Wright's Well Control Services, LLC v. Oceaneering International, Inc. et al, No. 2:2015cv01720 - Document 340 (E.D. La. 2017)

Court Description: ORDER AND REASONS granting in part and denying in part 264 Motion for reconsideration or clarification of the Court's August 23, 2017 order. Signed by Judge Sarah S. Vance on 12/28/2017. (blg)

Download PDF
Wright's Well Control Services, LLC v. Oceaneering International, Inc. et al Doc. 340 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA WRIGHT’S WELL CONTROL SERVICES, LLC CIVIL ACTION VERSUS NO. 15-1720 OCEANEERING INTERNATIONAL, INC. SECTION “R” (3) ORD ER AN D REASON S Plaintiff Wright’s Well Control Services, LLC m oves for reconsideration or clarification of the Court’s August 23, 20 17 order. 1 For the following reasons, the Court grants in part and denies in part plaintiff’s m otion. I. BACKGROU N D The facts and allegations that follow are lim ited to what is relevant to the two m otions before the Court. 2 Plaintiff Wright’s Well Control Services, LLC (WWCS) and Defendant Oceaneering International, Inc. (Oceaneering) 1 R. Doc. 264. A m ore in-depth discussion of the facts underlying this dispute can be found in the Court’s Novem ber 16, 20 15 Order. See generally R. Doc. 56. A m ore extensive discussion of the deep-sea technology and associated patents at issue can be found in the Court’s February 13, 20 17 Order. See generally R. Doc. 141. 2 Dockets.Justia.com both provide hydrate rem ediation services for the oil and gas industry. WWCS alleges that by the end of 20 0 9 it developed a “hydrate remediation system ” that provided a faster, safer, and m ore cost-effective way to clear hydrates in deepwater environm ents. 3 It further alleges that Oceaneering and WWCS worked together on at least two hydrate rem ediation projects in 20 0 9 and 20 10 , the ATP job and the Marubeni J ob. 4 WWCS contends that, while working together on these jobs, Oceaneering stole WWCS trade secrets related to its hydrate rem ediation system to develop Oceaneering’s own hydrate remediation system, the “Flowline Rem ediation System ” (FRS). Oceaneering asserts that at som e point between 20 0 9 and 20 11, Oceaneering independently built its FRS without trade secrets from WWCS, and started to use its FRS in com petition with WWCS’s system . 5 On May 21, 20 15, WWCS filed its initial com plaint against Oceaneering, pleading patent infringem ent as well as various claim s under Texas and Louisiana state law. 6 On Novem ber 16, 20 15, the Court dism issed WWCS’s breach of contract claim with prejudice to the extent it that rested on inform ation in WWCS’s patent applications or on conduct that occurred 3 4 5 6 R. Doc. 147 at 4-6. R. Doc. 182-2 at 3-9. R. Doc. 182-1 at 6. R. Doc. 1. 2 after December 11, 20 12, and dism issed plaintiff’s statutory trade secret m isappropriation claim under the Texas Uniform Trade Secrets Act. 7 After plaintiff filed a second and third am ended com plaint, Oceaneering m oved to dism iss plaintiff’s federal patent infringem ent claim s. On February 13, 20 17, the Court granted Oceaneering’s m otion and dism issed WWCS’s patent claim s, but without prejudice and with leave to amend. 8 On February 27, 20 17, WWCS filed its fourth amended com plaint, which is the operative complaint. 9 infringement claim s, as well as The com plaint asserts patent claim s for Texas comm on law m isappropriation, Texas com m on law m isappropriation of trade secrets, Louisiana statutory m isappropriation of trade secrets under the Louisiana Uniform Trade Secrets Act (“LUTSA”), and Texas com mon law breach of contract, breach of confidential relationship, tortious interference with prospective business relations, fraudulent inducem ent, business disparagem ent, and unfair com petition. 10 Oceaneering then m oved for partial sum m ary judgm ent, arguing that WWCS’s Texas law business disparagem ent, unfair competition, com m on 7 8 9 10 R. Doc. 56 at 42. R. Doc. 141 at 21. R. Doc. 147. Id. at 36-46 ¶¶ 89-139. 3 law m isappropriation, breach of confidential relationship, and tortious interference with prospective business relations claim s were time-barred. 11 The Court granted this m otion in part and dism issed WWCS’s claim s for business disparagem ent, unfair com petition, com m on law m isappropriation, and breach of confidential relationship. 12 WWCS now m oves for reconsideration or clarification of the Court’s order. 13 II. LEGAL STAN D ARD A district court has considerable discretion to grant or deny a m otion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e). See Edw ard H. Bohlin Co. v. Banning Co., 6 F.3d 350 , 355 (5th Cir. 1993). But “reconsideration of a previous order is an extraordinary rem edy which should be used sparingly.” Fields v. Pool Offshore, Inc., 1998 WL 43217, at *2 (E.D. La. Feb. 3, 1998); see also Bardw ell v . George G. Sharp, Inc., 1995 WL 517120 , at *1 (E.D. La. Aug. 30 , 1995). The Court m ust “strike the proper balance between two com peting im peratives: (1) finality, and (2) the need to render just decisions on the basis of all the facts.” Edw ard H. Bohlin Co., 6 F.3d at 355. A m oving party m ust satisfy at least one of the following criteria to prevail on a Rule 11 12 13 R. Doc. 172. R. Doc. 258. R. Doc. 264. 