Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137, 149 (1999) (“[W]here [expert]
testimony’s factual basis, data, principles, methods, or their application are called sufficiently
into question . . . the trial judge must determine whether the testimony has ‘a reliable basis in the
knowledge and experience of [the relevant] discipline.’”) (quoting Daubert, 509 U.S. at 592).
See also e.g., Barbain v. Asten Johnson, Inc., 700 F.3d 428, 432-33 (9th Cir. 2012), reh’g en
banc granted, 710 F.3d 1074 (9th Cir. 2013) (finding that district court abused its discretion by
neither holding a Daubert hearing nor “making any gateway determinations regarding relevance
and reliability”).
The trial court is not bound by the rules of evidence, and may consider evidence and
materials that otherwise would be inadmissible. Fed. R. Evid. 104(a); Ruffin v. Shaw Indus.,
Inc., 149 F.3d 294, 296-97 (4th Cir. 1998) (“[I]n making preliminary determinations pursuant to
Rule 104(a), the court is not bound by the rules of evidence.”). Thus, pursuant to Rule 104,
Debtors have supported this motion with various exhibits identified in the motion. These include
the reports of the experts in question and the reports of Debtors’ experts, all of whom have been
Case 10-31607 Doc 4463 Filed 04/01/15 Entered 04/01/15 14:20:07 Desc Main Document Page 12 of 69
6
deposed, who describe in detail the challenged witnesses’ flawed methodology and incorrect
statements of science.
Because this is a bench trial, Debtors suggest that the Court carry the motion through the
hearing in this case and rule after having heard from the witnesses on these issues. But review of
the expert reports is critical, especially because of the limited time available for live testimony in
this matter. The flaws in the Committee industrial hygiene experts’ reasoning, methodologies,
and use of specific studies—some of which are subtle and technical in nature—are discussed in
great detail in the rebuttal reports of Fred Boelter, CIH, and John Henshaw, CIH.11 These
leading experts in their fields explain in detail why an unbridgeable analytic gap exists between
the purported data Longo and Templin cite and the opinions they reach.
Finally, as explained in Kelley v. American Heyer-Schulte Corp., 957 F. Supp. 873, 877-
878 (W.D. Tex. 1997), the Court’s gatekeeper role requires it to review the proffered experts’
claimed reliance material to ascertain whether the references really provide the support the
experts claim.12 So that the Court possesses a comprehensive record, the following Appendices
have been attached to Debtors’ Motion and are referenced herein:
• Appendix A, containing the reports and rebuttal reports of Committee industrial hygiene witnesses;
11 Attached hereto as (Appx. B Exs. 3, 4, and 6). 12 As explained in Kelley, 957 F. Supp. at 877-78:
When confronted with a proffer of expert testimony based upon particular studies, the Court must as an initial matter determine whether the studies could be reasonably relied upon by the expert. See Christophersen, 939 F.2d [1106] at 1110, 1114 [(5th Cir. 1991)]; Fed. R. Evid. 703. Concurrently, the Court must determine whether a scientific expert's method of using the study is sufficiently reliable to warrant admission. Daubert, 509 U.S. at 591, 113 S. Ct. at 2796. Therefore, in the present case, the Court must decide both whether the studies in question are reasonably relied upon, and whether Dr. Swan's method of using those studies has the mark of a scientific method. Daubert, 509 U.S. at 592-95, 113 S. Ct. at 2796-97; Christophersen, 939 F.2d at 1110, 1115-16; Fed. R. Evid. 703.
Case 10-31607 Doc 4463 Filed 04/01/15 Entered 04/01/15 14:20:07 Desc Main Document Page 13 of 69
7
• Appendix B, containing the reports and rebuttal reports of Debtors’ industrial hygiene witnesses;
• Appendix C, containing other documents cited in this brief; and
• Appendix D, containing all reference material cited in the experts’ reports (electronically, in the form of a thumb drive).
III. Application of the Daubert Standard to Longo’s and Templin’s Opinions
Federal Rule of Bankruptcy 9017 applies Federal Rule of Evidence 702 in determining
whether a proffered expert may testify. Rule 702 requires the Court to exclude expert testimony
that does not meet the following criteria:
(a) the expert’s scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will help the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue;
(b) the testimony is based on sufficient facts or data;
(c) the testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods; and
(d) the expert has reliably applied the principles and methods to the facts of the case.
See also Kumho Tire, 526 U.S. at 149; Daubert, 509 U.S. at 597 (the court plays a
“gatekeeping” role regarding the admissibility of expert testimony). The party offering
the expert testimony has the burden of proof to establish, by preponderance of the
evidence, that the expert testimony is admissible. Cooper v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., 259
F.3d 194, 199 (4th Cir. 2001); Smith v. Wyeth-Ayerst Labs. Co., 278 F. Supp. 2d 684, 691
(W.D.N.C. 2003).
A. Daubert Emphasis on Rigorous Compliance with Appropriate Methodology
In its role as gatekeeper, although it need not determine ultimate scientific issues, the
Court is obligated to evaluate the “facts on which the expert relies, the method by which the
Case 10-31607 Doc 4463 Filed 04/01/15 Entered 04/01/15 14:20:07 Desc Main Document Page 14 of 69
8
expert draws an opinion from those facts, and how the expert applies the facts and methods to the
case at hand.” Amorgianos v. National R. R. Passenger Corp., 303 F.3d 256, 267 (2d Cir. 2002).
Both Longo’s and Templin’s opinions fail at every step in this assessment of appropriate
methodology. Their opinions are based on insufficient facts and data because they have
purposely neglected to review any of the information submitted by claimants in this case.
Moreover, the principles and methods they rely upon for their testimony is patently unreliable
and unscientific. See Kumho Tire, 526 U.S. at 149; Daubert, 509 U.S. at 597.
B. Daubert Factors Are Applied with Greater Rigor to Litigation-Generated Opinions Like Longo’s
As the history of Longo’s gasket and packing testimony that is described below will
show, Longo’s opinions were developed for litigation. Accordingly, case law requires rigorous
review of Longo’s proffered testimony.
If it is clear that a proposed expert's testimony flows naturally from his own current or prior research (or field work), then it may be appropriate for a trial judge to apply the Daubert factors in somewhat more lenient fashion. . . . However, if a proposed expert is a “quintessential expert for hire,” then it seems well within a trial judge's discretion to apply the Daubert factors with greater rigor . . . .
Johnson, 484 F.3d at 435 (6th Cir. 2007); see also Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, 43
F.3d 1311, 1317 (9th Cir. 1995) (“Daubert II”) (“[I]n determining whether proposed expert
testimony amounts to good science, we may not ignore the fact that a scientist’s normal
workplace is the lab or the field, not the courtroom or the lawyer’s office.”); Lawrence v.
Raymond Corp., 501 F. App’x 515, *6, 8 (6th Cir. 2012) (excluding expert because “almost all
of” his knowledge of and experience on the subject resulted from his work as a consultant in
previous forklift accident cases). “Even the most indulgent assessment of intellectual rigor
presupposes that the witness will have taken care to avoid misrepresentations to the court as to
Case 10-31607 Doc 4463 Filed 04/01/15 Entered 04/01/15 14:20:07 Desc Main Document Page 15 of 69
9
matters of objective, concrete fact.” Pearson v. Young, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26263, *12
(W.D. Okla. Feb. 5, 2002).
Longo’s opinions do not “flow naturally” from any of his own field work—because he
has never conducted or even observed any field work involving gaskets or packing13—nor do
they flow from any laboratory research that has not been prompted by, paid for, or used for the
benefit of plaintiffs and plaintiffs’ attorneys that have engaged Longo to testify on their behalf.
Assuming that Longo has “taken care to avoid misrepresentations” of fact would be a
mistake. His report in this case, and the litigation experiments his report is based on, are replete
with false assertions of fact and data reporting errors. Moreover, even the revised reports he
produced failed to fix errors that were brought to his attention at his deposition in this case.
Significantly, one of the Committee’s other experts has found Longo not to be truthful.
They met once and Longo then started telling a story in his rebuttal report and in testimony in
another case that suited his own purpose. The Committee’s expert Roger Beckett says Longo’s
story is simply not true.14
IV. Longo’s and Templin’s Opinions Are Not Based On Sufficient Facts or Data and Cannot Help the Court Determine the Facts at Issue in This Case.
As an initial matter, Longo’s and Templin’s opinions do not satisfy the first two
requirements of Rule 702: (a) they will not help the Court in determining whether any of the
claimants in this case have allowable claims against the Debtors, in part because (b) Longo and
Templin do not have sufficient facts or data about any of the claimants in this case. Indeed, they
have not reviewed any of the information discovered by the PIQ process.15
13 Longo Dep. pp. 82-83 (Appx. C Ex. 4). 14 Beckett Dep. pp. 78-83, 91-92, 146-148, 295-297. (Appx. C Ex. 5). 15 Longo Dep. pp. 97-98 (Appx. C Ex. 4); Templin Dep. pp. 22-25 (Appx. C Ex. 6).
Case 10-31607 Doc 4463 Filed 04/01/15 Entered 04/01/15 14:20:07 Desc Main Document Page 16 of 69
10
Longo contends that MAS’s gasket removal experiments, upon which Templin also
relies, replicate the actual work experience of individuals who removed gaskets in the course of
their employment. But at no time has Longo ever conducted a gasket study with a particular
claimant in mind.16 Particularly problematic is the fact that, because Longo and Templin have
not reviewed the PIQ information, they know nothing about the specific exposure histories of the
claimants in this case.17 Indeed, Longo himself admits that his gasket experiments would only
relate to Garlock’s claimants if they engaged in the work practices performed in his
simulations.18
Because Longo and Templin know nothing about the work practices of Garlock’s
claimants, they can do nothing more than speculate that the fiber release levels created by the
MAS testing occurred or could have occurred when the claimants were working in the real
world. Thus, any opinions they proffer regarding the levels of asbestos exposure experienced by
any claimant who has submitted PIQ information should be excluded.
V. Longo’s Opinions Are Not Relevant to This Case Because They Are Based on Gasket Experiments Using Tools, Methods, and Gaskets Which Are Fundamentally Dissimilar to Real World Work Practices.
A fundamental requirement of Daubert is that there be no “analytic gap” between the
data relied upon by the expert and the facts of the case at hand. Junk v. Terminix Int'l Co., 628
F.3d 439, 448 (8th Cir. 2010); McClain v. Metabolife Int'l, Inc., 401 F.3d 1233, 1255 (11th Cir.
2005). In other words, the expert must be able to relate the testing he does in a laboratory setting
to the real world event at issue. Rule 702’s Daubert requirement in this respect is akin to, but
even more rigorous than, the Rule 403 cases, which have found that when conditions of a test are
16 Longo Dep. pp. 96-97 (Appx. C Ex. 4). 17 Id. at p. 97; Templin Dep. pp. 22-25 (Appx. C Ex. 6). 18 Longo Dep. pp. 98-99. (Appx. C Ex. 4).
Case 10-31607 Doc 4463 Filed 04/01/15 Entered 04/01/15 14:20:07 Desc Main Document Page 17 of 69
11
dissimilar to the conditions it seeks to simulate “in such fundamental and important respects”
that the risk of prejudice outweighs the evidence’s probative value, the evidence pertaining to
that test must be excluded as irrelevant. Chase v. General Motors Corp., 856 F.2d 17, 19-20 (4th
Cir. 1988) (excluding all videotapes, test results, and expert testimony related to dissimilar
testing performed by the plaintiff’s expert). The Fourth Circuit’s opinion in Chase relied upon
an earlier Fourth Circuit opinion which noted:
[T]he circumstances of the accident, as alleged, are so different from this test as to make the results largely irrelevant if not misleading. It is elementary physics that automobiles traveling downhill with their front wheels turned do not behave the same way with their brakes locked as those traveling on a flat surface with their front wheels straight. . . . [W]hen the demonstration is a physical representation of how an automobile behaves under given conditions, those conditions must be sufficiently close to those involved in the accident at issue to make the probative value of the demonstration outweigh its prejudicial effect.
Gladhill v. General Motors Corp.,743 F.2d 1049, 1051-1052 (4th Cir. 1984) (emphasis added).
See also Hoffman v. Ford Motor Co., 493 F. App’x 962, 964, 973-76 (10th Cir. 2012) cert.
denied, 12-889, 2013 WL 230247 (U.S. May 28, 2013) (Plaintiff’s expert’s opinion should have
been excluded for failure to “to make the critical connection between lab tests and real world
events, a necessary ingredient to establish causation.”). Longo’s experiments fail the
“substantial similarity test” in several ways.
A. Longo’s Experiments Are Not Representative of Real World Work
The tasks performed in Longo’s gasket “work practice studies” are fundamentally
different from real world work practices. His early gasket removal experiments, for example,
involved wire brushing a gasket that had been epoxied to a metal plate. Though Longo called
these experiments “Workplace Simulations,” these samples in no way reflected any experience a
real world worker would encounter.
