Jordan v. Ensco Offshore Company, No. 2:2015cv01226 - Document 143 (E.D. La. 2016)

Court Description: ORDER AND REASONS re 122 Objections filed by Kevin Jordan - Plaintiff's objection to Page 29, line 16, through Page 30, line 4, of Justin Clifton's deposition is SUSTAINED. This portion of Mr. Clifton's video deposition is excluded. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan.(bwn)

Download PDF
Jordan v. Ensco Offshore Company Doc. 143 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 objection to a designation of J ustin Clifton’s deposition. 1 For the following reasons, the objection is SU S TAIN ED . Plaintiff’s sole objection to the designations of J ustin Clifton’s deposition is to Page 29, line 16, through Page 30 , line 4. 2 This excerpt of Mr. Clifton’s deposition is as follows: Q. Okay. If I would tell you that Mr. J ordan did not report that there was a burr or a wire strand on the cable on the air hoist that caused his hand to be injured at 9:0 0 o’clock on March 3rd, what happens, as far as the safety of the other m en, until he reports it at 6:0 0 a.m . the next m orning? A. Possibly -MR. ADAMS: Objection. Calls for speculation. Q. (BY MR. SCHWARTZ) What happens if no one else knows about the injury? A. Hurt som ebody else. Q. It could hurt som ebody else, correct? A. Yes, sir. 3 Plaintiff argues the foregoing testim ony should be excluded because it am ounts to speculation and is confusing. 4 Plaintiff notes: “In this case, counsel for Defendant asked 1 R. Doc. 122. See R. Doc. 122-1 at 1– 2. 3 R. Doc. 122-1 at 8 ; R. Doc. 122-2. 4 R. Doc. 122 at 1. 2 1 Dockets.Justia.com a hypothetical and highly confusing question which called for Mr. Clifton to guess or speculate an answer.”5 Federal Rule of Eviden ce 70 1 provides: “If a witness is not testifyin g as an expert, testim ony in the form of an opinion is lim ited to one that is: (a) rationally based on the witness’s perception; (b) helpful to clearly understanding the witness’s testim ony or to determ ining a fact in issue; and (c) not based on scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge within the scope of Rule 70 2.” Mr. Clifton is a fact witness, having worked alongside the Plaintiff as a fellow floorhand for ENSCO. 6 Mr. Clifton did not witness the accident-in-question, though he did observe the wound to Plaintiff’s finger the next day. 7 Mr. Clifton’s testim ony is useful only to provide insight into the nature of Plaintiff’s job as a floorhand, the duties and responsibilities that go along with being a floorhand and working offshore, and the extent of Plaintiff’s injury. Mr. Clifton’s testim ony does not qualify as adm issible lay opinion testim on y under Federal Rule of Evidence 70 1 because it is not rationally based on his perception and it will not be helpful to understanding a fact in issue because of its confusing and speculative nature. Accordingly; Plaintiff’s objection to Page 29, line 16, through Page 30 , line 4, of J ustin Clifton’s deposition is SU STAIN ED . This portion of Mr. Clifton’s video deposition is excluded. IT IS SO ORD ERED . N e w Orle an s , Lo u is ian a, th is 18 th d ay o f May, 2 0 16 . ______ _________________________ SU SIE MORGAN U N ITED S TATES D ISTRICT JU D GE 5 R. Doc. 122 at 1. R. Doc. 69 at 2. 7 R. Doc. 122-1 at 4. 6 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.