In re Johns-Manville/Asbestosis Cases
93 F.R.D. 853 (1982)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under Federal Rule of Evidence 804(b)(1), former testimony from an unavailable witness is admissible against a party if a "predecessor in interest" with a "similar motive" had an opportunity to develop that testimony. A predecessor in interest can include a closely integrated corporate affiliate, and a similar motive exists when the underlying factual issues are alike, even if the specific legal theories differ.
Facts:
- Dr. Kenneth W. Smith served as a plant physician and later as Medical Director for Johns-Manville Corporation (J-M) from 1952 to 1966.
- Dr. Smith was the only full-time physician within the entire J-M corporate structure, which was described as a single, integrated entity with interlocking officers and centralized functions.
- In 1976, Dr. Smith was deposed in two separate personal injury lawsuits, Louisville Trust and DeRocco, which were brought against a J-M subsidiary, Johns-Manville Products Corporation (J-M Products).
- The plaintiffs in the Louisville Trust and DeRocco cases were end users of asbestos products, not employees.
- The depositions covered a wide range of topics, including J-M's corporate knowledge of asbestos hazards, conditions at J-M facilities, and diseases occurring in J-M employees.
- Dr. Smith died in July 1977, making him unavailable as a witness for future proceedings.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiffs, employees of Johns-Manville, filed consolidated asbestosis-related personal injury actions against Johns-Manville Corporation, Johns-Manville Sales Corporation, and Canadian Johns-Manville Company (collectively 'J-M Defendants') in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.
- Plaintiffs filed a motion to permit the use at trial of deposition testimony from Dr. Kenneth Smith, a deceased former Medical Director for J-M, which was taken in a prior case, Louisville Trust Co. v. Johns-Manville Corp.
- J-M Defendants filed a cross-motion in limine to exclude the deposition testimony of Dr. Smith from both the Louisville Trust case and another prior case, DeRocco v. Forty-Eight Insulations, Inc.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the prior deposition testimony of a deceased corporate medical director, taken in personal injury cases against a corporate subsidiary, fall under the former testimony hearsay exception of FRE 804(b)(1) for use against the parent corporation and other subsidiaries in subsequent litigation?
Opinions:
Majority - Shadur, J.
Yes, the prior deposition testimony is admissible under FRE 804(b)(1). The rule's requirements are met because Dr. Smith is unavailable, and the defendants' predecessor in interest had an opportunity and similar motive to develop the testimony. First, the court rejected the technical argument that the depositions were not 'taken in compliance with law' due to a lack of signature, finding sufficient compliance under the relevant state and foreign laws. Second, the court adopted a functional rather than a formalistic reading of 'predecessor in interest,' holding that the various J-M entities were so closely integrated in operations and management that they constituted a single de facto entity for this purpose, making them successors to J-M Products. Finally, the court found a 'similar motive' for cross-examination existed because the core issue in both the prior and current cases was the extent of J-M's corporate knowledge of asbestos-related dangers, which is equally relevant whether the plaintiffs are end users or employees.
Analysis:
This opinion provides an expansive interpretation of the 'predecessor in interest' and 'similar motive' requirements under FRE 804(b)(1), particularly in the context of mass tort litigation against complex corporate structures. By focusing on the 'community of interest' and operational integration of corporate affiliates, the decision prevents parent companies from using their subsidiary structure to block the admission of relevant prior testimony. This functional approach makes it easier for subsequent plaintiffs to use evidence developed in earlier cases, promoting judicial efficiency and holding corporate families accountable as a whole for their collective knowledge and actions. The ruling underscores that the similarity of underlying factual issues, rather than identical legal claims, is the key to establishing a 'similar motive.'
