In Re: Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether ("MTBE") Products Liability Litigation
Filing
3930
DECLARATION of Michael A. Walsh in Support re: (364 in 1:07-cv-10470-SAS, 34 in 1:14-cv-01014-SAS, 3927 in 1:00-cv-01898-SAS-DCF) MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction.. Document filed by Tauber Oil. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G, # 8 Exhibit H, # 9 Exhibit I)Filed In Associated Cases: 1:00-cv-01898-SAS-DCF, 1:07-cv-10470-SAS, 1:14-cv-01014-SAS(Walsh, Michael)
EXHIBIT A
Kevin Wilson
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
IN RE: METHYL TERTIARY
BUTYL ETHER ("MTBE)
LIABILI
LITIGATION
PRODUCTS
COMMONWEALTH OF PUERTO
RICO, ET AL.
PLAINTIFF,
MASTER FI
NO. 1:00-1898
M21-88
MDL 1358(SAS)
CASE NO. 07-CIV-10470
(SAS)
VS.
SHELL OIL CO., ET AL.,
DEFENDANTS.
DEPOSITION OF
TAUBER OIL THROUGH KEVIN WILSON
DECEMBER 16, 2013
VOLUME 1
Called as a witness by counsel for the
Plaintiffs, taken before Dorothy A. Rull, CSR, CRR,
a Certified Shorthand Reporter and Notary Public In
and for the State of Texas, on the 16th day of
December, 2013, from 12:35 p.m. to 5:12 p.m., at the
law offices of Strasburger & Price, LLP, 909 Fannin
Street, Suite 2300, Houston, Texas 77010, pursuant
to Notice and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Golkow Technologies, Inc. - 1.877.370.DEPS
Kevin
1
would
2
the contracted
be to their
Wilson
discretion
volume
3
Q.
A.
Now,
vessel
they
load
on to.
SO in --
4
what
it would
5
for -- for vessel
6
information
7
rejected
8
limitations
9
vetting
the vessel
11
type
of documents
12
this
lS
13
these
14
disallow
vessels
vessel
17
TPC.
19
20
21
Guard
that
certification,
they want
record
-- then
the vessel
comes
We're
Q.
stuff
they
wholly
If TPC
draft
they
call
hasn't
and had the
out there
on all
disapprove
and
to be loaded.
the pass-through
approval
party,
to load the
in this
the destination
irrelevant
It's
irrelevant
is completely
to Tauber.
It's
to TPC.
22
Q.
Okay.
23
A.
The only people
24
relevant
Golkow
to here
that
it would
be
is SGS.
Technologies,
Inc.
case,
party.
irrelevant?
A.
had
to see -- because
could
from the terminal
And
size,
-- it's what
So the ultimate
16
take that
If -- if the vessel
all public
15
18
due to vessel
procedures.
Coast
We would
it to our supplier.
or any other
its proper
to be ran by us
particulars.
and pass
10
have
- 1.877.370.DEPS
and
Kevin Wilson
1
operations of moving -- movement of the oil.
2
BY MR. SHORT:
3
4
So did Marilyn have a similarly situated
Q.
individual like Scott Podsednik?
MS. FARLEY:
5
A.
6
Objection, form.
I can't speak to that, other than I see
7
this contract is written between Mark Matthiesen and
8
Scott.
9
Phillips who purchased this product --
10
So Mark Matthiesen is the individual at
BY MR. SHORT:
11
Q.
12
A.
13
Q.
Okay.
according to this document.
Do you have any reason -- any
14
independent fact to believe that the MTBE that is
15
the subject of this file did not get discharged in
16
Puerto Rico?
17
MS. FARLEY:
18
MR. WALSH:
19
Objection, form.
I join in that
objection.
20
A.
I don't.
I don't know.
I don't have
21
discharge documentation here to know if that is, in
22
fact, where it went.
23
case.
24
BY MR. SHORT:
Golkow Technologies,
I can only presume that's the
Inc. - 1.877.370.DEPS
Kevin Wilson
Page 74
1
2
documents?
3
4
Would it be common to have discharge
Q.
No.
A.
generally spea
In fact, it's strictly forbidden,
ng.
5
Q.
And why
6
A.
Because it's a FOB transaction, and it's
lS
it strictly forbidden?
7
quite commonplace in this industry, and just in
8
general, that you're limited to your
9
the knowledge is limited to what you transact to do
10
you know,
and that -- that's it.
The industry as a whole maintains
11
12
that because of proprietary
information.
They don't
13
want
14
sell it to Chevron, and that purchase from Dow was
15
made through an intermediary like Vitol, Vitol
16
purchased it from Dow and sells it to me and Vitol
17
knows where my customer takes it, why would Vitol
18
want us in the middle of that transaction?
if I were to purchase product from Dow and
19
People don't share this type of
20
information.
21
Q.
22
relating to
23
A.
Destination.
24
Q.
-- destination,
I
Not in this business.
And the type of information, much of it
and the identity of --
Golkow Technologies, Inc. - 1.877.370.DEPS
Kevin Wilson
ge
1
2
Of who's -- who's receiving it
ultimately.