Case 10-31607 Doc 4463 Filed 04/01/15 Entered 04/01/15 14:20:07 Desc Main Document Page 18 of 69
12
Responding to criticisms about those experiments, Longo began a series of gasket
removal experiments involving flanges from various sources. Each successive experiment had to
be done to respond to criticisms of prior experiments. And the results kept getting higher. In the
experiments entitled Work Practice Studies IV and V and the Crane Valve Study, Longo resorted
to an 11,000 rpm grinder with a carbon steel wheel to remove the gaskets, without knowing
whether such a powerful tool was even available in the 1950s and 1960s, when most claimants’
exposures occurred.19 But just as important, tools and steel wheels like these can easily damage
the flange face.
Flanges, between which compressed asbestos sheet gaskets were placed, typically had
phonographic finishes or serrated rings that gripped the gasket when the flanges were bolted
together. 11,000 rpm grinders with steel wheels can damage these finishes on even steel flanges,
requiring replacement of the flanges, which is expensive and time consuming.20
But Longo did not use the high speed grinder and steel wheel just on steel flanges. He
used them on brass flanges as well. He testified that three of the five valves used in the Crane
Valve Study were brass.21 Even Committee expert Mr. Shoemaker, who was the superintendent
of the pipefitters at Norfolk Naval Shipyard in the 1980s and 1990s, agrees that one would never
use grinders to remove gaskets on “yellow metal” flanges, such as brass or bronze.22
In addition to the carbon steel wheel, Longo’s Crane Valve experiment involved the use
of a brass cup brush used on the 11,000 rpm grinder.23 He did not realize that the maximum
19 Longo Dep. pp. 118-120 (Appx. C Ex. 4). 20 Boelter Rebuttal Report, pp. 25-27 (Appx. B Ex. 3); Van Orden Rebuttal Report, p. 5 (Appx. B Ex. 12). 21 Longo Dep. pp. 132-133, 262-264, 266-267 (Appx. C Ex. 4). 22 Shoemaker Dep. pp. 88, 247-250) (Appx. C Ex. 7). 23 Longo Dep. pp. 273-274 (Appx. C Ex. 4).
Case 10-31607 Doc 4463 Filed 04/01/15 Entered 04/01/15 14:20:07 Desc Main Document Page 19 of 69
13
safety rating of the brass brush was 7,000 rpm.24 Accordingly, the work practice was not only
unrealistic, Longo created an unexpected hazard to the workers who performed the experiment.25
Longo’s practice of sequential removal of gaskets similarly fails to replicate the actual
experiences of individuals removing gaskets in the field.26 Workers would not typically remove
one gasket right after another. Longo ignores the other tasks that would have been performed by
individuals in the field, including tasks that would have resulted in exposure to asbestos
insulation.27
The Gasket Fabrication Study is another example of an unrealistic work practice offered
as scientific evidence of real world exposures. This was a follow-up to an experiment conducted
on John Crane gaskets following the same protocol. Longo presents the experiment as
representative of exposures when making gaskets using the so-called “Ball-Peen Hammer”
method. While workers may have occasionally made a gasket from sheet by tapping the outline
of the gasket when holding the sheet up to the flange, Longo in his experiment “pound[s] out”
four gaskets in a row in about twenty minutes.28 This was not to simulate an actual work
practice, but just to see whether he could detect asbestos fibers in the air:
Q. How did you decide or determine that you should fabricate four gaskets like that, one right after another?
A. Really based that a lot on Fred Boelter's study. I think they fabricated one an hour
and found no results. So I wanted to say, okay, if there is going to be any fiber release, I think a reasonable number to even detect it would be four. Since he found no fibers, one an hour for eight hours, I wanted to see if we can -- again, we're just looking to see does it release fibers or not. * * *
And I was looking primarily with 22 minutes or doing four in a row, would that produce any fibers; and if so, would it be enough to detect? So that's how I came
24 Id. at pp. 273-277. 25 Shoemaker Dep. pp. 249-250 (Appx. C Ex. 7). 26 Boelter Rebuttal Report, p. 5 (Appx. B Ex. 3). 27 Id. 28 Longo Report, p. 29 (Appx. A Ex. 2); Longo Dep. pp. 109-110, 141 (Appx. C Ex. 4).
Case 10-31607 Doc 4463 Filed 04/01/15 Entered 04/01/15 14:20:07 Desc Main Document Page 20 of 69
14
up with four, just mainly trying to get a detection limit; that if it released very little like Boelter's, could we detect it or not? . . . 29
Nevertheless, Longo presents this experiment as if it represents the exposure workers would
typically have making gaskets in the field.
The representativeness issues with the MAS gasket simulations are not surprising.
Despite having no experience removing or fabricating gaskets, and no experience conducting
monitoring for asbestos in the workplace, Longo designed the protocols for the experiments and
even performed the gasket work for some of the experiments, including the ones underlying his
published paper.30
For the foregoing reasons, Longo’s gasket experiments, and his opinions derived from
them, are so different from the circumstances surrounding actual claimants’ real world work
practices as to make Longo’s opinions irrelevant and misleading, and therefore inadmissible
under Daubert and Rule 702.
B. The Gaskets Longo Uses Are Not of the Condition in Which Typical Claimants Would Have Encountered Gaskets in The Real World.
The proponent of the expert testimony has the burden of proving the study is
representative of the fact at issue in the case. Cooper, 259 F.3d at 199; Smith, 278 F. Supp. 2d at
691. “The burden on the proponent of the expert is heavy, as any inadequacy in the proof on any
of Rule 702's elements may render the entire opinion inadmissible.” Pritchett v. I-Flow Corp.,
2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 46302, *8-9 (D. Colo. Mar. 28, 2012). Thus, as with every other
foundation showing, the burden is on the Committee to prove that Longo’s gaskets were in the
same condition in which typical claimants would have encountered them. This is a showing the
Committee cannot make.
29 Longo Dep. from John Costello, et al. v. ACandS, Inc., et al., in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City, Maryland (June 22, 2006), pp. 38-39. (Appx. C Ex. 8). 30 Longo Dep. pp. 192-193 (Appx. C Ex. 4); Henshaw Rebuttal Report, p.13 (Appx. B Ex. 6).
Case 10-31607 Doc 4463 Filed 04/01/15 Entered 04/01/15 14:20:07 Desc Main Document Page 21 of 69
15
Typical gasket work occurred immediately after the gasket had been in use.31 A leak
occurs and the gasket must be removed. The system is shut down. The work is done
immediately, often in wet conditions, and the system is then put back into operation. Time is
money in industrial and maritime settings, and equipment must return to operation as soon as
possible. At the time of the MAS gasket experiments, the actual gaskets that were removed had
been out of service for many years. It had been at least six or seven years since the gaskets used
in Work Practice Studies II, III, IV and V had last been serviced, and the Crane Valve Study
involved removal of gaskets that were out of operation for at least 19 years.32 Aside from the
fact that removal of dry gaskets is unrepresentative, an added problem is the deteriorated
condition of these old, out-of-service gaskets—the gaskets showed signs of rust adhesion, and
the rubber necessarily deteriorated with time. All of this served to swell the amount of airborne
particulate, of all kinds, in Longo’s simulations.33
VI. Longo’s Gasket Experiments Are Unreliable Because They Fail to Adhere to Accepted Scientific Methodologies for Collection and Analysis of Air Samples.
The experiments Longo has designed suffer from a litany of methodological flaws which
make them unreliable. From designing the protocols, to collecting the samples, to analyzing the
samples, to reporting the results, Longo and his lab fail to use scientifically valid methods that
ensure the replicability of the data the experiments generate, even at the most basic levels.
“‘[A]ny step that renders the analysis unreliable . . . renders the expert’s testimony
inadmissible.’” McClain, 401 F.3d at 1245 (quoting Amorgianos, 303 F.3d at 267) (reversing
the District Court’s decision to permit testimony from Plaintiffs’ expert because Plaintiffs’
experts “took leaps of faith” which provided “simply too great an analytical gap between the data
31 Van Orden Rebuttal Report, p. 2 (Appx. B Ex.12). 32 Henshaw Rebuttal Report, p. 8 (Appx. B Ex. 6); Longo Dep. pp. 257-258 (Appx. C Ex. 4). 33 Van Orden Rebuttal Report, pp. 2-3 (Appx. B Ex. 12).
Case 10-31607 Doc 4463 Filed 04/01/15 Entered 04/01/15 14:20:07 Desc Main Document Page 22 of 69
16
and the opinion proffered”); Junk, 628 F.3d at 448 (affirming the exclusion of Plaintiff’s expert
because his reliance on unfounded assumptions in his comparative method and his failure to use
a scientifically valid method to estimate whether the Plaintiff’s exposure to chlorpyrifos exceed a
safe level “created ‘too great an analytical gap’ between his opinion and the data on which it
relied.”) (quoting Gen. Elec. Co. v. Joiner, 522 U.S. 136, 146 (1997)). Longo’s testimony
should be excluded.
A. Samples from Two Gasket Experiments Were Swapped, Causing Results to be Reported Inaccurately in Longo’s Published Paper.
One published criticism of Longo’s 2002 published paper34 is that the chamber in one
experiment cited (power wire brushing) was contaminated with a background asbestos level
above the current OSHA limit, ranging from 0.09 to 0.12 f/cc (fibers per cubic centimeter) with a
“sample time weighted average” of 0.11 f/cc.35 These levels were originally reported in Work
Practice Study III – Electric Wire Brushing that Longo had produced to Garlock before the paper
was published.36
But, for this bankruptcy case, Longo produced a revised version of this experiment.37
This revision evinces that the background samples for Work Practice Study III – Electric Wire
Brushing were at some point swapped with the background samples for Work Practice Study III
– Scraping and Hand Wire Brushing. The data sheets for these two experiments now contain
undated, handwritten changes to the “Project Name” and “Sample #,” as shown below.38
34 Longo WE, Egeland WB, Hatfield RL, Newton LR. (2002) Fiber release during the removal of asbestos-containing gaskets: a work practice simulation. Applied Occupational and Environmental Hygiene 17(1): 55-62. (“Longo 2002”) (Appx. C Ex. 9). 35 Boelter FW. (2003) Author’s reply. (Letter to the Editor). AIHA Journal 64:595-597 (Appx. C Ex. 10). 36 Excerpts of Work Practice Study III, As reported in Longo 2002 (Appx. C Ex. 11). 37 Excerpts of Work Practice Study III, Revised (Appx. C Ex. 12). 38 These changes were initialed by “W.B.E.”: William Egeland, a co-author of Longo 2002. See Excerpts of Work Practice Study III, Revised (Appx. C Ex. 12); see also Longo Dep. p.168 (Appx. C Ex.4).
Case 10-31607 Doc 4463 Filed 04/01/15 Entered 04/01/15 14:20:07 Desc Main Document Page 23 of 69
17
Longo agrees that the person who made the changes to the data sheets did not follow the
standard scientific practice of dating the change.39 Thus, one has no way of knowing exactly
when the change to the data sheets occurred. Longo can only say that it did not occur until after
Longo 2002 had been published and after he received criticism for the elevated background
levels:
Q. So what you recall is that you reviewed Mr. Boelter's letter and criticisms of your published paper and that caused you to go back and recheck your data?
A. I don't know if it was Boelter or Dr. Paustenbach or somebody made a
mention some years ago about that the background levels were above the current OSHA PEL.40
Longo’s report in this case uses the swapped background levels, reporting a background
range of 0.09 to 0.12 f/cc for Scraping and Hand Wire Brushing, and a background range of
<0.002 f/cc for Electric Wire Brushing.41 It does not disclose that each of these sample sets was
originally reported as coming from the opposite experiment. Similarly, no explanation for the
swapped background samples can be found in the “Index of Revisions” for either experiment.42
39 Longo Dep. p. 168 (Appx. C Ex. 4); Templin Dep. pp. 201-202 (Appx. C Ex. 6); Boelter Rebuttal Report, p. 39 (Appx. B Ex. 3). 40 Longo Dep. p. 167 (Appx. C Ex. 4). 41 Longo Report, Tables 5 and 7, pp. 47, 49 (Appx. A Ex. 2). 42 Electric Wire Brushing lists only one revision, dated December 6, 2012: (“Add TEM Data and Remove Indirect TEM Data.”) Scraping and Hand Wire Brushing lists two revisions; the first dated August 24, 2010 (“Add TEM Data and Remove Indirect TEM Data”) and the second dated January 9, 2011 (“Fix typographical errors”). See Excerpts of Work Practice Study III, Revised (Appx. C Ex. 12).
Case 10-31607 Doc 4463 Filed 04/01/15 Entered 04/01/15 14:20:07 Desc Main Document Page 24 of 69
18
Longo failed to correct the inaccurate data published in his 2002 paper, and expresses
indifference toward the need to do so.
