Jordan v. Ensco Offshore Company, No. 2:2015cv01226 - Document 158 (E.D. La. 2016)
Court Description: ORDER AND REASONS - Before the Court are Defendant ENSCO Offshore Companys objections to certain trial exhibits. The Defendant objects to Exhibits 44 through 58. The Court rules on the objections as noted herein. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 5/19/2016.(bwn)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Jordan v. Ensco Offshore Company Doc. 158 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 are Defendant ENSCO Offshore Com pany’s objections to certain trial exhibits. 1 The Defendant objects to Exhibits 44 through 58. The Court rules on the objections as follows. E XHIBIT 44 This exhibit has been withdrawn. The objection is OVERRU LED AS MOOT. E XHIBIT 45 This exhibit has been withdrawn. The objection is OVERRU LED AS MOOT. E XHIBIT 46 This exhibit has been withdrawn. The objection is OVERRU LED AS MOOT. E XHIBIT 47 This exhibit has been withdrawn. The objection is OVERRU LED AS MOOT. E XHIBIT 48 This exhibit has been withdrawn. The objection is OVERRU LED AS MOOT. E XHIBIT 49 Exhibit 49 consists of two Facebook postings by J oanna J ordan (KFJ 0 0 0 40 5, KFJ 0 0 0 40 9) and screenshots of a num ber of text m essages (KFJ 0 0 0 40 6-40 8). 1 R. Doc. 132. 1 Dockets.Justia.com a. KFJ 0 0 0 40 5 The Facebook post Bates labeled KFJ 0 0 0 40 5 is adm issible. In this Facebook post, Ms. J ordan com m ented that she was “calling ensco right now and taking them up on their offer.” During her deposition, Ms. J ordan acknowledged that she created this Facebook post, and counsel had an opportunity at that tim e to discuss the post with Ms. J ordan an d to cross-exam ine her with respect to it. The objection with respect to the Facebook post that is Bates labeled KFJ 0 0 0 40 5 in Exhibit 49 is OVERRU LED . b. KFJ 0 0 0 40 6-40 8 The text m essages Bates labeled KFJ 0 0 0 40 6-40 8 are inadm issible. When asked at her deposition, Ms. J ordan did not rem em ber sen ding these text m essages or being involved in the conversation. The objection with respect to the text m essages Bates labeled KFJ 0 0 0 40 6-40 8 in Exhibit 49 is S U STAIN ED . c. KFJ 0 0 0 40 9 The Facebook post Bates labeled KFJ 0 0 0 40 9 in Exhibit 49 is identical to Exhibit 50 . For the reasons stated below with respect to Exhibit 50 , this Facebook post is inadm issible, and the Defendant’s objection to it is SU STAIN ED . E XHIBIT 50 Exhibit 50 is an excerpt of a Facebook conversation between J oanna J ordan and a num ber of other individuals. Plaintiff represents that the conversation is significant because in it J oanna J ordan “identified her ex-husband as a victim of m olestation.”2 According to Plaintiff, this conversation shows Ms. J ordan’s character: “She carelessly or callously exposed a very personal and painful experience of her husband sim ply to garner attention.” Having reviewed the exhibit, the Court finds that the exhibit is irrelevant to 2 R. Doc. 148 at 2. 2 any issues in this case and has m inim al probative value. Exhibit 50 is inadm issible. The Defendant’s objection to Exhibit 50 is S U STAIN ED . E XHIBIT 51 This exhibit has been withdrawn. The objection is OVERRU LED AS MOOT. E XHIBIT 52 This exhibit has been withdrawn. The objection is OVERRU LED AS MOOT. E XHIBIT 53 Exhibit 53 is a draft of a Child Support and Property Settlem ent Agreem ent. This agreem ent was circulated between the Plaintiff and J oanna J ordan in the context of their divorce proceedings. Plaintiff argues the exhibit is relevant because it indicates that Ms. J ordan has an interest in the outcom e of these proceedings. The agreem ent was not signed by either party. Moreover, the agreem ent in the bench books is m erely a draft, and there is no evidence as to whether it ever took effect. Exhibit 53 is inadm issible. The objection to this exhibit is SU STAIN ED . E XHIBIT 54 Exhibit 54 is a screenshot of J oanna J ordan’s Facebook post in which she said she was “calling en sco right now and taking them up on their offer.” This exhibit is identical to the Facebook post Bates labeled KFJ 0 0 0 40 5 in Exhibit 49, which the Court ruled is adm issible. For the reasons stated above with respect to Exhibit 49, Bates label KFJ 0 0 0 40 5, the objection is OVERRU LED . E XHIBIT 55 Exhibit 55 is identical to Exhibit 50 . It is the Facebook conversation involving J oanna J ordan and other unidentified in dividuals. For the reasons stated above with 3 respect to Exhibit 50 , this Facebook conversation is inadm issible. The Defendant’s objection to Exhibit 55 is SU STAIN ED . E XHIBIT 56 Exhibit 56 is a screenshot of J oanna J ordan’s Facebook page and, specifically, an im age with the caption: “Pull up to m y ex wit m y feelings m issing!!!” Ms. J ordan adm itted in her deposition that she posted this im age to her Facebook page. Counsel had an opportunity at that tim e to discuss the post with Ms. J ordan and to cross-exam ine her with respect to it. This exhibit is adm issible, and the objection is OVERRU LED . E XHIBIT 57 Exhibit 57 is a 10 3-page printout of Ms. J ordan’s Facebook page. Plaintiff has withdrawn a m ajority of this exhibit and now seeks to introduce only two pages of Exhibit 57, specifically the pages Bates labeled KFJ 0 0 0 461 and KFJ 0 0 0 464. These pages in Exhibit 57 were discussed with Ms. J ordan during her deposition. Ms. J ordan acknowledged having created the Facebook posts on the pages Bates labeled KFJ 0 0 0 461 and KFJ 0 0 0 464. These pages of Exhibit 57 are adm issible, but only with respect to the Facebook com m ents from Ms. J ordan. Because com m ents from other Facebook users are also present on the pages Bates labeled KFJ 0 0 0 461 an d KFJ 0 0 0 464, those com m ents m ust be redacted before the pages can be shown to the jury and introduced into eviden ce. E XHIBIT 58 This exhibit has been withdrawn. The objection is OVERRU LED AS MOOT. IT IS SO ORD ERED . N e w Orle an s , Lo u is ian a, th is 19 th d ay o f May, 2 0 16 . ______ _________________________ SU SIE MORGAN U N ITED S TATES D ISTRICT J U D GE 4
]]>
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.
