Jordan v. Ensco Offshore Company, No. 2:2015cv01226 - Document 163 (E.D. La. 2016)

Court Description: ORDER AND REASONS that Plaintiff's 120 Objections to a designation of Forrest Phelp's deposition is OVERRULED. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan.(bwn)

Download PDF
Jordan v. Ensco Offshore Company Doc. 163 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 Forrest Phelps’s deposition. 1 For the following reasons, the objection is OVERRU LED . Plaintiff’s sole objection to the designations of J ustin Clifton’s deposition is to Page 35, line 8, through Page 36, line 15. 2 This excerpt of Mr. Phelps’s deposition is as follows: Q. All right. Do you rem em ber Kent Killion, the day after Kevin J ordan claim s that he injured his hand on the rig, addressing in the pretour m eeting, that no m atter how m inor the injury, it has to be reported right away? MR. ADAMS: Objection, hearsay THE WITNESS: Yes. EXAMINATION BY MR. SCHWARTZ: Q. Did you attend that pretour m eeting? A. I did attend the pretour m eeting. Q. Okay. And you heard him say that? A. Yes. MR. ADAMS: Objection. Hearsay. 1 R. 2 Doc. 120 . See id. 1 Dockets.Justia.com MR. SCHWARTZ: Your objection’s to hearsay? Is that correct? MR. ADAMS: He’s testifying what he heard som ebody else say MR. SCHWARTZ: Well, he attended the m eeting. It’s not what som ebody else said. It’s som ething he’s required to attend everyday and he heard it happen. So, yes, I believe that’s not hearsay. I think the objection -MR. ADAMS: I m aintain m y objection. MR. SCHWARTZ: I understand. I appreciate that. 3 Plaintiff argues the foregoing testim ony should be excluded because it is hearsay. 4 The Court disagrees. The statem ent is not being offered to prove the truth of the m atter asserted, i.e., the truth of what Mr. Killion stated during the pretour m eeting. Rather, the statem ent is being offered to establish that the statem ent was in fact m ade, regardless of its truth. 5 This objected-to excerpt of Mr. Phelps’s deposition is, by definition, not hearsay. The testim ony is adm issible, and the objection is OVERRU LED . N e w Orle an s , Lo u is ian a, th is 2 0 th d ay o f May, 2 0 16 . __________ _ _______ __ _______ SU SIE MORGAN U N ITED S TATES D ISTRICT J U D GE 3 R. Doc. 120 -1 at 11. R. Doc. 120 at 1– 2. 5 See, e.g., Lott v. Forrest Cn ty ., No. 2:14-CV-131-KS-MTP, 20 16 WL 10 50 296, at *1 (S.D. Miss. Mar. 16, 20 16) (“H ere, the statem en ts Cooley is testifyin g to are not offered to prove the truth of the subject of the statem ents, but rather to prove that the statem ents were m ade, regardless of their truth. This portion of the deposition , then , is not inadm issible as hearsay.”). 4 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.