3
Q.
-- the entities that are purchasing it?
4
A.
No.
The entities that are ultimately
5
consuming it or, in many cases, the entities who are
6
producing it.
7
Q.
So either upstream or downstream?
8
A.
Right.
9
Q.
Okay.
10
(Exhibit No.6
11
MR. WALSH:
Are you done with
MR. SHORT:
Yes.
12
Exhibit No.5?
13
14
15
16
marked.)
BY MR. SHORT:
Q.
And I'm handing you what is marked
Tauber 6.
17
MR. SHORT:
Copy for counsel.
18
MR. WALSH:
Thank you.
19
MR. SHORT:
Copy for counsel.
20
MS. FARLEY:
21
22
Thank you.
BY MR. SHORT:
Q.
And for the record, Exhibit 6 is Bates
23
numbered Tauber002277, and this document is a fax
24
from Marilyn Dugan to mUltiple recipients, including
Golkow Technologies,
Inc. - 1.877.370.DEPS
Kevin Wilson
Page 103
1
it appear that there was 55,000 barrels of MTBE that
2
was loaded on the HMI ASTRACHEM at the T
3
terminal?
4
A.
Yes.
5
Q.
And to the last page --
6
A.
Yes.
7
Q.
--
-Houston
8
next to the ves sel, it says "HMI
ASTRACHEM/EX OMI STAR."
9
A.
What does that mean?
It means -- it likely means -- I can't
10
know for sure, but it likely means that the HMI
11
ASTRACHEM was renamed and used to be called the OMI
12
STAR.
Q.
And does the destination indicate Puerto
15
A.
Yes.
16
Q.
Do you have any independent facts to
13
14
Rico?
17
indicate that this shipment of MTBE was not
18
discharged in Puerto Rico?
MS. FARLEY:
19
20
A.
Objection, form.
I cannot tell where any of these
21
discharge, because, again, once they're -- the FOB
22
transactions occur and we pass title at the rail,
23
the receiver can take it wherever they want, as
24
often occurs.
On many transactions that I do, they
Golkow Technologies,
Inc. - 1.877.370.DEPS
Kevin Wilson
1
ultimately end up in Asia.
2
the time.
3
BY MR. SHORT:
4
This happens to me all
Can you give me an example of when a
Q.
5
purchaser has identified a destination and then you
6
later learned that it went to a different
7
destination?
8
A.
With MTBE?
9
Q.
Well, refer to a current example that
10
No.
you're aware of.
11
A.
Well, what happens -- happens frequently
12
In our business is they don't -- they don't label
13
it.
14
labeled.
15
they don't want to expose where it's going.
16
It's "one safe port to Far East."
Q.
It's not
And they do that very specifically because
And in a circumstance where a port is
17
labeled, do you have specific knowledge of that port
18
changing?
19
A.
Neither -- no.
20
Q.
Do you have any independent facts that
I don't.
21
leads you to believe that the particular shipment of
22
MTBE that's identified in Exhibit No. 10 was not
23
discharged in Puerto Rico?
24
MS. FARLEY:
Golkow Technologies,
Objection, form.
Inc. - 1.877.370.DEPS
Kevin Wilson
Page 105
1
A.
That's something you would have to go to
2
Phillips for.
3
asked that, I have no way of knowing.
4
I mean, in each case that I'm being
MR. SHORT:
Would you mind taking 10
6
MR. WALSH:
Didn't we just take
7
MR. SHORT:
Off the record.
8
THE VIDEOGRAPHER:
5
9
minutes--
Okay.
We're off
the record 2:42 p.m.
10
(Recess.)
11
THE VIDEOGRAPHER:
12
record at 2:57 p.m.
13
14
15
16
17
(Exhibit No. 11 marked.)
BY MR. SHORT:
Q.
I'm handing you what's marked as Tauber
Exhibit No. 11.
A.
Tauber 11.
18
MR. SHORT:
19
MR. GOOLSBY:
20
MS. FARLEY:
21
22
We're back on the
A copy.
Thank you.
Thank you.
BY MR. SHORT:
Q.
And for the record, this document is
23
Bates stamped TauberOOl246.
24
TauberOOl248.
Golkow Technologies,
If you could turn to
Inc. - 1.877.370.DEPS
Kevin Wilson
Page 133
1
appointment and the general nominal volume to be
2
loaded is understood, that's really all that people
3
care about.
4
quantity, the location and the date.
5
apply to most everyone
6
we've gone through --
They care about the quality, the
7
Q.
A.
-- and that
of these transactions that
And what --
8
And that would
9
lS
what is in particular
importance to the commercial parties involved.
10
Other things may be important to the surveyors,
11
namely point of discharge, but not to the
12
transaction parties involved.
13
Q.
SO with your communications with Marilyn
14
Dugan, you would never, under no uncertain
15
circumstances, discuss the destinations
16
products?
17
A.
It's none of Tauber's business.
MS. FARLEY:
18
19
20
for
Objection, form.
BY MR. SHORT:
Q.
