United States District Court, W.D. Louisiana
PEGGY MAYS ET AL.
CHEVRON PIPE LINE CO. ET AL.
RULING AND ORDER
A. JACKSON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
the Court is Chevron Pipe Line Company's Motion
in Limine (Doc. 161) to exclude a post-accident
investigation report. For the reasons that follow, the
Motion (Doc. 161) is
wrongful death action arises from a pipeline accident on a
drilling platform in Louisiana territorial waters. (Doc. 1).
James Mays was killed when components of a pressurized valve
dislodged and struck him in the head. (Id.). Members
of his family sued the pipeline operator, Chevron, for
the accident, Chevron prepared an investigation report. (Doc.
161-2). The report makes factual findings, identifies root
causes, and recommends corrective actions. (Id.).
Chevron moves to exclude the report on the grounds that it
contains hearsay and evidence of subsequent remedial
measures. (Doc. 161).
party objecting to the admissibility of evidence bears the
burden of showing that the evidence is inadmissible.
Lyondell Chem. Co. v. Occidental Chem. Corp., 608
F.3d 284, 295 (5th Cir. 2010).
asks the Court to exclude the investigation report because it
contains inadmissible hearsay. (Doc. 161-1 at 4). Chevron
asserts that its employees prepared the report using
information they gathered by interviewing witnesses and
reviewing documents. (Id.).
is generally not admissible. FED. R. Evid. 802. A statement
is not hearsay if it is offered against an opposing party and
was made by that party in an individual or representative
capacity. Fed.R.Evid. 801(d)(2). The investigation report is
not hearsay because it was made by Chevron and is now offered
against Chevron. See, e.g., Williams v. Asplundh Tree
Expert Co., No. 3:05-CV-479-J-33, 2006 WL 2868923, at *5
(M.D. Fla. Oct. 6, 2006) (investigation report admissible as
a party-opponent admission).
Chevron's investigation report is not hearsay when
offered against Chevron, the Court denies Chevron's
motion to exclude the report on hearsay
Subsequent Remedial Measures
asks the Court to exclude the investigation report under
Federal Rule of Evidence 407 because it contains evidence of
subsequent remedial measures. (Doc. 161-1 at 4-5). Chevron
asserts that three sections of the report-sections 6.3, 9.0,