4 59(e) m otion: (1) the m otion is necessary to correct a m anifest error of fact or law; (2) the m ovant presents newly discovered or previously unavailable evidence; (3) the motion is necessary in order to prevent m anifest injustice; and (4) the motion is justified by an intervening change in the controlling law. See Fid. & Deposit Co. of Md. v. Om ni Bank, 1999 WL 970 526, at *3 (E.D. La. Oct. 21, 1999); Fields, 1998 WL 43217, at *2; see also Com pass Tech., Inc. v. Tseng Labs., Inc., 71 F.3d 1125, 1130 (3d Cir. 1995) (“Rule 59 and Rule 60 (b)(2) share the same standard for granting relief on the basis of newly discovered evidence.”). III. D ISCU SSION A. Bu s in e s s D is parage m e n t WWCS first argues that the Court erred in granting sum m ary judgm ent to Oceaneering on WWCS’s business disparagem ent claim . Specifically, WWCS contends that certain disparaging statem ents by Oceaneering em ployees were made within the lim itations period. According to WWCS, the Court erred by addressing the merits of WWCS’s claim and deem ing these later statem ents not disparaging. In its fourth am ended com plaint, WWCS alleges that “Oceaneering published knowingly false inform ation about Plaintiff at least to BP and to 5 others after Plaintiff lost the THR Project to BP in J uly 20 13.”14 “Specifically,” the com plaint continues, “Christopher Mancini m ade certain statements to BP while Plaintiff was bidding on a hydrate rem ediation job. Mancini m ade knowingly false representations that the WWCS Rem ediation System does not work, despite Mancini being present at multiple successful remediation jobs perform by Plaintiff.”15 Oceaneering m oved for sum m ary judgm ent on the business disparagement claim , arguing that WWCS learned of Mancini’s statem ents in 20 12. 16 Oceaneering based its argument on the testim ony of WWCS founder David Wright, who stated that he learned of Mancini’s statem ents in 20 11 or 20 12. 17 WWCS did not dispute this fact. 18 Instead, WWCS asserted that there m ight have been other instances of business disparagem ent within the lim itations period. 19 The Court rejected this argument, noting that the specific statem ents offered by WWCS as exam ples of disparagem ent simply were not disparaging. 20 WWCS offers no com pelling reason for the Court to reconsider its earlier order. The only additional statem ent WWCS points to as an exam ple 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 R. Doc. 147 at 44 ¶ 131. Id. at 44-45 ¶ 132. R. Doc. 172-1 at 11-12. See id. at 12-13. See R. Doc. 195-4 at 6. See id.; R. Doc. 195 at 12-13. R. Doc. 258 at 10 -11 n.28. 6 of business disparagement is a brochure to a prospective custom er, in which Oceaneering allegedly took credit for work perform ed by WWCS. 21 Like the other exam ples of alleged business disparagement cited by WWCS, it is not clear how this statem ent is disparaging, and WWCS does not cite any authority to show that it is. These alleged instances of business disparagem ent do not suffice to raise a genuine dispute as to when WWCS’s business disparagem ent claim accrued. In any event, the business disparagem ent claim in WWCS’s fourth am ended complaint is based on Mancini’s statements about the quality of WWCS’s hydrate remediation system. B. U n fair Co m pe titio n WWCS next argues that the Court im properly dism issed the entirety of its unfair com petition claim . Texas unfair com petition “requires that the plaintiff show an illegal act by the defendant which interfered with the plaintiff’s ability to conduct its business. Although the illegal act need not necessarily violate crim inal law, it m ust at least be an independent tort.” Tay lor Publ’g Co. v. Jostens, Inc., 216 F.3d 465, 486 (5th Cir. 20 0 0 ) (citation om itted). 21 R. Doc. 264-1 at 6 n.3. 7 WWCS’s com plaint sets out several independent torts as bases for its unfair com petition claim , including m isappropriation interference with prospective business relations. 22 and tortious In its m otion for sum m ary judgm ent, Oceaneering focused solely on unfair com petition by m isappropriation. 23 The Court, in turn, addressed only this form of unfair com petition, and neglected to address unfair com petition based on tortious interference. 24 The Court clarifies that Oceaneering is entitled sum m ary judgm ent on WWCS’s unfair com petition claim only to the extent that the claim is based on m isappropriation. The Court held that WWCS’s tortious interference claim accrued in J uly 20 13, and therefore was tim ely filed in May 20 15. 25 For the sam e reason, WWCS’s unfair com petition claim based on tortious interference was also tim ely filed. 22 23 24 25 R. Doc. 147 at 45-46 ¶¶ 136-38. See R. Doc. 172-1 at 14-15. R. Doc. 258 at 12. Id. at 11-12. 8 IV. CON CLU SION For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES plaintiff’s m otion to reconsider its August 23, 20 17 order. The Court clarifies that plaintiff’s unfair com petition claim is not dism issed to the extent it is based on tortious interference with prospective business relations. New Orleans, Louisiana, this _ _ _ _ _ day of Decem ber, 20 17. 28th _____________________ SARAH S. VANCE UNITED STATES DISTRICT J UDGE 9

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.