But you -- I understand you're saying
21
it's none of Tauber's business.
Did you ever
22
discuss the destination of product?
23
A.
No.
We did not discuss that.
24
Q.
Did you ever discuss the destination of
Golkow Technologies,
Inc. - 1.877.370.DEPS
Kevin
1
understand
2
conveying
3
communicate
4
point
5
in this
6
it did not go there,
what
that
Wilson
this means.
for purposes
his
loading
of discharge,
case.
on board
9
ship.
10
not have
11
no loss exposure
12
participate
13
We are done.
14
there
15
because,
of all the files
16
we could
look
17
periods
18
reo
Because
20
BY MR.
22
23
It's a free
We do
whatsoever.
We have
We do not
at point
is there
of discharge.
to communicate,
odd that
other
you wouldn't
and it's
it's there,
that we could
at, with many
of time,
conveyed
go back
products
see that
it's just what Marilyn
over
and
long
information
did.
She
it in that way.
SHORT:
Q.
So this
A.
21
interest
-- and it's quite
is there.
on the vessel.
in the inspection
that
at the rail to the
of the cargo.
That
obviously
to suggest
no involvement.
title
any ownership
Rico,
is why that
It passed
contract.
We do not have
19
is Puerto
but that
can
to the relevant
no information
We have
it's
so the surveyor
information
which
I have
7
8
You know,
lS -- you're
saylng
this
lS very
It lS odd.
odd?
MR. WALSH:
24
Golkow
Technologies,
Inc.
Let me just make
- 1.877.370.DEPS
sure
Kevin Wilson
Page 168
IN THE UNI D STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
IN RE: METHYL TERTIARY
BUTYL ETHER ("MTBE)
LIABILITY LITIGATION
PRODUCTS
COMMONWEALTH OF PUERTO
RICO, ET AL.
PLAINTIFF,
MASTER FILE
NO. 1:00-1898
lY121- 8 8
MDL
1358(SAS)
CASE NO. 07-CIV-10470
(SAS)
VS.
SHELL OIL CO., ET AL.,
DEFENDANTS.
CONTINUED DEPOSITION OF
TABER OIL THROUGH KEVIN WILSON
DECEMBER 17, 2013
VOLUME 2
Called as a witness by counsel for the
Plaintiffs, taken before Dorothy A. Rull, CSR, CRR,
a Certified Shorthand Reporter and Notary Public ln
and for the State of Texas, on the 17th day of
December, 2013, from 10:07 a.m. to 11:03 a.m., at
the law offices of Strasburger & Price, LLP,
909 Fannin Street, Suite 2300, Houston, Texas 77010,
pursuant to Notice and the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure.
Golkow Technologies,
Inc. - 1.877.370.DEPS
Kevin Wilson
Page
1
of documents
2
destination.
3
4
on nominations
If we could
Q.
I'll direct
that
then
show
200
turn
the
to Exhibit
5.
And
you to Tauber002350.
5
A.
50.
6
Q.
And this
7
A.
Yes.
8
Q.
Is this
9
discussed
lS
a fax; correct?
similar
to other
faxes
that we
it is from a Marilyn
Dugan
to a
yesterday?
10
A.
Yes.
11
Q.
And
12
number
of recipients,
13
attention
Kevin
including
Tauber
Houston,
Wilson?
14
A.
Yes.
15
Q.
And next
16
"destination,"
A.
17
is Puerto
Rico
MR. WALSH:
was
that page
MR.
121
MR. WALSH:
23
24
BY MR.
Q.
inform
indicated?
Nathan,
I'm sorry.
What
number?
20
22
says
Yes.
18
19
to the line that
SHORT:
It's Tauber002350.
Okay.
SHORT:
Did you ever
instruct
you of the intended
Phillips
destination
not to
of MTBE
Golkow Technologies, Inc. - 1.877.370.DEPS
you
Kevin
Wilson
Page
1
201
sold to them?
2
MS.
A.
3
FARLEY:
It would
Objection,
form.
not be relevant.
4
be no cause
5
6
Q.
But did you?
7
A.
Not that
S
Q.
Okay.
10
destination
change
to inform
would
BY MR. SHORT:
9
to ask them
There
I recall.
Did knowing
as identified
as
MS.
12
MR. WALSH:
form.
15
That's
this
lS
FARLEY:
a loaded
Again,
A.
14
of Phillips'
Yeah.
there's
form.
Objection
no cause.
This
if I recall
the concern
17
operations
IS
movement
would
19
quantity
and quality
20
to the
21
Q.
So it wouldn't
22
A.
It wouldn't
23
Q.
what
24
A.
this
one.
that any
in any manner.
end with
have with
is --
BY MR. SHORT:
Golkow
would
them?
question.
You know,
person
with
Objection,
an FOB transaction,
16
intended
in this document
the way that you did business
11
13
or not inform.
a relative
the certification
at the title
transfer
-- it wouldn't
affect
of
point.
affect
anything.
you did on a day-to-day
Technologies,
Inc.
--
- I.S77.370.DEPS
basis?
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?