Offshore Marine Contractors, Inc. v. Palm Energy Offshore, L.L.C. et al

Filing 237

ORDER AND REASONS - The Court has reviewed and considered the objections of defendant Chet Morrison Well Services, LLC and Chet Morrison Contractors, LLC (collectively, "Chet Morrison") to the exhibits of the other parties, and rules as set forth in the order. Signed by Chief Judge Sarah S. Vance on 6/21/13.(Reference: ALL CASES)(jjs, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
OFFSHORE MARINE CONTRACTORS, INC.

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

NO: 10-4151

PALM ENERGY OFFSHORE, LLC AND CHET
MORRISON WELL SERVICES, LLC

SECTION: R

ORDER AND REASONS
The Court has reviewed and considered the objections of
defendant Chet Morrison Well Services, LLC and Chet Morrison
Contractors, LLC (collectively, "Chet Morrison") to the exhibits
of the other parties, and rules as follows.
Offshore Marine Contractors, Inc. ("OMC") Exhibits 1-5, 7,
and 13 (a Job Report, Daily Master's Logs, Daily Billing Logs,
invoices, an Aging Report, and repair bills) are hearsay, but can
be admissible as records of a regularly conducted activity. See
Fed. R. Evid. 803(6); cf. United States v. Towns, No. 11-50948,
2013 WL 1809758, at *2 (5th Cir. Apr. 30, 2013) (noting that
purchase logs are admissible under Rule 803(6)). Accordingly,
subject to the proper foundation, these exhibits may be admitted.
OMC Exhibit 9, the List of Creditors Matrix from Palm Energy
Partners' bankruptcy, is inadmissible. Given that Palm Energy
Partners is not a party to this suit, the Court rules that a list
of its creditors is irrelevant to this case. See Fed. R. Evid.
402.

OMC Exhibit 11 and Palm Energy Offshore, LLC (PEO) Exhibit
1, both affidavits of Jonathan Garrett, are hearsay and hence
presumptively inadmissible.
OMC Exhibits 14-19 (e-mails) and OMC Exhibit 8 and PEO
Exhibits 5-7 (written correspondence) are hearsay if they are
offered for the truth of the matter asserted. See, e.g., Mary
Kay, Inc. v. Weber, 601 F. Supp. 2d 839, 850 (N.D. Tex. 2009)
(noting that e-mails offered for the truth of the matter asserted
constitute hearsay). Yet OMC Exhibit 8 (a letter concerning
billing for the services of the L/B Nicole Eymard from Kim
Pitre), OMC Exhibits 14-16 and 18-19 (e-mails among Jonathan
Garrett, John Dale Williams, and Avis Bourg III, and others
concerning the charter of the vessel), and PEO Exhibits 5-6
(letters from Kim Pitre and Leroy Guidry, respectively,
concerning the billing for the charter of the vessel) are
admissible to prove the knowledge of the recipient.
PEO Exhibit 7 is a letter from an attorney to the insurer of
PEO. Since the knowledge of PEO's insurer is not at issue in this
suit, this letter is presumptively inadmissible hearsay.
The Court finds OMC Exhibit 17 (a letter that says only
"Attached is the e-mail correspondence that you requested from
John") irrelevant and hence inadmissible. See Fed. R. Evid. 402.
New Orleans, Louisiana, this 21st day of June, 2013.
__
______________________
SARAH S. VANCE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
2