Q. Did you send any correspondence to the journal to report this error?
A. No. There was no reason to.43
Why would Longo want to switch the electric wire brushing background samples with
the hand wire brushing samples? The separate fiber type analysis of the hand wire brushing
samples showed no asbestos in the background. Accordingly, Longo can now say that there was
no contamination. Even if Longo is to be believed that the switch resulted from the samples
themselves being swapped during the experiments (which took place within four days of one
another), this incident displays a lack of ability to keep the samples of one experiment separate
from the samples of another experiment—a lack of quality control at the most basic level.
B. Longo’s Lab Did Not Use Accepted Methods to Collect and Analyze the Samples Taken During His Gasket Experiments.
There are standard methods for collecting and analyzing occupational exposure to
asbestos. The primary methods are approved by OSHA. These include three similar methods
referred to as the OSHA Reference Method, NIOSH 7400, and ID-160. The analysis portions of
these methods specify a light microscopy procedure known as Phase Contrast Microscopy
(PCM). This is used for counting fibers. But the light microscope does not allow the
microscopist to differentiate fiber types. The 7400 method, therefore, cannot determine whether
the fibers collected are asbestos, and if they are, what type of asbestos they are.
When it is important to identify whether the fibers collected are asbestos, scientists use a
companion method known as NOISH 7402. The 7402 method employs transmission electron
microscopy (TEM). This type of microscopy allows the microscopist to identify whether the
43 Longo Dep. p. 169 (Appx. C Ex. 4).
Case 10-31607 Doc 4463 Filed 04/01/15 Entered 04/01/15 14:20:07 Desc Main Document Page 25 of 69
19
fibers are asbestos. Using this method, the microscopist determines the percentage asbestos
fibers of the total fibers. Then, the microscopist multiplies the percentage times the result of the
PCM analysis. Further tests are usually necessary to determine the fiber type of asbestos.
Longo says that his collection and analysis is in “general accordance with” NIOSH 7400.
In his later experiments, he also says that he further analyzed the samples “in general accordance
with” NIOSH 7402.44 It is not clear why Longo uses the phase “in general accordance with.” Is
he intentionally not following steps of the method, or does he use this language to protect
himself in case errors are discovered? The only explanation Longo gives is that he uses the
phrase “general accordance” to mean that “we follow the protocol to the best of our ability.
There may be some times there’s the – because of the process that we can’t do everything
exactly the same, but we generally follow it.”45 This explanation for deviating from accepted
scientific methods is decidedly unscientific. No one would knowingly agree to an operation by a
doctor who admitted he performed surgery only in “general accordance” with the established
protocols. Similarly, where established methods exist, the courts require rigorous compliance,
not some generalized ad hoc compliance, the extent of which is subjectively decided by the
expert. Pritchett, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 46302 *9 (“any inadequacy in the proof on any of Rule
702’s elements may render the entire opinion inadmissible”).
Close examination of the underlying data sheets and the testimony by Longo and his
colleague Richard Hatfield reveal that the methods were not followed in many important
respects.
44 Longo Dep. pp. 143-145 (Appx. C Ex. 4). 45 Id. at pp. 143-144.
Case 10-31607 Doc 4463 Filed 04/01/15 Entered 04/01/15 14:20:07 Desc Main Document Page 26 of 69
20
1. Failure to follow NIOSH 7400 quality control procedures in the early gaskets experiments, including published experiments
In the experiments through Work Practice Study III, Longo’s lab conducted the
microscopy analysis. An important part of every method is quality control. All the PCM
methods, including NIOSH 7400, require that blind recounts be done on 10% of the samples.
This was not done until nearly a year after the experiment and only after it was brought to
Longo’s attention in litigation. Also, many of the personal samples in Work Practice Studies II
and III, which were ultimately published, were heavily loaded and should have been reported as
“probably biased” under NIOSH 7400. When asked why they neglected to follow the method,
Longo’s colleague Hatfield explained:
In general, we don't provide PCM counts for clients or persons in general. The PCM work that we have done generally has been for our own work and not for outside people, and we just haven't been providing that, so we didn't have that as an integral part of our QC.46
This is hardly reassuring that the results are reliable. In fact, Mr. Hatfield admitted that
later studies had to be done to fix the quality control problems with the studies that were
published:
Q. Do you have plans to do a Work Practice Study IV involving gaskets? A. Yes. Q. Is this to fix the quality control problems with your counts? A. It is for a number of reasons. Q. Is that one of the reasons?
46 Dep. of Richard L. Hatfield, Lewis Howard, et al. v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp., et al., in the 62nd Judicial District Court, Hopkins County, Texas, (Dec. 5, 2000), p. 79 (Appx. C Ex. 13).
Case 10-31607 Doc 4463 Filed 04/01/15 Entered 04/01/15 14:20:07 Desc Main Document Page 27 of 69
21
A. That is one of the reasons.47
2. Failure to follow NIOSH 7402 magnification requirements in later experiments
NIOSH 7402 specifies the magnification to be used for fiber counting is 500-1,000X.
The data sheets from Work Practice Studies IV and V and from the Crane Valve Study report
that the magnification used was 20,000X or higher. Longo claims that although the samples
were analyzed at the specified magnification, the microscopist simply mislabeled the
magnification on the data sheets.48 In so claiming, Longo is relying on the word of the analysts
who “say they did it at a thousand X or 1200 X and go up to five or 10,000 when measuring the
fibers.”49 Even Longo must not have believed the microscopists. He has taken no steps to
correct the data sheets.
3. Failure to follow the NIOSH 7402 3-grid preparation standard
MAS analysts also failed to follow the 3-grid preparation specified by NIOSH 7402, and
in many situations read only 2 grids rather than the specified number of 3, which is problematic
because it does not allow for a representative sampling of the filter surface.50 For example, in
the Crane Valve Study, “[m]ore than three-fourths of the analyses were not conducted on three
grid preparations.”51
The following image, from one of the Crane Valve NIOSH 7402 data sheets, illustrates
the incorrect magnification and an improper number of grid preps.
47 Dep. of Richard L. Hatfield, Brame v. Abel Supply Co., in the 345th Judicial District Court, Travis County, Texas (April 12, 2001) pp. 164-165 (Appx. C Ex. 29). 48 Longo Dep. pp. 146, 201-203 (Appx. C Ex. 4). 49 Id. at p. 203. 50 Boelter Rebuttal Report, p. 35 (Appx. B Ex. 3); Van Orden Rebuttal Report, p. 9 (Appx. B, Ex. 12). 51 Id.
Case 10-31607 Doc 4463 Filed 04/01/15 Entered 04/01/15 14:20:07 Desc Main Document Page 28 of 69
22
4. Inaccurate Reporting of Data
During his May 21, 2013, deposition in this case, Longo attempted to explain numerous
transcription errors with which he was confronted by stating that he may have produced prior
versions of some of his underlying gasket experiments with his expert report.52 A week after the
deposition, so-called “updated” versions of some experiments were produced to Garlock.53
As the following table shows, of the 17 identified transcription or rounding errors that
have been identified in these four experiments (Work Practice III – Scraping and Hand Wire
Brushing, Work Practice III – Electric Wire Brushing, Work Practice IV, and Work Practice V),
plus Work Practice II, only three have been corrected in the “updated” experiments (emphasized
below).
52 Longo Dep. pp. 228, 234, 250-253 (Appx. C Ex. 4). 53 See Letter from James P. Wehner to Ray Harris (May 29, 2013) (Appx. C Ex. 14).
Case 10-31607 Doc 4463 Filed 04/01/15 Entered 04/01/15 14:20:07 Desc Main Document Page 29 of 69
23
Work Practice Study
Sample Affected
Count Reported on Data Sheet
Count as Reported in
Original Version
Count as Reported in
Updated Version
II P-7-B 3.669 54 3.8 (n/a) II P-2-C 46.57 46.5 (n/a)
III (Scraping) A-3-B 6.048 6.1 6.1 III (Electric) A-0-B 0.001 <0.001 0.001 III (Electric) A-4-C 9.049 9.1 9.1
IV P-3-A 87.93 90 90 IV P-6-A 89.32 90 90 IV P-1-D 1.445 1.5 1.5
IV 55 P-2-D 85.71 87 87 IV P-3-D 1.822 1.9 1.8 IV P-8-D 100 99 99 IV A-6-B <0.079 1.2 <0.08 IV A-6-C 96.20 97 97 IV A-8-A 98.02 99 99 IV A-9-D 94 95 95 V P-1-C 22.549 22.6 22.6 V A-8-A 3.849 3.9 3.9
5. Rounding in unscientific ways
When first confronted with some of the errors in transcribing the data recorded on the
data sheets to what is reported in the experiments’ write-ups (supra), Longo first explained that
the mistakes were typos.56 As the deposition continued and more and more of these errors were
identified, Longo developed a different explanation for what are clearly erroneous applications
of the rounding rule. Incredibly, he suggests the rounding rules “could go either way to account
for significant figures:
54 Because they are not consistently used throughout all studies, all units have been omitted from this table for ease of reading. 55 The TEM count sheet for Work Practice Study IV’s sample P-2-D was updated in several respects. Initially, the fiber type for structure 13 was left blank, making the total percent asbestos 85.71%. The “update” fills in the fiber type for structure 13, which appears to have increased the percentage to 87.18%. See (Appx. C Ex. 17), discussed infra. 56 See e.g., Longo Dep. pp. 183, 221 (Appx. C Ex. 4).
Case 10-31607 Doc 4463 Filed 04/01/15 Entered 04/01/15 14:20:07 Desc Main Document Page 30 of 69
24
Q. If you look at [Gasket Study V] sample P-1-C. A. P-1-C. Okay. Q. The PCM result is 22.6. A. That is correct. Q. Would you take a look at the PCM data sheet? A. P-1-C, Number 14. 22.549 versus 22.6. Q. An error? A. You know, that could go either way. As I talked about earlier. But instead of
22.6, one could argue it should be 22.5. One could argue it should be 22.6. Q. Okay. There's not a scientific -- there's not a rule in science on how to round from
22.549? A. It would be significant figures on how far you're going to round it. This is two
significant figures. So depending if you want to round it all the way to .549. So, as I talked about earlier, I would concede that. I won't argue that the totality of having 22.6 versus 22.5 for a sample that is 22.549. I don't consider that a significant error.
Q. If I could direct your attention to sample A-8-A, the PCM result. *** A. Number 64. Okay. Q. And so the PCM data sheet indicates that it's 3.849 fibers per cc. A. 8-A. That's correct. Q. And it's your understanding that – well can you tell us was it an error to report
that result as 3.9? A. No. That's so close to what the actual results were, you can argue either way. It
does not change the results at all. Q. Okay. There's just no hard-and-fast rule in science a how to round --
Case 10-31607 Doc 4463 Filed 04/01/15 Entered 04/01/15 14:20:07 Desc Main Document Page 31 of 69
25
A. There is a hard-and-fast rule, it depends on how many significant figures. And I would have to go through all these to see how many significant figures I was using at the time. I'm just looking at the overall data, that we're looking at 3. – what was it again? Sorry.
Q. 3.849 versus 3.9 fibers per cc. A. Or versus 3.8. And you have it literally one ten-thousandths of a -- right in the
middle. That does not change the overall opinions and it does not change the overall premise of these studies.57
Even Templin admitted that Longo is wrong on this issue of basic mathematics:
Q. Is it proper to round [6.048] fibers per cc to 6.1 fibers per cc? A. Strictly speaking at least according to the convention that I learned as we
discussed much earlier today, no, it would not be. Q. Are you aware of any convention in which 6.049 is rounded up to 6.1? A. I am not personally so aware, no.58
6. Misidentification of Asbestos Fiber Type
Another error that pervades multiple MAS gasket removal experiments is the
microscopists’ identifying chrysotile structures as amphibole structures. Longo was confronted
with some of these errors during his deposition, at which time he again claimed that he had
inadvertently produced versions of these experiments that had been later corrected.59 He also
claimed that these were not errors in identification of fiber type, but merely errors in “the pull-
down menus.”60
In any event, “updated” reports of the experiments were later produced to Garlock. As
the following table shows, of the seven fiber type misclassification errors, only six were
57 Longo Dep. pp. 246-248 (Appx. C Ex. 4). For examples of the inconsistent reporting of the data due to misapplication of the rounding rules, see Excerpts from Work Practice Study III – Electric Wire Brushing (Appx. C Ex. 15), and Excerpts from Work Practice Study IV (Appx. C Ex. 16). 58 Templin Dep. p. 324 (Appx. C Ex. 6). 59 Longo Dep. pp. 231-234 (Appx. C Ex. 4). 60 Id. at pp. 224-226.
Case 10-31607 Doc 4463 Filed 04/01/15 Entered 04/01/15 14:20:07 Desc Main Document Page 32 of 69
26
corrected in the “updates.” Coincidentally, the structure identifications corrected are the same
structures with which Longo was confronted in his deposition.
