Sundance Energy Oklahoma LLC v. Dan D Drilling Corporation

Filing 179

ORDER granting in part and denying in part 115 Motion in Limine Concerning "OSHA Evidence", as more fully set out. Signed by Honorable David L. Russell on 2/9/15. (jw)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
(1) SUNDANCE ENERGY
OKLAHOMA, LLC, d/b/a
SEO, LLC, and
(2) SUNDANCE ENERGY, INC.
Plaintiffs,
v.
DAN D. DRILLING
CORPORATION,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. CIV-13-991-R

ORDER
Before the Court is Defendant’s Motion in Limine Concerning “OSHA Evidence.”
Doc. No. 115. Defendant asks the Court to exclude evidence regarding a report written by
an official from the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (“OSHA”) and
resulting citations issued to Defendant because such evidence is inadmissible hearsay and
is unfairly prejudicial. Doc. No. 115, at 4. Defendant’s motion is granted in part and
denied in part.
The Court finds that both the report and the citations meet the requirements of the
public records exception to hearsay, as Defendant has not satisfied its burden to show that
the circumstances surrounding their creation indicate a lack of trustworthiness. See FED.
R. EVID. 803(8) (placing the burden on the “opponent [to] show that the source of
information or other circumstances indicate a lack of trustworthiness”). With regard to the
report, because any hearsay contained within the report must also fit within an exception
to the rule against hearsay, see FED. R. EVID. 805, the Court will admit only those parts of

the report that fall under the exception for statements by an opposing party, see FED. R.
EVID. 801(d)(2), and any other non-hearsay contained within the report. The undersigned
does not find the admission of such evidence to be unfairly prejudicial under Rule 403.
With regard to the citations, the Court finds that the citation related to the drilling
line does not violate Rule 403 and is admissible. See Doc. No. 115, Ex. 3, at 6. But any
probative value of the other citations is outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice to
Defendant, given that they do not directly relate to the cause of the accident at issue in
this case.1 Evidence of any other citations is therefore inadmissible. The parties may also
offer evidence of any abatement certification provided by Defendant to OSHA
concerning the drilling line citation,2 and the identical drilling line citation issued to, and
any resulting abatement certification provided by, Tres Management, Inc.3 Finally, the
parties may offer evidence of Defendant’s and Tres Management’s settlement agreements
with OSHA regarding the drilling line citations,4 but must redact any reference to other
citations.

1

Consistent with the Court’s ruling at the hearing on the motions in limine, Plaintiffs shall redact any
references to other citations against Defendant. Doc. No. 177, at 47-48.
2
See Doc. No. 115, Ex. 3, at 2 (“For each violation which you do not contest, you must provide
abatement certification to the Area Director of the OSHA office issuing the citation and identified
above.”).
3
See Doc. No. 115, Ex. 4, at 6.
4
See Doc. No. 115, Ex. 6, at 1 (“The Employer agrees to correct the hazards identified in the citations, or
as amended below.”); id. at 2 (“The Employer, by signing this settlement agreement, hereby waives its
rights to contest the above citation(s) and penalties, as amended in paragraph 4 of the Agreement.”).
2

IT IS SO ORDERED this 9th day of February, 2015.

3