(Reuters) - BP Plc won a court order keeping several potentially damaging emails out of a scheduled trial to determine responsibility for the 2010 Gulf of Mexico oil spill.
Wednesday's ruling by U.S. Magistrate Judge Sally Shushan in New Orleans came a day after U.S. District Judge Carl Barbier rejected the oil company's effort to keep evidence about settlements it had already reached out of the trial.
The rulings came as Barbier prepares to preside on February 27 over a non-jury trial to assign blame for the April 20, 2010 explosion of the Deepwater Horizon rig, which killed 11 people and caused the largest offshore oil spill in U.S. history.
Plaintiffs include individuals and businesses, represented by a plaintiffs' steering committee that had sought to introduce the email evidence, as well as states and the U.S. government.
The main corporate defendants include BP, rig owner Transocean Ltd and Halliburton Co, which provided cementing services for the Macondo oil well. Anadarko Petroleum Corp, one of BP's partners in the well, is also involved in the trial.
Shushan granted BP's request to exclude as hearsay several 2009 emails among Anadarko employees about tropical storm damage to another Transocean rig that had been under contract to BP.
In one email, an Anadarko employee expressed disappointment that BP had not disclosed some information related to the damage, prompting another to respond: "Bummer. I'm amazed that they did not tell us about this."
Shushan also granted BP's and Transocean's request to keep out a June 2010 email from Halliburton employee Ryan Haire questioning their reported findings regarding some tests, saying he had no personal knowledge of those findings.
The judge also granted Halliburton's request to exclude an email from a BP geologist to a colleague in February 2010, offering "thanks for the @!$%#ty cement job."
Halliburton contended that the email was no more than a casual, tasteless joke made by one friend to another. Shushan concluded that there was no showing that the email was a "business record" of the cement work that could be introduced into evidence.
Barbier had on Tuesday ruled in Halliburton's favor on whether evidence of BP's settlements with Anadarko and other companies was admissible at trial.
Halliburton had said such evidence could show the settling companies' potential bias in BP's favor, while BP had countered that they were irrelevant to establishing liability.
- Enjoy this article? Help vote it up the 'Vine.
- Public Discussion (7)
What is there to fear except fear itself.
What is there to fear from the emails? The truth? So what has BP been telling us? The truth? Or Lies?
If it is the former, can there be two types of truths: The real truth and the distorted truth. Real truth stands the test of time and transparency. Distorted truths hide in the shade of darkness and that is why these emails had to be barred from the trial.
What other reasons are there?
- 6 votes
yes.. tell me the tale of justice in America.
the real deal, not the fairy tale.
the system works for the highest bidder.
- 4 votes
when one doesn't benefit from a corrupt system of justice, an then is held to account by that same system that lead to their injustice
one should expect a response regardless of what it looks like.
peaceful protest can not do what money can....
- 4 votes
when prosecuting a court case, what is extremely important is that evidence that would be likely to be overturned on appeal, which would jeopardize the case overall to be submitted into evidence. The email on the '@!$%#ty cement job' should NOT be entered into evidence, because it doesn't say WHY it was a @!$%#ty cement job. It could have been considered @!$%#ty because it too 3 months longer than normal to complete thereby screwing up the overall schedule, meaning that it may have had nothing to do with the actual quality of the job itself.
This is why we need to be very careful when criticizing matters like this. We need to be sure that EVERYTHING is on the up and up in terms of the evidence, otherwise we are basically just shaping the details to fit some desired outcome, which is another way of saying, lets subvert justice. Again, allowing this into evidence could be considered prejudicial and could overturn a verdict in appeal.
- 1 vote
It is not as if the lawyers tabling the emails did not considered what you have written. Each email should have been examined on its own merit. Not a blanket ban.
- 5 votes
it wasn't a blanket ban though.
And the decisions weren't completely on BP's side, the discussions relating to the settlements are admissible.
double talk this tilted system to your hearts content
just don't forget there are those who know
just what that tilt involved, involves, will involve yet....
no amount of legal ease will change the dredge
at the bottom of the gulf
or the bodies that float
the dead organisms unmissed
by common citizens.
lawyers make me sick...
the system works for them.
- 4 votes
You're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead. |