Work Practice Study
Sample (Structure) Mislabeled
Reported Fiber Type
Reported Morphology
& SAED
Error Identified at Longo Dep?
Corrected?
III (Scraping) P-4-A (99) Crocidolite Chrysotile Yes (p. 230) Yes III (Scraping) A-5-A (4) Crocidolite Chrysotile Yes (p. 231-232) Yes III (Scraping) P-5-A (55) Amosite Chrysotile Yes (p. 234) Yes
IV P-2-D (8) 61 Actinolite Chrysotile Yes (p. 223-224) Yes IV P-2-D (10) Actinolite Chrysotile Yes (p. 223-224) Yes IV A-3-A (50) Actinolite Chrysotile No No IV P-8-A (54) Actinolite Chrysotile Yes (p. 229) Yes
7. Failure to adhere to NIOSH 7402 counting rules
Longo’s failure to count half-fibers in compliance with the NIOSH 7402 counting rules
also resulted in a count that is biased high.62 Across the gasket experiments, Longo analyzed
fibers with densities outside of the range specified by NIOSH 7400, and used air samples in
situations where the background levels showed measurable concentrations of airborne asbestos,
each of which further caused his estimates of fiber concentration to be biased high.63
8. Failure to adhere to protocols specified in the study design
Further flaws exist in that Longo’s experiments did not even conform to the protocols the
study designs specified. “The reliability of plaintiffs experts’ opinions is significantly
undermined by the fact that they abandon the method that they themselves have defined.” Soldo,
244 F. Supp. 2d at 560.
61 The 7402 TEM Data Sheet for this sample is provided as an example of the misidentification of fibers discussed in this subsection. (Appx. C Ex. 17). 62 Van Orden Rebuttal Report, pp. 9-10 (Appx. B Ex. 12). 63 Boelter Rebuttal Report, pp. 33-36 (Appx. B Ex. 3).
Case 10-31607 Doc 4463 Filed 04/01/15 Entered 04/01/15 14:20:07 Desc Main Document Page 33 of 69
27
The “Study Design and Methodology” section of Work Practice Study IV reports that air
cassettes were exchanged every 15 minutes during the electric wire brushing phase of the
experiment, even though the sampling log for some samples indicates they were changed every
30 minutes.64 Longo could not say whether it was the report or the sampling log which was
wrong.65
Work Practice Study III – Electric Wire Brushing contains a similar error. The “Study
Design and Methodology” section states that the pumps for area samples were collected at a flow
rate of 10 liters per minute, but the sampling log is again inconsistent with the report: the area
samples were only calibrated to a flow rate of 5 liters per minute.66
9. Neglecting to activate pumps at the start of Work Practice Study V (and providing false testimony about this error in 2010)
In Work Practice Study V, MAS workers forgot to activate the personnel samples (those
attached to the workers’ collars) for the first 15-minute work period, meaning no personnel
samples were taken when work first began in the ECL. Personnel samples were not taken until
the first rest period, when the workers were standing in the corner of the ECL for most of the
sampling period.67
Despite a clear description of this oversight in the “Study Design and Methodology”
section of Work Practice Study V, Longo has testified against Garlock at trial that the first
personnel samples taken in this experiment could not have occurred during a rest period:
Q. Okay. And so during the rest period, samples P-1-A through P-1-D were actually collected. There was no work going on. Right?
A. That's not correct.
64 Longo Dep. pp. 207-209 (Appx. C Ex. 4). 65 Id. at pp. 208-209). 66 Id. at pp. 185-186). 67 Id. at pp. 238-239).
Case 10-31607 Doc 4463 Filed 04/01/15 Entered 04/01/15 14:20:07 Desc Main Document Page 34 of 69
28
Q. Well, why don't you -- why do you say that that's not correct? A. Well, what you're looking at is two sets of personnel samples. Those are the
samples. That data was taken -- it's the very first thing that happened, that data was taken during the activity removal. That's absolutely what happened here.68,69
Only after the Torres trial, which resulted in a verdict against Garlock which is now on appeal,
did Longo explain the false testimony in Torres by apologizing for not remembering “every
nuance” of the experiment.70 He now readily admits that the first personnel samples were taken
during a rest period:
Q. So does this paragraph indicate to you that the sampling pumps were not turned on during the first work activity?
A. That's exactly what happened.
Q. Just an oversight possibly by Mr. Hatfield in conducting the study, correct?
A. Yes. The pumps should have been turned on.71
Importantly, and incredibly, despite the fact that no work was being performed when
these samples were taken, Longo somehow managed to measure the highest sample he had ever
obtained in a flange gasket experiment, at least up to that point in time.72 This anomaly is
precisely the kind of analytical gap that renders Longo’s analysis unreliable and inadmissible.
See McClain, 401 F.3d at 1255 (quoting Joiner, 522 U.S. at 146).
68 Longo Trial Testimony. from Oscar Torres and Dora Torres v. Union Carbide Corp., et al., in the 107th Judicial District Court, Cameron County, Texas, (February 23, 2010), pp. 85-86 (emphasis added) (Appx. C Ex. 18). 69 Part of Longo’s “testimonial charisma” is his tendency to speak in absolute terms, regardless of whether he has any supporting data. A later section of this brief describes additional occasions where Longo’s absolute statements, so reassuring to a trier of fact when spoken, prove to be false upon examination of the facts. Supra. 70 Longo Dep. p. 245 (Appx. C Ex. 4). 71 Id. at p. 239 (emphasis added). 72 Id. at p. 240.
Case 10-31607 Doc 4463 Filed 04/01/15 Entered 04/01/15 14:20:07 Desc Main Document Page 35 of 69
29
10. Losing a sample during Work Practice Study III – Electric Wire Brushing
One of the TEM Clearance Air Sampling Data Sheets in Work Practice Study III –
Electric Wire Brushing, reproduced below, indicates that Longo’s lab lost a sample. Such an
oversight shows yet another instance of poor intellectual rigor in that it fails to adhere to basic
standards of scientific quality control – accounting for all samples.
11. Failure to notice and remedy a malfunctioning pump during sampling
Another oversight in Work Practice Study V is the MAS workers’ failure to recognize
that one of the pumps was shorting out. In the video that was produced with Work Practice
Study V, one can clearly see the pump blinking and malfunctioning.
Case 10-31607 Doc 4463 Filed 04/01/15 Entered 04/01/15 14:20:07 Desc Main Document Page 36 of 69
30
12. Methodological flaws in the MAS Spiral Wound Gasket Removal Study
One MAS gasket removal experiment that Longo’s reports do not discuss is the Spiral
Wound Gasket Removal Study. The results Longo reported for this experiment were three to
four times higher than the actual results because he used an indirect PCM technique (instead of
NIOSH 7400) and failed to take into account the dilution level.73 As discussed above, the
indirect method is not reliable under Daubert. In re Armstrong World Indus., 285 B.R. 864, at
*7-8, 15.
Additionally, this experiment reported that sample A-1-A’s TEM for fibers greater than 5
microns was 90.03 f/cc, even though TEM for total structures was only 26.52 structures/cc.
Longo admits achieving this result is not possible, and that he did not catch this “typographical
error.”74
13. Reliance on indirect TEM method
The “indirect method” does not pass muster under Daubert. As the court explained in In
re Armstrong World Indus.:
Some studies suggest that the sonication and shaking steps break larger fibers into smaller ones, or tear apart clusters of fibers, thus exaggerating the total fiber count. [Citation omitted]. It has also been suggested that these steps, as well as the liquids added to the samples, might cause the matrices to dissolve or break up, thereby releasing fibers bound to other materials. [Citation omitted]. D5755 [the indirect method] itself recognizes the potential viability of all of these theories, noting that “the procedure described neither creates nor destroys asbestos, but it may alter the physical form of the mineral fibers …. [A] single, large asbestos containing particle(s) … dispersed during sample preparation may result in anomalously large asbestos concentration results in the TEM analyses of that sample.” [Citation omitted].
285 B.R. 864, at *7-8.
73 Id. at pp. 114-116. 74 Id. at p. 116.
Case 10-31607 Doc 4463 Filed 04/01/15 Entered 04/01/15 14:20:07 Desc Main Document Page 37 of 69
31
By Longo’s own admission, the indirect TEM “method is not recognized by either OSHA
or NIOSH for the determination of a worker’s exposure to asbestos fibers.”75 Nevertheless,
despite his claim that he does not rely upon indirect air sample analysis data for his opinions,
Longo cites data in this case that was derived using the indirect method.76 This is poor
methodology that must be excluded.
14. Reliance on isolated samples of atypical activities over peer-reviewed studies
An additional ground for excluding Longo’s testimony is his failure to apply the
same level of intellectual rigor that would be required in scientific circles to his
courtroom testimony.
As the Supreme Court framed it in Kumho Tire: “the objective of that [gatekeeping] requirement is to ensure the reliability and relevancy of expert testimony. It is to make certain that an expert, whether basing testimony upon professional studies or personal experience, employs in the courtroom the same level of intellectual rigor that characterizes the practice of an expert in the relevant field.”
United States v. Frazier, 387 F.3d 1244, 1260 (11th Cir. 2004) (quoting Kumho Tire, 526 U.S. at
152).
Longo tries to normalize his extremely high results by citing a few sample sheets— such
as Dow Chemical, Newport News, and Shell—that he has collected during the course of his
testifying for plaintiffs in asbestos litigation.77 Reputable scientists in the industrial hygiene
community do not rely on such unverifiable, incomplete sample sheets.78
Data points are not “studies” or “reports.” Such sampling sheets are “very poor quality
data because they lack the researcher’s full written report that puts them into the proper context.
75 Longo Report, p. 42 (Appx. A Ex. 2). 76 Id. at pp. 42, 47-48. 77 Longo Report, p. 87 (Appx. A Ex. 2). 78 Still Rebuttal Report, pp. 5-7 (Appx. B Ex. 11).
Case 10-31607 Doc 4463 Filed 04/01/15 Entered 04/01/15 14:20:07 Desc Main Document Page 38 of 69
32
Thus, sampling sheets by themselves . . . would not be acceptable as support in peer-reviewed
literature.”79 Dr. Still’s rebuttal report explains the numerous problems with the three sample
sheets cited by Longo.80 Among the serious flaws is their lack of any practical relation to the
methods workers used to remove gaskets in the real world. See Chase, 856 F.2d at 19-20;
Gladhill, 743 F.2d at 1051-1052; Hoffman, 493 F. App’x at 973-76 (Expert must “make the
critical connection between lab tests and real world events.”).
Longo’s reliance on these data points, upon which he could not rely were he seeking to
publish in the peer-reviewed literature, violates the principle described in Frazier.
15. Improper pump calibration
MAS collected many samples—by Longo’s count, at least 14—in Work Practice Study
IV with pumps calibrated below 0.5 liters per minute.81 Doing so deviates from the NIOSH 7400
PCM method. Longo’s consistent modification and departure from the standards governing the
application of the techniques used in the MAS gasket experiments raises incurable concerns
about the reliability of those simulations.
C. Longo’s Inconsistent Results Evince Their Unreliability
“[A]n expert’s testimony should be excluded if testing his methodology does not generate
consistent results. Inconsistency of results demonstrates the method is ‘unreliable because it is
subjective and unreproducible.’” Soldo, 244 F. Supp. 2d at 559 (quoting Elcock v. Kmart Corp.,
233 F.3d 734, 747 (3d Cir. 2000)).
Not surprisingly, Longo’s lab has been unable to duplicate the results of its own
experiments. The following chart illustrates the wide variability in the short-term results of his
79 Id. at p. 5; Boelter Rebuttal Report, pp. 40-44 (Appx. B Ex. 3); Henshaw Rebuttal Report, pp. 3-4 (Appx. B Ex. 6). 80 Still Rebuttal Report, pp. 5-7 (Appx. B Ex. 11). 81 Longo Dep. pp. 194-196 (Appx. C Ex. 4).
Case 10-31607 Doc 4463 Filed 04/01/15 Entered 04/01/15 14:20:07 Desc Main Document Page 39 of 69
33
later flange gasket studies. In a field in which previous studies measured the asbestos exposure
from gaskets in tenths or hundredths of a fiber per cc, these differences are enormous. Longo’s
history of inconsistent and ever-escalating results from testing gaskets is a strong indication of
unreliability.
Fibe
rs/c
c
Gasket Removal with Wire Brush
Short-Term Samples from Longo Experiments
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
1 2 3 3 (Power) 4 4 (Power) 5 (Power) Crane Crane (Power)
D. Longo’s Use of Tyndall Lighting is Mere Trial Theatrics, and Not a Scientifically Valid Asbestos Exposure Assessment Method.
A centerpiece of Longo’s work is the deceptive use of so-called Tyndall lighting
demonstrations from his gasket experiments. These involve the use of high intensity lighting to
illuminate dust in the air. The experiments take place in a chamber with the walls painted black.
