Brown v. BP Exploration & Production, Inc. et al, No. 2:2017cv03097 - Document 77 (E.D. La. 2023)

Court Description: ORDER AND REASONS: IT IS ORDERED that the 64 Motion to Exclude is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, to the extent the Plaintiff's arguments are construed as a spoliation motion, the spoliation motion is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the 65 Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 5/25/2023. (pp)

Download PDF
Brown v. BP Exploration & Production, Inc. et al Doc. 77 Case 2:17-cv-03097-SM-DPC Document 77 Filed 05/25/23 Page 1 of 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA LENA ELAINE BROWN, Plaintiff CIVIL ACTION VERSUS NO. 17-3097 BP EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION INC., ET AL., Defendants SECTION: “E” (2) ORDER AND REASONS Before the Court is a motion in limine to exclude the opinions of Lena Elaine Brown’s (“Plaintiff”) general causation expert, Dr. Jerald Cook (“Cook”), filed by BP Exploration & Production, BP America Production Company, and BP p.l.c. (collectively “Defendants”).1 Also before the Court is the Defendants’ motion for summary judgment.2 Plaintiff has filed oppositions to both motions, and Defendants have filed replies. To the extent Plaintiff’s opposition to Defendants’ motion in limine makes arguments that sound in spoliation, the Court construes those arguments as a spoliation motion similar to those filed separately in other B3 cases.3 The Court is prepared to rule on pending motions herein. Defendant’s motion in limine and motion for summary judgment are nearly identical to the ones filed by Defendants, and granted by this Court, in other B3 cases.4 Likewise, Plaintiff’s arguments construed as a spoliation motion are nearly identical to R. Doc. 64. Halliburton Energy Services, Inc., Transocean Holdings LLC, Transocean Deepwater, Inc., and Transocean Offshore Deepwater Drilling, Inc., additional Defendants, join in the motion in limine. 2 R. Doc. 65. Halliburton Energy Services, Inc., Transocean Holdings LLC, Transocean Deepwater, Inc., and Transocean Offshore Deepwater Drilling, Inc., additional Defendants, join in the motion for summary judgment. 3 See, e.g., Bruton v. BP Exploration & Production, Inc., et al., Civ. A. 17-3110 at R. Doc. 107 (E.D. La. 11/30/2022) (Morgan, J.). 4 See id.; Harrison v. BP Exploration & Production, Inc, et al., Civ. A. 17-4346 at R. Doc. 85 (7/1/2022) (Morgan, J.). 1 1 Dockets.Justia.com Case 2:17-cv-03097-SM-DPC Document 77 Filed 05/25/23 Page 2 of 2 the ones filed by other B3 Plaintiffs, and denied by this Court, in other B3 cases.5 Accordingly, for the reasons stated in the Orders & Reasons issued in the cited B3 cases; IT IS ORDERED that the motion in limine is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, to the extent the Plaintiff’s arguments are construed as a spoliation motion, the spoliation motion is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the motion for summary judgment is GRANTED. Judgment is granted in favor of Defendants BP Exploration & Production, BP America Production Company, BP p.l.c., Halliburton Energy Services, Inc., Transocean Holdings LLC, Transocean Deepwater, Inc., and Transocean Offshore Deepwater Drilling, Inc., and against Plaintiff on all claims. New Orleans, Louisiana, this 25th day of May, 2023. ________________________________ SUSIE MORGAN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 5 Bruton, Civ. A. 17-3110 at R. Doc. 107. 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.