Anderson v. BP Exploration & Production, Inc. et al
Filing
80
ORDER AND REASONS: IT IS ORDERED that the 65 Motion to Exclude is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, to the extent the Plaintiff's arguments are construed as a spoliation motion, the spoliation motion is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the 66 Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 5/25/2023. (pp)
Case 2:17-cv-03023-SM-JVM Document 80 Filed 05/25/23 Page 1 of 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
CHRISTOPHER BERNARDO ANDERSON,
Plaintiff
CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS
NO. 17-3023
BP EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION
INC., ET AL.,
Defendants
SECTION: “E” (1)
ORDER AND REASONS
Before the Court is a motion in limine to exclude the opinions of Christopher
Bernardo Anderson’s (“Plaintiff”) general causation expert, Dr. Jerald Cook (“Cook”),
filed by BP Exploration & Production, BP America Production Company, and BP p.l.c.
(collectively “Defendants”).1 Also before the Court is the Defendants’ motion for summary
judgment.2 Plaintiff has filed oppositions to both motions, and Defendants have filed
replies. To the extent Plaintiff’s opposition to Defendants’ motion in limine makes
arguments that sound in spoliation, the Court construes those arguments as a spoliation
motion similar to those filed separately in other B3 cases.3 The Court is prepared to rule
on pending motions herein.
Defendant’s motion in limine and motion for summary judgment are nearly
identical to the ones filed by Defendants, and granted by this Court, in other B3 cases.4
Likewise, Plaintiff’s arguments construed as a spoliation motion are nearly identical to
R. Doc. 65. Halliburton Energy Services, Inc., Transocean Holdings LLC, Transocean Deepwater, Inc., and
Transocean Offshore Deepwater Drilling, Inc., additional Defendants, join in the motion in limine.
2 R. Doc. 66. Halliburton Energy Services, Inc., Transocean Holdings LLC, Transocean Deepwater, Inc., and
Transocean Offshore Deepwater Drilling, Inc., additional Defendants, join in the motion for summary
judgment.
3
See, e.g., Bruton v. BP Exploration & Production, Inc., et al., Civ. A. 17-3110 at R. Doc. 107 (E.D. La.
11/30/2022) (Morgan, J.).
4 See id.; Harrison v. BP Exploration & Production, Inc, et al., Civ. A. 17-4346 at R. Doc. 85 (7/1/2022)
(Morgan, J.).
1
1
Case 2:17-cv-03023-SM-JVM Document 80 Filed 05/25/23 Page 2 of 2
the ones filed by other B3 Plaintiffs, and denied by this Court, in other B3 cases.5
Accordingly, for the reasons stated in the Orders & Reasons issued in the cited B3
cases;
IT IS ORDERED that the motion in limine is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, to the extent the Plaintiff’s arguments are
construed as a spoliation motion, the spoliation motion is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the motion for summary judgment is
GRANTED. Judgment is granted in favor of Defendants BP Exploration & Production,
BP America Production Company, BP p.l.c., Halliburton Energy Services, Inc.,
Transocean Holdings LLC, Transocean Deepwater, Inc., and Transocean Offshore
Deepwater Drilling, Inc., and against Plaintiff on all claims.
New Orleans, Louisiana, this 25th day of May, 2023.
______________________ _________
SUSIE MORGAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
5
Bruton, Civ. A. 17-3110 at R. Doc. 107.
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?