During the work activities, the lights are turned off and high intensity beams of light are turned
on. The video purports to show the workers surrounded by dust that they otherwise would not
see. Longo typically narrates the video in his testimony, explaining that the percentage of dust in
Case 10-31607 Doc 4463 Filed 04/01/15 Entered 04/01/15 14:20:07 Desc Main Document Page 40 of 69
34
the air is the percentage of dust in the product being manipulated. In the case of asbestos
gaskets, he says, 80-90% of the dust seen under the Tyndall lights is respirable asbestos.
His use of Tyndall lighting is pure theater. It is not an accepted method for assessing the
presence, concentration, or respirability of asbestos fibers in an individual’s breathing zone.
OSHA does not recognize the Tyndall lighting effect as a scientifically valid method for
occupational exposure monitoring.82 Tyndall lighting is incapable of producing any meaningful,
reliable information about airborne particulate, in general:
• Tyndall lighting does not differentiate between the types of particles illuminated, whether asbestos or non-asbestos.83
• Tyndall lighting does not identify the source of particles.84 As Garlock will demonstrate at the Estimation Trial, the chamber in which Longo conducts his experiments is contaminated with dust that does not originate from the gaskets studied.
• Tyndall lighting cannot quantify exposures in the individual’s breathing zone.85
No industrial hygienist in this case has used Tyndall lighting in their work to assess
occupational exposure to asbestos outside the courtroom, including Committee experts Mr.
Beckett and Mr. Templin. Mr. Beckett testified that Tyndall lighting “wouldn’t normally have
any place in an industrial hygiene study. Industrial hygienists don’t use the Tyndall effect to
demonstrate much of anything.”86 And later:
Q. You're not here today to endorse Tyndall lighting or Dr. Longo's Tyndall lighting demonstrations, right?
82 Spencer Rebuttal Report, p. 2 (Appx. B Ex. 9). 83 Boelter Rebuttal Report, p. 32 (Appx. B Ex. 3); Henshaw Rebuttal Report, p. 13 (Appx. B Ex. 6). 84 Id. at p. 13. 85 Spencer Rebuttal Report, p. 4 (Appx. B Ex. 9); Boelter Rebuttal Report, p. 32 (Appx. B Ex. 3). 86 Beckett Dep. p. 39 (Appx. C Ex. 5).
Case 10-31607 Doc 4463 Filed 04/01/15 Entered 04/01/15 14:20:07 Desc Main Document Page 41 of 69
35
A. No, I wouldn't, you know – in my industrial hygienist head, Tyndall lighting has no room. It has other reasons, other purposes, but not from an occupational health, OSHA-related methodology.87
Similarly, Mr. Templin testified:
Q. Have you ever used Tyndall Lighting as an industrial hygienist in the field? A. I don't think I have ever personally made use of it, no, sir. Q. Have you ever made use of Tyndall Lighting in any situation as an industrial
hygienist outside of the courtroom? A. If so, I don't recall it. Q. Would you agree that it is not typically used by industrial hygienists to assess
asbestos exposures in the workplace? A. As that narrowly phrased I would say I would agree with that.88
Longo’s use of Tyndall lighting cannot, as a matter of science, tell us anything about the
exposure-related questions central to the estimation of Garlock’s actual legal liability for
mesothelioma claims.
Garlock engaged Lambertus Hesselink, Ph.D., a Stanford University electrical
engineering and physics professor and expert in optics to review Longo’s Tyndall
demonstrations and his testimony about the demonstrations. Specifically, Garlock asked Dr.
Hesselink if respirable sized asbestos particles scattered sufficient light to be recorded on
Longo’s off-the-shelf video camera. Dr. Hesselink conducted an experiment in his laboratory
and also constructed a mathematical model to answer the question. He demonstrates that
Longo’s testimony “is unsupported by the physics of how beams of light interact with
particles.”89 The asbestos fibers Longo purports to observe “are too small to be seen and
recorded by the cameras used by Dr. Longo in his experiments”—those instruments “are too
87 Id. at p. 134 (emphasis added). 88 Templin Dep. pp. 167-168 (Appx. C Ex.6). 89 Hesselink Report, p. 4 (Appx. B Ex. 7).
Case 10-31607 Doc 4463 Filed 04/01/15 Entered 04/01/15 14:20:07 Desc Main Document Page 42 of 69
36
insensitive by orders of magnitude to record the light scattered from asbestos fibers of the size
[0.02 to 0.5 microns] Longo measures in his experiments at the concentrations that he reports.”90
Therefore, what Longo’s videos actually observe are particles which are larger than the
respirable range, and thus they are irrelevant to any attempt to assess exposure to respirable
asbestos fibers.
Longo admits that he is not an expert in photography, videography, or the physics of
light.91 He cannot answer basic questions about the sensitivity of the camera he used to record
his Tyndall lighting demonstrations. Instead, he counters Dr. Hesselink’s analysis with
statements that further reveal his lack of competence in this area.
Longo points to two experiments he conducted to counter Dr. Hesselink’s analysis. One
involved the pouring of Grade 7M chrysotile into a container. The other involved videotaping
someone smoking a cigarette in his chamber. Both activities were filmed under the Tyndall
lights.
1. Longo’s new “Pouring of Raw Chrysotile” experiment does not support his claims.
Longo says in his rebuttal report that he measured the fiber concentration of fibers during
the pouring of the 7M chrysotile using the air sampling equipment he would use in a gasket
study.92 He says the measurements showed that the average size of the particles was less 10
microns and that the particles were respirable fibers.93 Thus, he concludes that the video
showing light scattered from the particles under the Tyndall lights must be showing respirable
size fibers.94 His opinion is based on the assumption that his air sampling equipment would
90 Id. at pp. 4-5. 91 Longo Dep. pp. 39-40 (Appx. C Ex. 4). 92 Longo Rebuttal Report, p. 6 (Appx. A Ex. 3). 93 Id. at pp. 6-7. 94 Id. at p. 7.
Case 10-31607 Doc 4463 Filed 04/01/15 Entered 04/01/15 14:20:07 Desc Main Document Page 43 of 69
37
capture all the particulate in the air and the analysis method would identify all the airborne
particulate. His explanation shows a lack of understanding of what 7M chrysotile is and of the
methods used to collect and analyze the air samples.
The air sampling equipment is designed to capture the fibers of respirable size, not all
particulate in the air. Much of 7M chrysotile by definition is in fact much larger than the
respirable size range of particulate. Chrysotile is graded based on the amount of chrysotile
captured by mesh screens of varying size. One ounce of every sixteen is captured by a screen in
which the width of the openings is 0.053 inches or 1.3 millimeters.95 Further, the analysis Longo
performed—“in general accordance with NIOSH 7400”—would not allow for the counting of
particulate larger than 100 microns. And, the method allows only for the counting of fibers,
those structures with a length to width aspect ratio of 3:1 or greater.
2. Longo’s new “Cigarette Smoke” experiment does not support his claims.
Longo’s conclusions from the Cigarette Smoke Study similarly show his lack of
knowledge of the subject he is trying to address. While it is true that cigarette smoke particulate
on average is less than one micron, as Longo says, the concentration of that particulate is far
higher than he reports. In fact, the reference Longo cites explains this. According to his own
source, the concentration ranges from 108 to 1010 structures per cc.96 Yet Longo says he found
the equivalent of 1 structure per cc in his analysis.97 Here again, he did not realize the limitation
of the equipment he used. He used a hand-held device that is not designed to measure the
concentration or even size of the particulate in cigarette smoke.
95 LeDoux RL. (1979) Mineralogical Association of Canada. Short Course in Mineralogical Techniques of Asbestos Determination. pp. 84-85, 87-89 (Appx. C Ex. 30). 96 Longo Dep. pp. 302-304 (Appx. C Ex. 4); Kijowski J. (1985) A review of particle size studies on cigarette smoke. p. 2 (section 4) (Appx. C Ex. 31). 97 Longo Dep. at pp. 301-302 (Appx. C Ex. 4).
Case 10-31607 Doc 4463 Filed 04/01/15 Entered 04/01/15 14:20:07 Desc Main Document Page 44 of 69
38
Thus, rather than counter Dr. Hesselink’s analysis in any scientific way, Longo revealed
his willingness to give opinions on scientific matters he does not understand and the lack of
thoroughness of his research.
VII. False and Misleading Representations Pervade Longo’s Expert Report and Rebuttal Report, Demonstrating Both Lack of Intellectual Rigor and Lack of Candor.
Regardless of whether an untrue statement was knowingly made, an expert’s untrue
statement “does provide an additional basis – apart from conventional Daubert/Kumho analysis –
for exclusion of his proffered expert testimony.” Pearson, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26263, at
*10-11 (excluding the expert’s testimony because he made a statement to the court that was
clearly established to be false).
The requirement of intellectual rigor logically applies not only to in-court testimony but to the proposed expert’s compliance with Rule 26 obligations and other facets of the expert’s litigation engagement. [Citations omitted]. Even the most indulgent assessment of intellectual rigor presupposes that the witness will have taken care to avoid misrepresentations to the court as to matters of objective, concrete fact.
Id., at *11-12.
Unlike the excluded expert in Pearson, who made only one untrue statement, Longo has
admitted to a litany of additional factual errors in his expert report and rebuttal report in this
case, and in his underlying gasket experiments. Some of Longo’s untrue statements are
independently egregious. As to others, if there were only a few, perhaps it might be possible to
accept Longo’s characterization of them as “silly little typos.”98 But the pervasiveness and sheer
number of these errors and misrepresentations throughout all facets of Longo’s work99
demonstrate the complete lack of intellectual rigor with which Longo approaches his
98 Longo Dep. p. 253 (Appx. C Ex. 4). 99 See e.g., Boelter Rebuttal Report, pp.39-40 (Appx. B Ex. 3).
Case 10-31607 Doc 4463 Filed 04/01/15 Entered 04/01/15 14:20:07 Desc Main Document Page 45 of 69
39
experiments and his testimony. Thus, these errors present more than a mere credibility issue;
they evince the inherent unreliability of everything Longo claims.
It is also important to keep in mind that Garlock has only reviewed the data and
documents produced. Garlock does not know what has gone on behind the closed doors of
Longo’s lab where the data is generated.
A. Longo’s Lack of Candor in His Attempt to Rebut Debtors’ Experts
Bias and candor issues are essential in the Court’s Rule 702 analysis. For example, “if a
proposed expert is a ‘quintessential expert for hire,’ then it seems well within a trial judge’s
discretion to apply the Daubert factors with greater rigor. . . .” Johnson, 484 F. 3d at 435.
Longo’s colors as a quintessential expert for hire show through brightly in his rebuttal report, in
which he misstated facts and science in a vain effort to discredit the work of true industrial
hygienists, experts who possess the certification Longo lacks necessary for assessing workplace
exposure to asbestos.
In his rebuttal report, Longo claims that Beckett (another Committee expert) told him that
the “Bremerton Gasket Study . . . was done under abnormal conditions because of the presence
of a number of senior personnel who were observing the study, a shipyard photographer
documenting the study, and house keeping controls utilized during the study.”100 Longo recently
testified in another case that “. . . Mr. Beckett stated, this was a study that was – where you had
ship photographers, you had all the brass watching the studies, and they were not representative
of what usually goes on with gaskets studies.”101
100 Longo Rebuttal Report, p. 17 (Appx. A Ex. 3). 101 Longo Dep. from Seaborn v. A.W. Chesterton Co., et al., in the Third Judicial Circuit Court, Madison County, Illinois, (May 6, 2013) (Rough Draft Transcript), p. 190 (Appx. C Ex. 23); see also Beckett Dep. pp. 79-80 (Appx. C Ex. 5).
