ORION DRILLING COMPANY, LLC. v. EQT PRODUCTION COMPANY
Filing
262
MEMORANDUM ORDER denying 255 Motion for Jury View of Drilling Rig by EQT Production Company. Signed by Magistrate Judge Maureen P. Kelly on 12/28/2018. (ndf)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
ORION DRILLING COMPANY, LLC.,
Plaintiff,
v.
EQT PRODUCTION COMPANY,
Defendant,
v.
EQT PRODUCTION COMPANY,
Counter Claimant,
v.
ORION DRILLING COMPANY, LLC.,
Counter Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Civil Action No. 16-1516
Magistrate Judge Maureen P. Kelly
Re: ECF No. 255
MEMORANDUM ORDER
Presently before the Court is a Motion for Jury View of a Drilling Rig filed on behalf of
Defendant EQT Production Company (“EQT”). ECF No. 255. EQT contends that a jury view
of a drilling rig will permit the jury to fully understand the questions at issue in this litigation by
improving an understanding of rigs, their operation and performance. EQT proposes that the
jury view be conducted on a Patterson-UTI Rig, which its expert states is “very similar in terms
of size, capacity, and function.” ECF No. 255-5.
In Kelley v. Wegman’s Food Markets, Inc., 98 F. App’x 102 (3d Cir. 2004), the United
States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed the trial court’s denial of a request for a
jury view of a store premises, citing time and site control, as well as the availability of
photographs, reports and witness testimony to permit a full understanding of the issues. In
reaching its decision, the Court explained,
‘a federal court, exercising its inherent powers, may allow a jury in either a civil
or a criminal case to view places or objects outside the courtroom.’ Clemente v.
Carnicon–Puerto Rico Management Assocs., L.C., 52 F.3d 383, 385 (1st
Cir.1995). However, a District Court’s decision to disallow a jury view ‘is highly
discretionary.’ United States v. Triplett, 195 F.3d 990, 999 (8th Cir.1999); see
also Clemente, 52 F.3d at 386; United States v. Passos–Paternina, 918 F.2d 979,
986 (1st Cir.1990). In Passos–Paternina, the Court affirmed the District Court’s
denial of the jury view due to the ‘dangerousness’ of the site in question (a ship)
and ‘the availability of sufficient testimonial evidence about the vessel.’ Passos–
Paternina, 918 F.2d at 986 (emphasis added); see also United States v. Culpepper,
834 F.2d 879, 883 (10th Cir.1987) (upholding the District Court’s denial of a jury
view where the site in question had changed due to rain and other circumstances
and because the evidence included photographs from the day after the events in
question occurred); Triplett, 195 F.3d at 999 (upholding the denial of a jury view
where the trial evidence included photographs and diagrams of the sites of the
defendant’s arrests in addition to testimony concerning the circumstances and
conditions at those locations at the relevant times).
Kelly, 98 F. App’x at 104.
In this case, it is apparent that the drilling rigs which are the subject of this litigation are
no longer available as they have been dismantled, relocated, and resold or modified. Given the
distance to the proposed site, it is likely that a tour of a drilling rig will likely require at least onehalf trial day and may further be impacted by the jury’s physical limitations. Further, the relative
danger of oil drilling environments has been placed at issue in this matter and must be considered
by the Court.
The absence of the proposed view will not impede the jury’s comprehension of the size
and operation of an oil rig, which most certainly will be aided by the numerous photographs and
documents previously made of record in this matter, as well as proposed expert testimony
concerning the conditions of each rig. Under these circumstances, a tour or view of a dissimilar
operational oil rig is not warranted, and, accordingly, the following Order is entered:
2
AND NOW, this 28th day of December, 2018, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that
Defendant EQT Production Company’s Motion for Jury View of a Drilling Rig is DENIED.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ Maureen P. Kelly __________________
MAUREEN P. KELLY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
cc:
All counsel of record via CM/ECF
3
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?