Jordan v. Ensco Offshore Company, No. 2:2015cv01226 - Document 137 (E.D. La. 2016)

Court Description: ORDER AND REASONS granting 76 Motion in Limine to Exclude Evidence of July 22, 2014 Diluted Drug Test. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 5/16/2016. (bwn)

Download PDF
Jordan v. Ensco Offshore Company Doc. 137 U N ITED S TATES D ISTRICT COU RT EASTERN D ISTRICT OF LOU ISIAN A KEVIN JORD AN Pla in tiff CIVIL ACTION VERSU S N O. 15 -12 2 6 EN SCO OFFSH ORE COMPAN Y D e fe n d an t SECTION : “E” ( 1) ORD ER AN D REAS ON S Before the Court is Plaintiff Kevin J ordan’s m otion in lim ine to exclude evidence of his J uly 22, 20 14 drug test results. The m otion is opposed. For the reasons that follow, the m otion is GRAN TED . The accident that is the subject of this lawsuit occurred on March 3, 20 13. Plaintiff took a post-accident drug test on March 6, 20 13. 1 The results of the March 6th drug test were negative. 2 More than a year later on J uly 22, 20 14, Plaintiff was again adm inistered a drug test. 3 The results of the J uly 22nd drug test were “diluted.”4 Plaintiff m oves to exclude his J uly 22, 2014 drug test results on several grounds. First, Plaintiff argues the J uly 22nd results are irrelevant, as it is clear from the results of his March 6, 20 13 drug test that he was not on drugs at the tim e of the March 3, 20 13 accident. 5 Second, Plaintiff argues that his J uly 22, 20 14 drug test results are unfairly prejudicial and will confuse and m islead the jury. 6 Third, Plaintiff contends the J uly 22, 20 14 drug test results should be excluded because the results were “diluted,” and the Defendant has not retained an expert toxicologist who can testify as to the m eaning or significance of a diluted drug test. 7 1 R. Doc. 76-2 at 1 (Exhibit A, 3/ 6/ 13 drug test results). Id. 3 R. Doc. 76-3 at 1 (Exhibit B, 7/ 22/ 14 drug test results). 4 Id. 5 R. Doc. 76-1 at 1– 2. 6 Id. at 2. 7 Id. at 2– 3. 2 1 Dockets.Justia.com The Court recently considered this very issue in How ard v. Offshore Liftboats, et al. 8 In How ard, the plaintiffs sought to introduce eviden ce of a defense witness’s “diluted” drug test results to impeach the witness’s credibility. 9 The defendants objected to the adm issibility of the diluted drug test results prior to trial. 10 The defendants argued that the results were inadm issible because the plaintiffs had not retained an expert witness who “prepared a report in connection with testifying regarding . . . the m eaning of ‘dilute.’”11 The Court sustained the defense objection, fin ding that the “diluted drug test results would have to be interpreted by an expert witness to be helpful to the jury.”12 The Court further noted that, because the plaintiffs had “no expert qualified to testify on the m eaning and significance of . . . ‘diluted’ drug test results,” the results were inadm issible. 13 The sam e result is warranted in this case. The Defen dant seeks to introduce eviden ce of Plaintiff’s J uly 22, 20 14 diluted drug test results, but the Defendant has not retained an expert qualified to testify as to the m eaning and/ or significance of diluted drug test results. The Defendant argues, con trary to the Court’s reasoning in How ard, that expert testim ony sim ply is not needed to “interpret the Plaintiff’s diluted drug screen.”14 The Court disagrees. Without such expert testim ony, evidence of Plaintiff’s diluted drug test results would not be helpful to the jury. For that reason, Plaintiff’s J uly 22, 20 14 drug test results are excluded from trial. IT IS SO ORD ERED . 8 How ard v. Offshore Liftboats, et al., No. 13-CV-4811, R. Doc. 724 at 5. Id. 10 How ard v. Offshore Liftboats, et al., No. 13-CV-4811, R. Doc. 60 0 at 5. 11 Id. 12 How ard v. Offshore Liftboats, et al., No. 13-CV-4811, R. Doc. 724 at 5. 13 Id. 14 R. Doc. 84 at 1. 9 2 N e w Orle an s , Lo u is ian a, th is 16 th d ay o f May, 2 0 16 . _______ _____________ __________ SU SIE MORGAN U N ITED S TATES D ISTRICT J U D GE 3

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.