Case 10-31607 Doc 4463 Filed 04/01/15 Entered 04/01/15 14:20:07 Desc Main Document Page 46 of 69
40
As nicely as he could put it, Beckett said this is not true, describing Longo’s misquoting
him as “inflating” and “embellishing.”102 Of course, scientists are supposed to be carefully
factual—especially when they take on the role of expert to assist a court or jury in understanding
scientific issues. All Beckett actually told Longo was that Beckett believes the investigators did
not take samples aboard ship.103 Beckett testified that, contrary to Longo’s characterization of
Beckett’s opinions, “there’s no question in my mind that for the majority of the work, senior
management personnel was not present,” and, regarding the photographers, “being a
demonstration of the type of work that’s present doesn’t mean that the individual worker was
coerced into doing something that he didn’t normally do.”104 Beckett stands by the
representativeness of results of the tasks sampled in the Bremerton Study.105
B. False Statements about an Electric Grinder’s Capability of Damaging Flanges
Longo’s report states:
a simple rule used in material science demonstrates why these Garlock experts are wrong when they say workers would never use wire brushes to remove the old gaskets because of the potential damage to the steel flanges. This rule is that a softer material cannot scratch a harder material. In this case, the wire brushes are a harder material than a synthetic rubber asbestos-containing gasket, but a softer material than a steel
102 Id. at pp. 81 (“I don’t recall ever having mentioned to him that ‘brass’ were present”), 82 (“perhaps Dr. Longo has inflated the idea here”), 91 (“I didn’t imply this to Longo”), 146 (“it seems like he embellished what we were talking about a little.”), 148 (“I do not recall using the words ‘Navy brass.’ I don’t know what he interpreted that I may have said . . . .”), 297 (“I know personally that he did a little embellishing on my statement”)). 103 Beckett’s belief is clearly mistaken, as the plain text of the Bremerton study proves. See U.S. Navy Study at p. 1 (“The majority of the samples were collected by NRMC Bremerton at Puget Sound Naval Shipyard in various shops and aboard ship.”) (emphasis added) (Appx. C Ex. 2). Beckett admitted he was not present while the samples were taken, and would have to defer to the data. See Beckett Dep. pp. 84-86 (Appx. C Ex. 5). In any event, Beckett could not identify any specific task involving gaskets that was not sampled. Id. at pp. 88-89. 104 Id. at pp. 91-92. 105 Id. at pp. 90, 92
Case 10-31607 Doc 4463 Filed 04/01/15 Entered 04/01/15 14:20:07 Desc Main Document Page 47 of 69
41
flange. This allows the use of a wire brush to remove the old gasket without damaging the steel flange surface.106
The carbon steel wire brush attached to the 11,000 rpm angle grinder is much harder than the
steel flanges.107
C. Untrue Statements about Pipefitters and Machinists’ Exposure to Thermal Insulation
Attempting to discredit the opinions of Dr. Still and Mr. Boelter regarding the extremely
high exposures workers would have received from thermal insulation, Longo argues that (1)
removal of permanent thermal insulation like that removed in the Pipefitter Exposure
Assessment,108 was never performed by pipefitters or machinists and (2) that permanent asbestos
thermal insulation was “never used on valves” after being replaced entirely by portable
insulation covers by “the very early 1960’s.”109 This characterization of pipefitters and
machinists’ work with thermal insulation is simply not true.
Longo is basing these opinions, not on personal experience or observation, or any review
of the literature, but on representations made by other Committee experts.110 These other experts
confined their opinions in this regard to shipyard settings.111 Longo thus has no basis to claim
that pipefitters and machinists in commercial or industrial settings did not remove insulation with
hammers. Moreover, pipefitters and machinists in the Navy often removed permanent thermal
insulation with hammers, as was done in Boelter’s assessment.112 And in any event, pipefitters
106 Longo Report, p. 36 (emphasis added) (Appx. A Ex. 2). 107 Longo Dep. pp. 132-133 (Appx. B Ex. 4); Van Orden Rebuttal Report, p. 5 (Appx. B Ex. 12). 108 The study reported in Boelter’s Report (Appx. B Ex. 2). 109 Longo Rebuttal Report, pp. 8-9 (Appx. A Ex. 3). 110 Id. at p. 9; Longo Dep. pp. 37-39, 287-288 (Appx. C Ex. 4). 111 Beckett Dep. p. 268 (Appx. C Ex. 5); Shoemaker Dep. p. 77 (Appx. C Ex. 7). 112 Wasson Report, p. 24 (“The excerpts of [Boelter’s] insulation fabrication, installation, removal, and cleanup reflect activities and conditions I routinely saw in the 1960s aboard ship when similar work was conducted.”) (Appx. B Ex. 13).
Case 10-31607 Doc 4463 Filed 04/01/15 Entered 04/01/15 14:20:07 Desc Main Document Page 48 of 69
42
and machinists were typically working side by side with the insulators as they were working with
the insulation.113
1. Permanent asbestos insulation was commonly used on Navy ships until 1972.
The following diagrams, Figures 9390-9 and 9390-10 from the 1966 BuShips Technical
Manual chapter on thermal insulation, which governed the application of insulation on Navy
ships until 1972, show permanent insulation (often made with amosite asbestos) was still being
specified for use on valves and flanges in the late 1960’s.114
2. Longo is wrong about the types of insulation covering valves onboard the USS Lexington.
Longo goes on to discuss photos he took onboard the USS Lexington aircraft carrier in
conjunction with his Crane Valve Study.115 He states absolutely: “Every insulated valve that I
observed on that ship was covered with these types of portable pads.”116 In actuality, many of
113 Shoemaker Rebuttal Report, p. 6 ¶ 42 (Appx. A Ex. 4); Shoemaker Dep. pp. 211-212 (Appx. C Ex. 7). See also Deposition excerpts of former Navy tradesmen (Appx. C Ex. 19). 114 Bureau of Ships Manual, Chapter 9390, Thermal Insulation, (15 January 1966) p. 15. (Appx. C Ex. 20). 115 Longo Rebuttal Report, p. 9 (Appx. A Ex. 3). 116 Id.
Case 10-31607 Doc 4463 Filed 04/01/15 Entered 04/01/15 14:20:07 Desc Main Document Page 49 of 69
43
the valves and flanges onboard the USS Lexington to this day contain permanently insulated
valves.117
While Longo may not have had the knowledgeable eye to observe them, the permanently
insulated valves and fittings are there. Thus, his statement is misleading.
Longo further claims, without any supporting data, that potential asbestos exposures of
pipefitters and machinists who removed the portable covers “would be expected to be very low,
as compared to the removal of hard insulation.”118 This statement is misleading. Longo either
ignores or is unaware of the requirement that the void spaces under the removable covers be
packed with loose amosite felt, and that the covers themselves were made of amosite fibers.119
Thus, a person who had to remove these portable insulation covers from valves and flanges in
order to change a gasket would not have needed a hammer to be exposed to free amosite fibers.
They were loose and had the potential to become airborne as the pads were removed.
117 See Photographs taken by Capt. Wasson onboard the USS Lexington (April 2013) (Appx. C Ex. 21); see also Wasson Dep. pp. 19, 54 (Appx. C Ex. 22). 118 Longo Rebuttal Report, at pp. 8-9 (Appx. A Ex. 3). 119 Bureau of Ships Manual, Chapter 9390, Thermal Insulation, (15 January 1966), p. 13, art. 9390.54 (Appx. C Ex. 20).
Case 10-31607 Doc 4463 Filed 04/01/15 Entered 04/01/15 14:20:07 Desc Main Document Page 50 of 69
44
3. Longo’s recent insulation “cut-back” removal experiment is not representative of real world work
In response to Boelter’s Pipefitter Exposure Assessment, Longo performed another
experiment at MAS, the “Thermal Insulation Removal for Valve Repair” experiment, in an effort
to downplay the amount of thermal insulation exposure a pipefitter would experience by
“simulat[ing] a pipefitter removing pipe insulation back from a valve to expose the flange bolts
(cut-back)” using a “typical box knife.”120 Like so many of Longo’s other experiments, there are
numerous problems with this new experiment.
Longo cites no sources for his claim that this “cut-back” ever occurred in the real world.
His stated purpose in performing the experiment was to assess insulation exposure during valve
repair, but there was not even a valve on the piping system Longo was testing.121 Thus, no
consideration was given to the exposure a pipefitter would have had from the amosite-stuffed
portable covers Longo claims were always on the valves. And it is intentionally unrepresentative
of industrial exposures where cement covers the flanges and fittings—cement which was
removed by workers with hammers in industrial settings.122 This experiment is therefore
irrelevant to the issues involved in this case and misleading. Longo’s opinions relating to this
experiment should be excluded.
4. Longo is wrong in his accusations of Dr. Still’s supposed failure to disclose the existence of portable pads
Longo shows further lack of intellectual rigor by falsely alleging that Dr. Still “provided
no description of the portable insulation valve pads used by the Navy to insulate valves” in his
120 Longo Rebuttal Report, p. 20 (Appx. A Ex. 3). 121 Longo Dep. pp. 305-307 (Appx. C Ex. 4). 122 Deposition excerpts of former Navy tradesmen (Appx. C Ex. 19).
Case 10-31607 Doc 4463 Filed 04/01/15 Entered 04/01/15 14:20:07 Desc Main Document Page 51 of 69
45
expert report.123 Perhaps Longo simply does not have the expertise to recognize that Figure 6,
which occupies nearly an entire page of Dr. Still’s report, is a diagram of a flange insulated with
a portable insulation cover.124 As shown below, the drawing Dr. Still used in his Figure 6 (which
came from ship drawings) is nearly identical to the drawing used by the BuShips Technical
Manual chapter on thermal insulation.125 The pad is identified as “amosite asbestos blanket” in
the diagram in Dr. Still’s report, and as “asbestos blanket” in the diagram from the manual.
(Sti
ll R
epor
t, p.
29)
123 Longo Rebuttal Report, p. 10-11 (Appx. A Ex. 3). 124 Still Report, p. 29 (Appx. B Ex. 10). 125 Bureau of Ships Manual, Chapter 9390, Thermal Insulation, (15 January 1966), Fig. 9390-7 (Appx. C Ex. 20).
Case 10-31607 Doc 4463 Filed 04/01/15 Entered 04/01/15 14:20:07 Desc Main Document Page 52 of 69
46
(BuS
hips
Tec
h. M
an.,
Fig
. 939
0-7)
D. Misleading Statements about the Presence of Amphiboles in Garlock Gaskets
It was Longo’s engagement by the Committee that prompted him to “reanalyze”
Garlock126 gasket samples from a previous experiment originally conducted in 2002.127 This
reanalysis—eleven years after the initial test—purported to identify crocidolite contamination in
another of Garlock’s chrysotile gaskets, a finding that unsurprisingly, has not been sent to any
outside lab for quality control or verification purposes.128 Yet Longo states, “Dr. Stevenson
verified for QA/QC purposes that amphiboles detected by our laboratory were properly identified
in the two samples that he analyzed.”129 This statement is misleading. Neither sample Longo
identified as containing crocidolite was verified by Dr. Stevenson, who also did not verify any of
the quantification data Longo is now reporting.130
126 These gaskets, with the exception of one, came from plaintiffs’ lawyers; Longo has no other source from which he can identify these gaskets as being manufactured by Garlock. See Longo Dep. pp. 61-63 (Appx. C Ex. 4). 127 Id. at pp. 54-55. 128 Id. at pp. 55-57. 129 Longo Report, p.15 (Appx. A Ex. 2). 130 Longo Dep. pp. 52-57 (Appx. C Ex. 4).
Case 10-31607 Doc 4463 Filed 04/01/15 Entered 04/01/15 14:20:07 Desc Main Document Page 53 of 69
47
Longo’s report also claims that anthophyllite was found in Garlock gasket sample
M18549-003.131 Longo admits this statement is false.132
E. Cherry-Picking Data from the U.S. Navy Study133
Longo uses cherry-picked data to support his opinions while failing to disclose the data
that does not support his opinions, as illustrated by an examination of Longo’s statements about
the data reported by the 1978 study commissioned by the U.S. Navy entitled “Asbestos Exposure
from Gasket Operations,” which is also known as “the Bremerton study.”
Longo states the Bremerton study “measured gasket removal with scraping and hand wire
brushing that ranged from <0.03 f/cc to 0.18 f/cc with an average of 0.11 f/cc from eight air
samples.”134 Longo seeks to discredit these low results by claiming that because the study was
done under housekeeping controls,
the concentration of asbestos fiber release from this gasket removal activity would be much less then [sic] if IH controls were not used. Therefore, the Bremerton study is not a good indicator for asbestos fiber exposure in the field because during this time frame, IH controls were not typically used during the removal of asbestos-containing gaskets off of flanges.135
This claim misrepresents the nature of the data reported by the Bremerton study. Not
only does Longo mischaracterize the controls that were used during sampling of this activity,
Longo fails to mention the fact that 14 samples were taken during gasket removal using hand
scraping with no controls, resulting in a range of <0.06 f/cc to 0.39 f/cc with an average exposure
of only 0.13 f/cc. These are all values for short term samples that are well below even today’s
131 Longo Report, p. 15 (Appx. A E. 2). 132 Longo Dep. pp. 58-59 (Appx. C Ex. 4). 133 (Appx. C Ex. 2). 134 Longo Report, p. 80 (Appx. A Ex. 2). 135 Id.
Case 10-31607 Doc 4463 Filed 04/01/15 Entered 04/01/15 14:20:07 Desc Main Document Page 54 of 69
48
asbestos safety limits. This data was reported on the same page136 as the data Longo cherry-
picked, as shown below.
The “housekeeping,” as explained by the authors of the study, consisted of disposing of the
material appropriately after removal so that it could be processed with other asbestos waste.
None of these housekeeping activities reduced the exposures from the activities studied.137
F. Examples of Absolute Statements Made By Longo Which Are False
As discussed above, Longo’s testimony about “absolutely what happened” during the
first personal sampling period in Gasket Study V proved to be untrue.138 But this is not the only
instance where Longo’s categorical statements about critical issues have proven false.
