Jordan v. Ensco Offshore Company, No. 2:2015cv01226 - Document 174 (E.D. La. 2016)

Court Description: ORDER AND REASONS on Pla's motion for permanent injunction 159 as set forth in document. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 5/21/16. (cbn)

Download PDF

Jordan v. Ensco Offshore Company Doc. 174 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’s m otion for a perm anent in junction. 1 In light of the Court’s ruling excluding Plaintiff’s J uly 22, 2014 diluted drug test results, 2 Plaintiff seeks an additional ruling from the Court enjoinin g the Defendant from m aking any reference to Plaintiff’s J uly 22, 20 14 diluted drug test results and the fact that he was sent in for a drug test. Plaintiff identifies the following as warranting exclusion: (1) certain excerpts of Vernon Lacaze’s deposition testim ony, and (2) a portion of a related exhibit. Therefore, the Court treat’s Plaintiff’s m otion as an objection to portions of Mr. Lacaze’s deposition testim ony and an objection to the exhibit, an incident report, in light of the Court’s ruling on the diluted drug test results. 3 Plaintiff takes issue with Page 56, lines 1 through 8 , and Page 8 8 , lines 21 through 25, of the deposition. Plaintiff argues that these excerpts concern Plaintiff’s J uly 22, 20 14 diluted drug test, the results of which the Court has excluded. Plaintiff contends the Defendant has refused to redact parts of these deposition excerpts. Plaintiff m akes a sim ilar argum ent with respect to the docum ent Bates labeled EOC-KFJ -0 0 0 0 0 3, an incident report which is part of Exhibit 5 in the joint bench books. Plaintiff contends the Defendant is required, but has refused, to redact a particular 1 R. Doc. 159. R. Doc. 137. 3 R. Doc. 137. 2 1 Dockets.Justia.com sentence which addresses Plaintiff’s J uly 22, 20 14 drug test. The sentence reads: “Em p was sent in for drug screen if he passes he will be reinstated to his position.” The Defendant m aintains that neither the testim ony of Mr. Lacaze nor the sentence in the incident report Bates labeled EOC-KFJ -0 0 0 0 0 3 should be excluded. The Court rules on these issues as follows. I. LACAZE D EPOS ITION – P AGE 56 , LIN E 1 – L IN E 8 a. Lines 1 – 4 Lines 1 through 4 are adm issible. This testim ony is not excluded under the Court’s ruling on Plaintiff’s J uly 22, 20 14 diluted drug test results. 4 The objection as to these lines is OVERRU LED . b. Lines 5 – 8 The Defendant has agreed to redact these lines. However, the Plaintiff m ay decide whether to use lines 5 through 8 in light of the Court’s overruling the objection to lines 1 through 4. II. LACAZE D EPOS ITION – P AGE 8 8 , LIN ES 2 1 – 2 5 a. Lines 21 – 23 Lines 21 through 23 are inadm issible. The testim ony is speculative, confusing, and would not be helpful to the jury. Moreover, the testim ony was elicited by a leading question of Plaintiff’s counsel. The objection to these lines is SU S TAIN ED . b. Lines 24 – 25 The Defendant has agreed to redact these lines. They m ay not be used at trial. 4 See R. Doc. 137. 2 III. E XH IBIT 5, B ATES LAB EL EOC-KFJ -0 0 0 0 0 3 Plaintiff objects to the sentence in this docum ent which reads: “Em p was sent in for drug screen if he passes he will be reinstated to his position.” The objection to this sentence is OVERRU LED . IV. A D D ITION AL CON SID ERATION : E XH IBIT 6 , B ATES LABELS EOC-KFJ 0 0 0 0 0 4 4 -4 5 In response to Plaintiff’s m otion, the Defendant identifies the docum ents Bates labeled EOC-KFJ -0 0 0 0 0 44-45 as being related to Plaintiff’s diluted drug test. Bates label EOC-KFJ -0 0 0 0 0 44 is the actual drug test report, and Bates EOC-KFJ -0 0 0 0 0 45 is a related drug test form . These docum ents are excluded based on the Court’s ruling excluding Plaintiff’s J uly 22, 20 14 diluted drug test results. 5 The objection to these docum ents is S U STAIN ED . N e w Orle an s , Lo u is ian a, th is 2 1s t d ay o f May, 2 0 16 . ________________________________ SU SIE MORGAN U N ITED S TATES D ISTRICT J U D GE 5 R. Doc. 137. 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.