Jordan v. Ensco Offshore Company

Filing 174

ORDER AND REASONS on Pla's motion for permanent injunction 159 as set forth in document. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 5/21/16. (cbn)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
KEVIN JORDAN,
Plaintiff

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

NO. 15-1226

ENSCO OFFSHORE COMPANY,
Defendant

SECTION: “E” (1)

ORDER AND REASONS
Before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for a permanent injunction. 1 In light of the
Court’s ruling excluding Plaintiff’s July 22, 2014 diluted drug test results, 2 Plaintiff seeks
an additional ruling from the Court enjoining the Defendant from making any reference
to Plaintiff’s July 22, 2014 diluted drug test results and the fact that he was sent in for a
drug test.
Plaintiff identifies the following as warranting exclusion: (1) certain excerpts of
Vernon Lacaze’s deposition testimony, and (2) a portion of a related exhibit. Therefore,
the Court treat’s Plaintiff’s motion as an objection to portions of Mr. Lacaze’s deposition
testimony and an objection to the exhibit, an incident report, in light of the Court’s ruling
on the diluted drug test results. 3 Plaintiff takes issue with Page 56, lines 1 through 8, and
Page 88, lines 21 through 25, of the deposition. Plaintiff argues that these excerpts
concern Plaintiff’s July 22, 2014 diluted drug test, the results of which the Court has
excluded. Plaintiff contends the Defendant has refused to redact parts of these deposition
excerpts. Plaintiff makes a similar argument with respect to the document Bates labeled
EOC-KFJ-000003, an incident report which is part of Exhibit 5 in the joint bench books.
Plaintiff contends the Defendant is required, but has refused, to redact a particular
R. Doc. 159.
R. Doc. 137.
3 R. Doc. 137.
1

2

1

sentence which addresses Plaintiff’s July 22, 2014 drug test. The sentence reads: “Emp
was sent in for drug screen if he passes he will be reinstated to his position.” The
Defendant maintains that neither the testimony of Mr. Lacaze nor the sentence in the
incident report Bates labeled EOC-KFJ-000003 should be excluded. The Court rules on
these issues as follows.
I.

LACAZE DEPOSITION – PAGE 56, LINE 1 – LINE 8
a. Lines 1 – 4
Lines 1 through 4 are admissible. This testimony is not excluded under the Court’s

ruling on Plaintiff’s July 22, 2014 diluted drug test results. 4 The objection as to these lines
is OVERRULED.
b. Lines 5 – 8
The Defendant has agreed to redact these lines. However, the Plaintiff may decide
whether to use lines 5 through 8 in light of the Court’s overruling the objection to lines 1
through 4.
II.

LACAZE DEPOSITION – PAGE 88, LINES 21 – 25
a. Lines 21 – 23
Lines 21 through 23 are inadmissible. The testimony is speculative, confusing, and

would not be helpful to the jury. Moreover, the testimony was elicited by a leading
question of Plaintiff’s counsel. The objection to these lines is SUSTAINED.
b. Lines 24 – 25
The Defendant has agreed to redact these lines. They may not be used at trial.

4

See R. Doc. 137.
2

III.

EXHIBIT 5, BATES LABEL EOC-KFJ-000003
Plaintiff objects to the sentence in this document which reads: “Emp was sent in

for drug screen if he passes he will be reinstated to his position.” The objection to this
sentence is OVERRULED.
IV.

ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATION: EXHIBIT 6, BATES LABELS EOC-KFJ0000044-45
In response to Plaintiff’s motion, the Defendant identifies the documents Bates

labeled EOC-KFJ-0000044-45 as being related to Plaintiff’s diluted drug test. Bates label
EOC-KFJ-0000044 is the actual drug test report, and Bates EOC-KFJ-0000045 is a
related drug test form. These documents are excluded based on the Court’s ruling
excluding Plaintiff’s July 22, 2014 diluted drug test results. 5 The objection to these
documents is SUSTAINED.
New Orleans, Louisiana, this 21st day of May, 2016.

________________________________
SUSIE MORGAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

5

R. Doc. 137.
3