Longo claims that the asbestos in insulating cements “was always chrysotile.”139 But
several documents show that several kinds of insulating cements were made with amphiboles,
including crocidolite, by multiple manufacturers.140
In another less-than-candid statement, Longo writes in his rebuttal report:
136 U.S. Navy Study, at p. 41 (Appx. C Ex. 2). 137 Still Rebuttal Report, p. 4 (Appx. B Ex. 11); Liukonen Rebuttal Report, p. 2 (Appx. B Ex. 8); Liukonen Dep. pp. 22-23 (Appx. C Ex. 27); Beckett Dep. p. 192 (Appx. C Ex. 5). 138 Longo Dep. pp. 238-245 (Appx. C Ex. 4). 139 Longo Report, p. 112 (Appx. A Ex. 2). 140 Longo Dep. pp. 288-297 (Appx. C Ex. 4).
Case 10-31607 Doc 4463 Filed 04/01/15 Entered 04/01/15 14:20:07 Desc Main Document Page 55 of 69
49
Since the publication of our paper in January 2002, not one letter to the editor of this journal was ever sent by anyone criticizing our published gasket removal studies. The experts even hired by Garlock, both in the past or the present, never sent any criticisms or comments about our studies.141
This is also false. Carl Mangold wrote a letter to the editor criticizing Longo’s paper, but it was
not published. Longo knows about the letter and has testified about it.142
Also, in response to a letter to the editor that Longo and other MAS employees wrote to
criticize Boelter’s 2003 published study on gaskets, Boelter provided his own letter to the editor
which points out numerous flaws in Longo 2002.143 Longo has not published a peer-reviewed
article since. Boelter’s studies of various aspects of gasket and packing removal have continued
to be accepted for publication.
In his rebuttal report, Longo remarks:
Dr. Still seems to have "forgotten" that all high temperature valve systems in any Naval ships built from the late 1950's to the early1960's and on would only have been insulated with these portable pads, and NOT with the multi-layer hard thermal insulation, that he described in his expert report.144
Longo cites no data to support this conclusion, and indeed, the BuShips technical manuals on
insulation show that he is wrong.145 Further, as discussed above, the USS Lexington to this day
contains valves and fittings with “hard insulation.”146
The simple fact is: Longo’s level of certainty regarding an issue is decidedly unhelpful to
the Court’s determination of that issue.
141 Longo Rebuttal Report, p. 15 (Appx. A Ex. 3). 142 Longo Dep. in Beadle v. Ametek, Inc., et al., in the 11th Judicial District Court of Harris County, Texas (Vol. II, May 5, 2008), pp. 291-293 (Appx. C Ex. 28). 143 Boelter FW. (2003) (Appx. C Ex. 10). 144 Longo Rebuttal Report, p. 10 (Appx. A Ex. 3). 145 Bureau of Ships Manual, Chapter 9390, Thermal Insulation, (15 January 1966) (Appx. C Ex. 20). 146 Photographs taken by Capt. Wasson (Appx. C Ex. 21).
Case 10-31607 Doc 4463 Filed 04/01/15 Entered 04/01/15 14:20:07 Desc Main Document Page 56 of 69
50
G. Additional Untrue Statements
Additional examples of untrue statements, errors, and misrepresentations made by Longo
include:
• Failing to disclose the complete picture of reliable industrial hygiene data on gasket fabrication.
• Stating the valves from his Crane Valve Study came from systems that they did not come from, and some systems that do not exist.147
• Stating that a Garlock plant was located in Palmyra, New Jersey148 when in fact the plant is in Palmyra, New York.149
• Mislabeling the machinery in images he lifted from the U.S. Navy study. (Longo Report, pp. 26-27; Longo Dep. pp. 105-106).
VIII. Templin’s Opinions are Unreliable Because He Fails to Require the Studies Upon Which He Relies to Follow Accepted Scientific Methodologies.
Rule 702 requires the Court to exclude expert testimony that is based on insufficient facts
or data, or testimony that is the product of unreliable principles and methods. See also Kumho
Tire, 526 U.S. at 149; Daubert, 509 U.S. at 597 (the court plays a “gatekeeping” role regarding
the admissibility of expert testimony). Templin’s opinions are derived from data that was
produced by unsound methodology, and must be excluded.
A. Using Only “General Accordance” with Accepted Methodology
In the same way that Longo claims only “general accordance” with standard scientific
methodologies for collection and analysis of samples (see section VI.B., supra), Templin admits
that he “consistently” uses that terminology to describe the methods he uses in his industrial
147 Longo Dep. pp. 264-266 (Appx. C Ex. 4); Wasson Dep. pp. 56-58; 85-86 (Appx. C Ex. 22). 148 Longo Report, p. 79 (Appx. A Ex. 2). 149 Longo Dep. pp. 59-60 (Appx. C Ex. 4).
Case 10-31607 Doc 4463 Filed 04/01/15 Entered 04/01/15 14:20:07 Desc Main Document Page 57 of 69
51
hygiene practice.150 Also like Longo, Templin cannot describe how use of the phrase “general
accordance” with a method describes what modifications to the method have been made.
Q. Does that mean you are not following the method or you are following the method?
A. It means that you are following the method in general.
Q. What does that mean that you are following the method in general?
A. It means that while metaphorically speaking perhaps not every "t" has been crossed nor every "i" dotted, that nothing of a significant departure from the method that would have an impact on the findings of the study has taken place.
Q. Why can't you just follow the method?
A. The method is many pages long.· It has got many components to it and again basically if you say you are following the method then you are saying, you are assuring in fact that you have crossed every "t" and dotted every "i". Nobody in the practice of engineering or laboratory analysis does that.151
Templin is essentially stating that he sees no need to ensure accuracy because of the complexity
of NIOSH 7400. But accepted scientific methodologies are complex for a reason. Templin’s
willingness to deviate from complex methods is unscientific and warrants exclusion of his
opinions. Such undefined, non-standard methodologies prevent studies from being reproduced
and results from being able to be replicated. Soldo, 244 F. Supp. 2d at 559. Templin’s reliance
upon MAS experiments that only “generally” follow the methods required by the scientific
community make his opinions based upon them unreliable. The Court should exclude his
opinions under Daubert and Rule 702.
B. Misunderstanding of NIOSH 7402 Magnification Requirements
As discussed above, data sheets from MAS Work Practice Studies IV and V and from the
Crane Valve Study report that the magnification used was 20,000X or higher, even though
NIOSH 7402 specifies the magnification to be used for fiber counting is 500-1,000X. Templin’s
150 Templin Dep. pp. 208-209 (Appx. C Ex. 6). 151 Id. at pp. 209-210 (emphasis added).
Case 10-31607 Doc 4463 Filed 04/01/15 Entered 04/01/15 14:20:07 Desc Main Document Page 58 of 69
52
testimony about this error further elucidates the unreliability of his opinions because not only
does he not know what magnification is required under the method,152 he does not understand
why compliance with the method is important:
Q. If the maximum magnification for counting was 1,000, then it would be incorrect for MAS microscopists to do the analysis at 20,000 or 25,000, correct?
A. I don't see where that would make any difference as long as one actually followed
the rules in the 7402 method for what can and cannot be counted.153
IX. Templin Misrepresents Data in His Report, Demonstrating a Lack of Candor that Warrants Exclusion of his Opinions.
Templin’s reports and testimony in this case suffer from misrepresentation of facts and
science, demonstrating that he, too, “lack[s] the objectivity that is the hallmark of scientific
method.” Claar v. Burlington Northern R. Co., 29 F.3d 499, 503 (9th Cir. 1994). Thus, in
determining whether Templin’s testimony should be admitted, the Court should place no less
importance on examining the bias and candor issues. Exclusion of expert testimony such as
Templin’s is required because candor is lacking and the witness has not “taken care to avoid
misrepresentations to the court as to matters of objective, concrete fact.” Pearson, 2002 U.S.
Dist. LEXIS 26263, at *12.
A. Misrepresentation of Fiber Release Data from Gaskets and Packing
Templin’s report purports to describe the “reasonable exposure range estimates for
commonly occurring activities performed with asbestos-containing gaskets and packing.”154 But
these ranges are largely cherry-picked, or worse, unsupported by the sources he cites. This is the
mark of advocacy, not science.
152 Id. at p. 330. 153 Id. at p. 331. 154 Templin Report, unnumbered p. 10 (Appx. A Ex. 5).
Case 10-31607 Doc 4463 Filed 04/01/15 Entered 04/01/15 14:20:07 Desc Main Document Page 59 of 69
53
For fabrication of gaskets, Templin cites five sources he claims support his range of
exposure. One of these sources, McKinnery & Moore, does not report gasket fabrication data.
Templin admits this is an error in his report.155 Templin also cites a data sheet that does not
provide gasket fabrication data.156 Another source he cites for his gasket fabrication data is a
study paid for by asbestos plaintiffs’ lawyers that was not peer-reviewed. Instead, it is a book
chapter of a series that is edited by lawyers, not scientists. Templin claims he was not aware of
the source of funding for the study or of who edited the book, but states that external funding of
research “is of interest to note.”157
The next exposure range Templin misrepresents is for removal of gaskets, which he
claims has a range from 10-3 to 30 f/cc. One source he cites for this claim is an unpublished
MAS experiment with valve packing removal and replacement, which does not report any data
for gasket removal.158 The source Templin relies upon for the high exposure value is Longo
2002, which is unreliable for the reasons discussed above. Templin cites Longo’s paper,
apparently without ever reviewing the data it reported; he had never noticed the elevated
background level reported in one of the experiments before reading Longo’s deposition in this
case.159
When confronted with Longo’s inaccurate reporting of the data in the published paper,
Templin stated he did not know whether a researcher has an obligation to report inaccurately
published data to the editor.160 But Templin also testified:
Q. If you had published a paper and you discovered that there was inaccurate data reported in the paper, would you write to the editor to note that error?
155 Templin Dep. pp. 181-184 (Appx. C Ex. 6). 156 Templin Dep. pp. 186-187 (Appx. C Ex.6). 157 Id. at. pp. 184-186. 158 Id. at pp. 187-188. 159 Id. at. pp. 192-193. 160 Id. at. pp. 189-191.
Case 10-31607 Doc 4463 Filed 04/01/15 Entered 04/01/15 14:20:07 Desc Main Document Page 60 of 69
54
A If it was in a time frame as to make a difference and it was brought to my attention or I found out on my own, I think likely that I would.161
Templin was similarly undisturbed by the failure of Longo (2002) to disclose the source of
funding for the underlying experiments, Templin claimed that if “the paper per se” was not
funded by anyone, “there would be nothing to disclose,” even though Templin understands “at
least some of” the experiments the paper reports on were funded by plaintiffs’ lawyers.162
The final ranges of exposure Templin reports are for cutting and installing replacement
packing material, and for removing packing material. Templin cites the same four sources for
both of these ranges: one published study, the U.S. Navy Study on Gaskets, one sample sheet,
and a deposition transcript. None of these documents reports any data on the cutting,
installation, or removal of packing.163 Thus, despite his representations to the contrary, his
opinion is not based on an understanding of the literature. The Court cannot take it on faith that
Templin is accurate.
B. Misrepresentation of the National Research Council’s Data for Nonoccupational Environmental Exposure Levels
Templin reports that “a reasonable estimate of the airborne asbestos concentration in the
ambient air of urban areas in the United States for the 1960s and 1970s is 0.00005 f/cc.”164 In so
stating, Templin fails to disclose the other levels reported in the 1984 National Research Council
(NRC) publication which he cites. The “reasonable estimate” Templin reports is one of the
lowest data points reported in the NRC table, and is nowhere near the levels the NRC ultimately
chose to represent the median (0.0004 f/cc) and high (0.002 f/cc) nonoccupational environmental
161 Id. at pp. 191-192. 162 Id. at pp. 188-189. 163 Id. at. pp. 196-198. 164 Templin Report, unnumbered p. 10 (Appx. A Ex. 5).
Case 10-31607 Doc 4463 Filed 04/01/15 Entered 04/01/15 14:20:07 Desc Main Document Page 61 of 69
55
exposure levels.165 When confronted with the levels the NRC adopted, Templin stated that this
document, which he cited in his report as reference 19, “doesn’t look familiar to me.”166
Such lack of candor in selecting only values that advance his opinion while ignoring the
data actually reported in the sources he cites is advocacy, not science.
C. Templin’s Insupportable Attack on Exposure Science
Templin attacks the exposure assessment of Henshaw, whom Garlock engaged to review
the exposure information provided by claimants in response to the questionnaires. He claims
“Reconstruction of past exposures is impossible.”167 He supports his attack in part with a quote
from a “draft affidavit” from an industrial hygienist who testifies for plaintiffs, in which
retrospective dose reconstruction is described as an “illegitimate undertaking.”168
Retrospective exposure reconstruction is recognized as science and necessary in toxic tort
cases. The Federal Judicial Center’s Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence (3d ed.) contains
a Reference Guide on Exposure Science. The author of that guide, Joseph Rodricks, is one of the
signatories to the Pipefitter Exposure Assessment cited by Henshaw in his exposure assessment.
