Carlson v. CBS Corp.

          ORDER

          VANESSA L. BRYANT UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

         Ruling on Motion for Summary Judgment [Dkt. 48]

         I. Introduction

         Plaintiffs Kurt Carlson (“Mr. Carlson”) and Elaine Carlson (“Ms. Carlson”) (collectively, the “Carlsons”) sue General Electric and multiple other defendants for statutory product liability damages under Connecticut General Statutes §§ 52-240a, 52-240b, and 52-572m., et seq.; for loss of consortium; and for common-law product liability. [Dkt. 1-1 (Compl.)]. General Electric now moves for summary judgment on the grounds that the Carlsons have not offered any admissible evidence demonstrating that Mr. Carlson was exposed to any asbestos-containing product manufactured by it. [Dkt. 48 (General Electric Mot. for Summ. Judgment)]. The Carlsons have not responded to the Motion for Summary Judgment. For the reasons below, the Court now GRANTS the motion.

         II. Standard for Summary Judgment Motion

         “The court shall grant summary judgment if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a). An issue is genuine if “the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). A fact is “material” if it “might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law.” Ibid.

         Where a defendant presents admissible evidence tending to show there is no genuine issue of material fact for a jury to decide and she is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, a plaintiff must produce admissible evidence raising a genuine issue of material fact to defeat summary judgment. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c). Rule 56(c) “mandates the entry of summary judgment… against a party who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to a party's case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial.” Bedor v. Friendly's Ice Cream Corp., 392 F.Supp.2d 367, 373 (D. Conn. 2005) (quoting Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986)).

         “In determining whether that burden [of showing the absence of any genuine issue of fact] has been met, the court is required to resolve all ambiguities and credit all factual inferences that could be drawn in favor of the party against whom summary judgment is sought.” Vivenzio v. City of Syracuse, 611 F.3d 98, 106 (2d Cir. 2010) (citing Anderson, 477 U.S. at 255); see also Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986). But “[m]ere speculation or conjecture is insufficient; there must be evidence on which a jury could reasonably find for the nonmovant.” Anderson, 477 U.S. at 252; see Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). “The nonmoving party cannot simply rest on the allegations in its pleadings since the essence of summary judgment is to go beyond the pleadings to determine if a genuine issue of material fact exists.” Bedor, 392 F.Supp.2d at 373 (2005) (quoting Celote., 477 U.S. at 322 (1986)).

         III. Facts

         The Carlsons allege that Mr. Carlson was exposed to various asbestos-containing products during the course of his employment as a radiological control technician at General Dynamics/Electric Boat Corp., Groton, CT from 1973 through 1974. [Dkt. 1-1, Count 1 ¶5]. The Carlsons allege that this exposure contributed to his contraction of asbestos-related mesothelioma and other asbestos-related pathologies. Ibid. During this time period, the Carlsons alleges that Mr. Carlson was exposed to asbestos-containing products manufactured by multiple defendants including General Electric. Ibid. at ¶ 6.

         On September 20, 2017, the Carlsons provided answers to General Electric's Standard Interrogatories and Requests for Production. [Dkt. 48-2 (General Electric Statement of Facts) ¶5]. Mr. Carlson did not identify General Electric as an employer nor does he identify any asbestos-containing General Electric product to which he claims he was exposed. Ibid.

         Mr. Carlson was deposed on October 16, 17, and 18 of 2017. Id. at ¶6. He did not identify General Electric as an employer, nor did he identify any asbestos-containing General Electric product to which he was allegedly exposed. Id. at ¶9. No other witnesses have been deposed in this case. Ibid.

         IV. Discussion

         i. Governing ...