Warrior Energy Services Corporation et al v. ATP TITAN M/V et al

Filing 38

ORDER AND REASONS denying 33 Plaintiffs' Motion to Exclude Documents. Signed by Chief Judge Sarah S. Vance on 8/19/13. (jjs, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
WARRIOR ENERGY SERVICES
CORPORATION ET AL.

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

NO: 12-2297

ATP TITAN, in rem, AND ATP
TITAN, LLC, in personam

SECTION: R

ORDER
Before the Court is plaintiffs' motion to exclude documents
offered by defendants in the reply brief filed pursuant to their
motion to dismiss.1 Plaintiffs first contend that pleadings and
exhibits from cases preceding the United States Supreme Court's
decision in Lozman v. City of Riviera Beach, Fla., 133 S.Ct. 735
(2013) are irrelevant and therefore should be excluded pursuant
to Federal Rule of Evidence 401.

Plaintiffs argue that the issue

before the Court concerns the vessel status of the ATP TITAN
rather than whether the structures in earlier cases would now be
considered vessels in light of the holding of Lozman.
Evidence is considered relevant if "(a) it has any tendency
to make a fact more or less probable than it would be without the
evidence; and (b) the fact is of consequence in determining the
action." Fed. R. Evid. 401. The effect of the Lozman decision on
Fifth Circuit jurisprudence concerning floating platforms has not
yet been established, and the Court finds that the materials

1

R. Doc. 33.

presented are relevant in that they reveal the evidence on which
courts made their determinations as to whether structures should
be considered vessels.
Further, the Court finds to be unavailing plaintiffs'
argument that defendants rely on hearsay by introducing materials
drawn from other lawsuits. Plaintiffs object to various documents
that describe structures as either vessels or floating offshore
installations and deposition testimony and pleadings that discuss
the relevant characteristics of the structures at issue. Hearsay
is defined as a statement "(1) the declarant does not make while
testifying at the current trial or hearing; and (2) a party
offers in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted in
the statement." Fed. R. Evid. 801. The Court finds that the
exhibits to which plaintiffs object are not being offered for the
truth of the matter asserted. For example, defendants do not
point to deposition testimony from Mendez v. Anadarko to support
the position that the Red Hawk is a vessel or that it has any
particular characteristics. Rather, defendants seek to
demonstrate that many of the same arguments made by plaintiffs
here were presented in earlier cases and rejected by the courts.
Such information assists the Court in evaluating the
applicability of earlier precedent by establishing the evidence
before the courts. Whether or not the documents, deposition
testimony, or pleadings were accurate is irrelevant to their

2

purpose here. The Court thus finds that defendants' exhibits are
not offered for the truth of the matter asserted and may be
admitted. Plaintiffs' motion to strike is DENIED.

New Orleans, Louisiana, this 19th day of March, 2013.
__

_________________________________
SARAH S. VANCE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3