Scientists have long used precisely these techniques to make decisions about groups of
population, as even a medical witness for the Committee concedes:
Q. In scientific research into asbestos disease, researchers have, however, looked at various groups of workers and considered them collectively for making decisions, correct?
A. Certainly.
165 National Research Council (U.S.) Committee on Nonoccupational Health Risks of Asbestiform Fibers. (1984). Asbestiform Fibers: Nonoccupational Health Risks. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. pp. 219-221 (Appx. C Ex. 24). 166 Templin Dep. p. 216 (Appx. C Ex. 6). 167 Templin Report, unnumbered pp. 13, 15 (Appx. A Ex. 5); Templin Rebuttal Report, p. 2 (Appx. A Ex. 6). 168 Templin Report, unnumbered pp. 13 (Appx. A Ex. 5); Templin Dep. pp. 233-234) (Appx. C Ex. 6).
Case 10-31607 Doc 4463 Filed 04/01/15 Entered 04/01/15 14:20:07 Desc Main Document Page 62 of 69
56
Q. And in that context especially, retrospective dose reconstruction is quite helpful; is that correct?
A. I would agree with that.169
D. Templin’s Misstatements on Epidemiology and Methodology for Causation Determinations
Templin, who is neither an epidemiologist nor medical doctor of any kind, attempts to
opine on issues of epidemiology. Not only should the Court reject this testimony for the reasons
below, the fact that Templin is willing to claim expertise in a field where he clearly lacks it, and
that he so blatantly misstates science and fact, demonstrates that he, like Longo, will not hesitate
to express opinions on matters he does not understand, and misconceives the proper role of a
science expert in litigation.
1. Insupportable opinions about the Bradford Hill Criteria.
Templin discusses a technique known as the Bradford Hill Criteria, which is a method for
evaluating epidemiology studies described in the Federal Judicial Center’s Reference Manual on
Scientific Evidence (3d) edition. As with the Committee’s medical witnesses, Mr. Templin
advanced a theory that Bradford Hill could be used without first having a series of statistically
significant epidemiology studies to evaluate with the method. He argues that “epidemiology [is]
a term that does not appear in Sir Austin Bradford-Hill’s criteria for establishing medical
causation.”170
Both medical science and case law disagree with Templin. The law was recently
summarized in Frischhertz v. SmithKline Beecham Corp., 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 181507, *9-10
(E.D. La. Dec. 21, 2012):
169 Brodkin Dep. pp. 39-40 (Appx. C Ex. 25). 170 Templin Report, unnumbered p. 16 (Appx. A Ex. 5); Templin Dep. pp. 270-272 (Appx. C Ex. 6).
Case 10-31607 Doc 4463 Filed 04/01/15 Entered 04/01/15 14:20:07 Desc Main Document Page 63 of 69
57
The Bradford-Hill criteria can only be applied after a statistically significant association has been identified. Federal Judicial Center, Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence, 599, n.141 (3d. ed. 2011) (“In a number of cases, experts attempted to use these guidelines to support the existence of causation in the absence of any epidemiologic studies finding an association . . . . There may be some logic to that effort, but it does not reflect accepted epidemiologic methodology.”). See, e.g., Dunn v. Sandoz Pharms., 275 F. Supp. 2d 672, 678 (M.D.N.C. 2003).
2. Espousing an “every exposure contributes” opinion on causation that has been rejected by the courts
Templin, who is not an epidemiologist, pathologist, toxicologist, or pulmonologist,
believes “each [asbestos] exposure is viewed as increasing one’s risk of developing asbestos-
related disease, including mesothelioma.”171 Not only does Templin not have the expertise to
opine on such an issue, such an opinion has been rejected by recent state court opinions, and
described as a “fiction,” Betz v. Pneumo Abex, LLC, 44 A.3d 27, 56-57 (Pa. 2012) 172 (quoting
Gregg v. V-J Auto Parts, Inc., 943 A.2d 216, 226-27 (Pa. 2007)), and “an untested and
potentially untestable hypothesis,” Butler v. Union Carbide Corp., 712 S.E.2d 537, 552 (Ga. Ct.
App. 2011); see also Brooks v. Stone Architecture, P.A., 934 So. 2d 350 (Miss. Ct. App. 2006);
Dixon v. Ford Motor Co., 47 A.3d 1038 (Md. App.), cert. granted, 55 A.3d 906 (Md. 2012);
Borg-Warner Corp. v. Flores, 232 S.W.3d 765, 773 (Tex. 2007).
This “every exposure contributes” opinion has also been firmly rejected by federal courts.
Smith v. Ford Motor Co., 2013 WL 214378, *5 (D. Utah Jan. 18, 2013) (agreeing with “various
state and federal courts that the every exposure theory does not qualify as admissible expert
testimony”); Bartel v. John Crane, Inc., 316 F. Supp. 2d 603 (N.D. Ohio 2004), aff’d sub nom;
171 Templin Report, unnumbered p. 13 (Appx. A Ex. 5). 172 The Betz decision’s rejection of the “every exposure contributes” theory negated the basis for the federal court decision in In re Asbestos Prods. Liab. Litig (No. VI) (Rabovsky v. Air & Liquid Sys. Corp.), 2012 WL 252919 (E.D. Pa. Jan. 25, 2012), adopted, 2012 WL 876752 (E.D. Pa. Mar. 13, 2012), which was based on Pennsylvania law prior to Betz.
Case 10-31607 Doc 4463 Filed 04/01/15 Entered 04/01/15 14:20:07 Desc Main Document Page 64 of 69
58
Lindstrom v. A-C Prod. Liab. Trust, 424 F.3d 488, 493 (6th Cir. 2005); Sweeney v. Saberhagen
Holdings, Inc., 2011 WL 346822, *6 (E.D. Pa. Jan. 13, 2011) (“a mere “minimal exposure” to a
defendant’s product [is] not sufficient to establish causation”), adopted, 2011 WL 359696 (E.D.
Pa. Feb. 3, 2011).
3. Lack of knowledge on statistical significance
Additionally, Templin does not understand the basic epidemiological concept of
statistical significance:
Q. Do you know what a statistically significant association is in epidemiology?
A. I could not give you a definition off the top of my head, no.
Q. What is your understanding of a statistically significant epidemiologic relationship?
A. I have seen numerous definitions of that that seems to depend on much like beauty, it is in the eye of the beholder or the researcher as the case may be.
***
Q. Can you give us any of the characteristics of a statistically significant relationship in epidemiology?
A. No, sir.
Q. You cannot tell us anything about that, what the risk must be, what the confidence intervals must be, what the confidence level must be?
A. No.
Q. Is it fair to say that you are not going to be appearing in court to testify about the statistically significant epidemiology regarding chrysotile causation of mesothelioma?
A. I think it would be fair to say that.173
173 Templin Dep. pp. 274-275 (Appx. C Ex. 6).
Case 10-31607 Doc 4463 Filed 04/01/15 Entered 04/01/15 14:20:07 Desc Main Document Page 65 of 69
59
The Court should disallow any attempt on Templin’s part to proffer testimony about
epidemiological and medical matters of which he knows nothing about, including but not limited
to, general and specific causation of disease.
E. Templin’s Insupportable Attack on Historical Statements about the Lack of Health Hazard in Gasket Use
Templin attacks leading asbestos researchers of the 1970s—including Dr. Selikoff, the
foremost advocate against dangerous asbestos products. Templin claims Selikoff did not
exercise “sound” judgment in writing that gaskets and packing pose no health hazard in forms
used in shipyard applications.174 Templin has no personal knowledge of the information Selikoff
had that led him to the conclusion, and he discounts the subsequent studies proving Dr. Selikoff
was right.
To attack those studies, he peppers his report with untrue statements, the most absurd of
which is that the seminal 1978 U.S. Navy Study did not test real world removal practices.175 The
insupportable statements Templin makes in his attempt to discount the U.S. Navy Study are
discussed in the next section.
F. Templin’s Insupportable Reasons for Rejecting the U.S. Navy Study
One of the many reasons Templin’s opinions must be excluded is his rejection on
specious grounds of data contrary to his position. Nowhere is this more evident that in his
rejection of the 1978 U.S. Navy Study. Although he did not participate in the study, he
contends, it was not “conducted in the field of workers under actual conditions.”176 All three
persons who signed the report have testified in this case, two for debtors and one for the
Committee. The reports of Debtors’ experts, who actually did the field work for the study, and 174 Selikoff I, Lee D. Asbestos and Disease p. 467 (1978) (Appx. C Ex. 1); Templin Report, unnumbered pp. 7-8 (Appx. A Ex. 5). 175 Id. at unnumbered p. 8. 176 Id.
Case 10-31607 Doc 4463 Filed 04/01/15 Entered 04/01/15 14:20:07 Desc Main Document Page 66 of 69
60
the testimony of the Committee expert who supervised them, confirms that the U.S. Navy study
was a real world study that did, indeed measure real world activities.177
Rather than formulate an opinion based on a thorough “real world” study like the U.S.
Navy study, Templin claims “The only study that I know of addressing gasket removal in a field
operation with minimal control is commonly referred to as the Shell gasket study performed in
1985 at Shell Oil Company’s Wood River, IL refinery.”178 Yet this is not a published or
systematic study, it is a single sampling form, filled out in handwriting. All that is known based
on the little information that this form reveals is that it is not intended to be representative of
normal gasket use. It reads: “simulated worst case situation.”179 And the activity described is
undeniably atypical.180
Templin’s preference for a single sample simulation trying to simulate a “worst case
situation” over a systematic study of real activities is scientifically insupportable methodology.
X. Conclusion
To demonstrate the unreliability of Longo and Templin’s opinions, this brief has
attempted to elucidate the most egregious examples of the countless flaws of methodology,
mischaracterizations of the data, and false statements of fact in their reports, rebuttal reports, and
underlying studies. Of course, those discussed are only those which are capable of being
identified. In determining whether to exclude their opinions, the Court should ask what else is
unreliable?
These are not “silly little typos.” These refusals to follow proper methodology make it all
the more significant that it is impossible to determine whether the microscopists reported the
177 See e.g., Beckett Dep. pp. 90, 92 (Appx. C Ex. 5). 178 Templin Report, unnumbered p. 9 (Appx. A Ex. 5). 179 Shell Oil Sample Sheet (Appx. C Ex. 26). 180 Still Rebuttal Report, pp. 6-7 (Appx. B Ex.11).
Case 10-31607 Doc 4463 Filed 04/01/15 Entered 04/01/15 14:20:07 Desc Main Document Page 67 of 69
61
correct counts. We do know that Longo and his employees took liberties with basic rounding
rules when transcribing the data into the summary of results. We know that the MAS
experiments cannot be duplicated because samples were collected and analyzed only “in general
accordance with” NIOSH 7400 and 7402; not even MAS can get similar results from what are
essentially the same “work practices.” And we know that Longo is untruthful in other areas of
his consulting work. The data that are capable of being verified contain so many falsities;
clearly, we cannot rely on the mere ipse dixit of the Committee’s experts to on the data that is not
capable of being verified.
The Committee cannot meet its burden to overcome the inherent inadmissibility of these
experts’ opinions, which are based in large part on experiments born entirely within the context
of litigation, solely to provide the shaky foundation upon which plaintiffs’ attorneys could
construct a case against Garlock and other manufacturers of non-friable products of gaskets and
packing. This Court should exclude or strike the opinions of Longo and Templin.
Case 10-31607 Doc 4463 Filed 04/01/15 Entered 04/01/15 14:20:07 Desc Main Document Page 68 of 69
62
This 3rd day of July, 2013. Respectfully submitted, /s/ Raymond P. Harris, Jr. Raymond P. Harris, Jr. Cary Schachter SCHACHTER HARRIS, LLP 400 E. Las Colinas Blvd., Suite 220 Irving, Texas 75039 Telephone: (214) 999-5700 Facsimile: (214) 999-5747 [email protected] [email protected] Special Litigation Counsel to the Debtors Garlock Sealing Technologies LLC, Garrison Litigation Management Group, Ltd., and The Anchor Packing Company Garland S. Cassada N.C. Bar No. 12352 Jonathan C. Krisko N.C. Bar No. 28625 Richard C. Worf, Jr. N.C. Bar No. 37143
ROBINSON BRADSHAW & HINSON, P.A. 101 North Tryon Street, Suite 1900 Charlotte, North Carolina 28246 Telephone: (704) 377-2536 Facsimile: (704) 378-4000 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] Special Corporate and Litigation Counsel to the Debtors Garlock Sealing Technologies LLC, Garrison Litigation Management Group, Ltd., and The Anchor Packing Company
Case 10-31607 Doc 4463 Filed 04/01/15 Entered 04/01/15 14:20:07 Desc Main Document Page 69 of 69