Filed: Jan. 25, 2019
Latest Update: Jan. 25, 2019
Summary: RULING AND ORDER BRIAN A. JACKSON , District Judge . Before the Court is the Supplemental Motion in Limine (Doc. 207) filed by Chevron Pipe Line Company. For the reasons that follow, the Motion (Doc. 207) is GRANTED. I. BACKGROUND This dispute arises from an accident on a drilling platform in Louisiana territorial waters. (Doc. 1). James Mays was killed when components of a pressurized valve on a pipeline dislodged and struck him in the head. ( Id. ). Members of his family sued the
Summary: RULING AND ORDER BRIAN A. JACKSON , District Judge . Before the Court is the Supplemental Motion in Limine (Doc. 207) filed by Chevron Pipe Line Company. For the reasons that follow, the Motion (Doc. 207) is GRANTED. I. BACKGROUND This dispute arises from an accident on a drilling platform in Louisiana territorial waters. (Doc. 1). James Mays was killed when components of a pressurized valve on a pipeline dislodged and struck him in the head. ( Id. ). Members of his family sued the ..
More
RULING AND ORDER
BRIAN A. JACKSON, District Judge.
Before the Court is the Supplemental Motion in Limine (Doc. 207) filed by Chevron Pipe Line Company. For the reasons that follow, the Motion (Doc. 207) is GRANTED.
I. BACKGROUND
This dispute arises from an accident on a drilling platform in Louisiana territorial waters. (Doc. 1). James Mays was killed when components of a pressurized valve on a pipeline dislodged and struck him in the head. (Id.). Members of his family sued the pipeline operator, Chevron, for negligence. (Id.).
After investigating the accident, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) issued a citation to Chevron. (Doc. 207-2). Chevron and OSHA settled that citation. (Id.). Chevron now moves to exclude the citation as inadmissible hearsay. (Doc. 160; 207).
II. LEGAL STANDARD
The party objecting to the admissibility of evidence bears the burden of showing that the evidence is inadmissible. Lyondell Chem. Co. v. Occidental Chem. Corp., 608 F.3d 284, 295 (5th Cir. 2010).
III. DISCUSSION
Chevron argues that the OSHA citation is inadmissible because it is hearsay and unfairly prejudicial. (Doc. 207-1). The Court agrees.
The OSHA citation is hearsay, and hearsay is generally not admissible. See FED. R. EVID. 802. The citation does not fall under the public-record exception to the hearsay rule because it is non-final and thus contains no "factual findings." See FED. R. EVID. 803(8); Williams v. Manitowoc Cranes, LLC, No. 1:14-CV-383-HSO-JCG, 2016 WL 7666142, at *8 (S.D. Miss. Oct. 7, 2016).
Even if the citation contained factual findings, it would not qualify under the public-record exception because the Court has reason to question the trustworthiness of the information in it. See Lacey v. Arkema Inc., No. 3:10-CV-00669-BAJ, 2014 WL 1327792, at *5 (M.D. La. Mar. 31, 2014) (OSHA citation did not qualify as a public record under Federal Rule of Evidence 803(8) due to trustworthiness concerns).
Because the OSHA citation is hearsay not subject to the public-record exception, the Court GRANTS Chevron's motion to exclude the citation.
IV. CONCLUSION
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Chevron Pipe Line Company's Supplemental Motion in Limine (Doc. 207) is GRANTED.
