Garon v. Illinois Central Railroad Company

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
GAEL GARON,
Plaintiff
CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS 	NO. 24-2599
ILLINOIS CENTRAL
RAILROAD COMPANY,
Defendant
SECTION: “E” (4)
ORDER AND REASONS
Before the Court is a motion to compel filed by Defendant Illinois Central Railroad
Company (“Defendant”). 1 Plaintiff Gael Garon filed an opposition. 2 Defendant filed a
reply. 3
BACKGROUND
This case arises out of Plaintiff’s diagnosis of mesothelioma. Plaintiff alleges she
developed mesothelioma due to secondary exposure to asbestos through her father,
Robert Garon, who worked for Defendant from 1949 to the late 1990s. Plaintiff filed suit
in the Civil District Court for Orleans Parish on May 9, 2024, asserting claims for products
liability, negligence, and premises liability.4 Defendant removed this case to this Court on
November 4, 2024.5
On December 2, 2025, Defendant filed this Motion to Compel. 6 Defendant requests
that this Court order Plaintiff to submit a 10mL (two teaspoons) blood sample to
Defendant for Whole Genome Sequencing (“WGS”). 7 Defendant argues that inherited
genetic mutations potentially caused Plaintiff’s mesothelioma, rather than exposure to
1 R. Doc. 38.
2 R. Doc. 42.
3 R. Doc. 45.
4 R. Docs. 1-2, 1-3.
5 R. Doc. 1.
6 R. Doc. 38.
7 Id.
Case 2:24-cv-02599-SM-KWR Document 46 Filed 01/06/26 Page 1 of 4

2
asbestos through her father. 8 Defendant offers an affidavit from expert Leonel M. van Zyl,
Ph.D., who states therein that Plaintiff’s personal and family medical history suggests the
presence of genetic mutations in Plaintiff’s DNA “capable of causing mesothelioma
independent of any asbestos exposure.” 9 Defendant argues WGS has the potential to
identify whether Plaintiff has these genetic mutations that can independently cause
mesothelioma 	and 	that 	this 	information 	could 	prove 	important 	and 	potentially
dispositive in this case. 10 In addition, Defendant argues this procedure, which only
requires a blood drawing, is minimally invasive.11
In opposition, Plaintiff argues Defendant has not demonstrated good cause for the
Court to order a blood sample for WGS. 12 Plaintiff offers an affidavit from its own expert,
Dr. Brent Staggs, who states therein that “genetic mutations do not cause mesothelioma
in the absence of asbestos exposure.” 13 Furthermore, Plaintiff argues the issue of whether
genetic mutations can cause mesothelioma absent asbestos exposure is irrelevant because
Plaintiff was in fact exposed to asbestos through her father. 14
LAW AND ANALYSIS
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 35 governs a request for blood sampling. 15 Rule 35
states “[t]he court where the action is pending may order a party whose mental or physical
condition-including blood group-is in controversy to submit to a physical or mental
examination by a suitably licensed or certified examiner.” 16 The court may issue such an
8 R. Doc. 38-1 at p. 3.
9 R. Doc. 38-3 at ¶ 2.
10 R. Doc. 38-1 at p. 3.
11 Id.
12 R. Doc. 42 at p. 4.
13 R. Doc. 42-2 at ¶ 16.
14 R. Doc. 42 at p. 4.
15 Miller v. Diego, No. 3:17-CV-593-TSL-RHW, 2018 WL 8967203, at *1 (S.D. Miss. Apr. 23, 2018); Howell
v. Hillcorp Energy Co., No. CIV.A. 12-0293, 2013 WL 1455758, at *2–3 (E.D. La. Apr. 9, 2013) (citing Smith
v. Serviceman's Group Life Insurance, 124 F.R.D. 195, 196 (N.D.Ind.1989) (ordering blood test in insurance
policy dispute)).
16 Fed. R. Civ. P. 35(a)(1).
Case 2:24-cv-02599-SM-KWR Document 46 Filed 01/06/26 Page 2 of 4

3
order “on motion for good cause and on notice to all parties and the person to be
examined” and “must specify the time, place, manner, conditions, and scope of the
examination, as well as the person or persons who will perform it.” 17 In determining
whether a Rule 35(a) motion will be granted, the moving party must show that (1) the
physical or mental sate of the party to be examined is in controversy and (2) good cause
exists as to why the motion should be granted. 18 Federal courts in other circuits have
compelled blood samples for genetic testing, 19 as have Louisiana state courts. 20
Defendant’s request for Plaintiff to submit a blood sample for genetic testing
satisfies Rule 35. Plaintiff’s physical injury is in controversy as she argues she developed
mesothelioma due to secondary asbestos exposure attributable to Defendant and there is
no other means of obtaining Plaintiff’s genetic information. In addition, Defendant has
demonstrated good cause for the examination. Defendant’s genetic expert Leonel van Zyl
states in an affidavit that Plaintiff may have developed mesothelioma independent of any
asbestos exposure. 21 This statement calls into question whether any alleged exposure to
asbestos caused Plaintiff’s mesothelioma. Furthermore, the examination in question
requires drawing only 10ml of blood. As the results of the WGS are relevant to
determining the cause of Plaintiff’s mesothelioma and the procedure is minimally
17 Fed. R. Civ. P. 35(a)(2)(A)-(B).
18 Id.; Schlagenhauf v. Holder, 379 U.S. 104, 118 (1964).
19 Burt v. Winona Health, No. CV 16-1085 (DWF/FLN), 2018 WL 3647230, at *2 (D. Minn. Aug. 1,
2018)(granting a motion to compel blood sampling for WGS); Bennett, By & Through Bennett v. Fieser,
No. 93-1004-MLB, 1994 WL 542089, at *2 (D. Kan. Feb. 25, 1994) (holding defendant made a sufficient
showing to order a blood test for genetic testing).
20 Chauvin v. Exxon Mobil Corp., et al, No. 713-971 (La. 24th Jud. Dist. Ct. Jefferson Par. Sept. 6,
2013) (order granting motion for genetic testing of plaintiff’s tissue and blood); Guzman v. Exxon Mobil
Corp., et al, No. 693-606 (La. 24th Jud. Dist. Ct. Jefferson Par. May 15, 2012) (order granting motion for
plaintiff to submit to a blood test); Craft v. Eagle, Inc., No. 2023-11586 (Orleans Civ. Dist. Ct. July 1, 2024)
(order compelling blood sample for genetic testing). While this Court applies the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure article 1464 mirrors Fed. R. Civ. P. 35, requiring that for a
court to order an additional medical examination, (1) the physical or condition of the party sought to be
examined must be in controversy and (2) good cause must exist for the examination.
21 R. Doc. 38-2.
Case 2:24-cv-02599-SM-KWR Document 46 Filed 01/06/26 Page 3 of 4

4
invasive, good cause exists for an order compelling the blood sample necessary to
complete the WGS.
CONCLUSION
IT IS ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Compel 22 is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties meet and confer by January 14,
2026 and submit a joint proposed order compelling Plaintiff to submit to a blood test to
be used for Whole Genome Sequencing on or before January 19, 2026.
New Orleans, Louisiana, this day 6th day of January, 2026.
_________ _____________________________
SUSIE MORGAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
22 R. Doc. 38.
Case 2:24-cv-02599-SM-KWR Document 46 Filed 01/06/26 Page 4 of 4