failure to meet discovery deadlines.
🔍 Government Expert’s Testimony Under Fire
In a long-anticipated deposition on June 4, plaintiffs directly challenged Dr. Hennet’s conclusions regarding supply well HP-651 at Hadnot Point—a critical part of the government’s exposure pathway argument. According to the plaintiffs, Dr. Hennet’s conclusions about how contaminants may have reached finished drinking water are based on unreliable models and unproven assumptions that don’t hold up under scrutiny.
⏱ Timeline Dispute and Legal Pushback
The Department of Justice is opposing the motion, claiming plaintiffs had their chance to raise objections earlier. However, plaintiffs argue they weren’t granted access to the necessary data until after the first deposition—an oversight that led the court to impose sanctions on the government and authorize further questioning.
⚖️ What’s at Stake
This motion is more than a procedural dispute. The admissibility of Dr. Hennet’s expert opinions could significantly influence the outcome of the Camp Lejeune lawsuits, which impact an estimated 500,000 potential claimants. At the heart of the issue is the scientific credibility behind the government’s defense—a factor that may ultimately sway the court’s decisions on liability and damages.
As the litigation continues to evolve, the battle over expert testimony is proving to be a pivotal battleground in one of the largest and most high-stakes toxic tort cases in U.S. history.
#CampLejeune #ToxicWater #VeteransJustice #EnvironmentalLaw #ToxicTort #MassTort #CampLejeuneLawsuit #CleanWaterJustice #MilitaryFamilies #June2025Update
