Hornbeck Offshore Services, L.L.C. v. Salazar et al

Filing 203

ORDER re 202 Status Conference. Signed by Judge Martin L.C. Feldman on 11/9/2010.(caa, )

Hornbeck Offshore Services, L.L.C. v. Salazar et al

Doc. 203

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

HORNBECK OFFSHORE SERVICES, LLC VERSUS KENNETH LEE SALAZAR, ET AL

CIVIL ACTION NO. 10-1663 SECTION "F"

ENSCO OFFSHORE CO. VERSUS KENNETH LEE SALAZAR, ET AL

CIVIL ACTION NO. 10-1941 SECTION "F"

MINUTE ENTRY A Status Conference was held on November 9, 2010.1 In

attendance were: · · · · · · · · · Lawrence R. DeMarcay, Counsel for Ensco Henry Dart, Counsel for State of Louisiana Attorney General's Office George Fowler, Counsel for Ensco Adam Feinberg, Counsel for Ensco Adam Babich, Counsel for Sierra Club Carl Rosenblum, Counsel for Hornbeck, et al Guillermo Montero, Counsel for the United States Department of Justice Milo Mason, Counsel for United States Department of Interior Laura Haley, Counsel for Diamond Offshore

The status conference originally included the parties in State of Texas, et al v. Salazar, et al, No. 10-2949. On the eve of the status conference, however, the State of Texas notified the Court that it was voluntarily dismissing its claims against the federal government. Accordingly, the conference included only counsel for parties and intervenors in the above-listed cases as well as the State of Louisiana.

1

Dockets.Justia.com

None of the parties objected to the Court excluding the press from the Status Conference. The Court observed its duty under Rule 16 and encouraged the parties to engage in settlement discussions. The Court also addressed the issues remaining in the Hornbeck, et al matter. There was discussion about the allegations set forth in the First Supplemental and Amended Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief. (Doc. 5) Paragraphs 54 - 56 reference a

de-facto moratorium in shallow water, Paragraph 90 references the intentional interference with contracts allegation and Paragraph 91 references the Fifth Amendment Taking allegation. The Government

disputes whether these allegations constitute claims that are properly before the Court. The Court requested that Hornbeck, et

al clarify to what extent it wanted to pursue those matters and, if not, they should be dismissed. Additionally, there was discussion

about Hornbeck's intent to file a Motion seeking the recovery of attorneys' fees. Hornbeck plans to assert the issue of entitlement of same initially. quantum which the If appropriate, it will address the issue of Court indicated will be referred to the

Magistrate Judge. Turning to the Ensco case, the Court discussed the remaining counts 4, 5 & 6 of Ensco's First Amended Complaint. discussed whether discovery was appropriate and The parties whether such

discovery should be on an expedited basis. would not expedite discovery and that it

The Court stated it would address any

discovery disputes upon the filing of an appropriate motion. Counsel for the defendants stated that the government may be filing a Motion to Dismiss with respect to claims 4, 5, & 6. The Court

directed the parties in both cases to meet with the Case Manager to select trial and cutoff dates. Scheduling Orders will be issued in due course.

New Orleans, Louisiana, November 9, 2010.

____________________________ MARTIN L.C. FELDMAN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3