Landry, et al v. Columbia Gulf, et al, No. 2:2004cv03290 - Document 112 (E.D. La. 2009)

Court Description: ORDER AND REASONS granting in part and denying in part 66 Motion to Strike Affidavit of Ellery Mayon. Signed by Judge Kurt D. Engelhardt on 11/23/2009. (caa, )

Download PDF
Landry, et al v. Columbia Gulf, et al Doc. 112 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA AUBIN LANDRY, ET AL CIVIL ACTION VERSUS NO. 04-3290 COLUMBIA GULF TRANSMISSION COMPANY, ET AL SECTION “N” (5) ORDER AND REASONS Before the Court is Defendants’ Motion to Strike Affidavit of Ellery Mayon (Rec. Doc. No. 66). The motion is opposed. Defendants contend that Mayon’s Affidavit is self-serving, is not based upon personal knowledge, makes speculative or conclusory remarks, and impermissive opines about matters for which he has no expertise. While the Court finds that many of the statements in Mayon’s Affidavit are indeed based upon his personal firsthand knowledge, acquired through years of use of the waterways involved, certain statements are rather broad and/or are not helpful. For instance, Mayon asserts that he has witnessed several vessels in the canal “all while in the course of their work” (¶ 14), and that “a significant portion of the vessel traffic through and around said canal are commercial vessels being operated for business purposes” (¶ 16). While most of the testimony set forth in the Affidavit is based upon personal firsthand knowledge and observation, or otherwise would constitute admissible 1 Dockets.Justia.com lay opinion (such as estimating distances with the naked eye), those unfounded passages concerning the purpose and work of other vessels do not appear to have support and will not be considered by the Court. Accordingly, the Motion to Strike is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART, as set forth herein. New Orleans, Louisiana, this 23rd day of November, 2009. ___________________________________ KURT D. ENGELHARDT United States District Judge 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.