Opinion
CIVIL ACTION NO. 03-1230 SECTION "K"(4)
April 19, 2004
MINUTE ENTRY
Before the Court is a Motion in Limine to Limit Testimony, Exhibits, and Reports Containing References to Coast Guard Report, Including Any Opinions Based on the Coast Guard Report filed by plaintiff Baker Hughes Oilfield Operators and Underwriters at Interest on Cover Note No. 334101 ("BHOO"). Having reviewed the pleadings, memoranda, and relevant law, the Court GRANTS plaintiff's motion.
BHOO contends that 46 U.S.C. § 6308 renders any reference to the Coast Guard Report concerning the collision between the SEABULK CHALLENGE and the HR HUGHES inadmissable. Accordingly, BHOO requests that the Court limit the testimony of experts Douglas Torborg, Ronald Borison, and Robert Taylor. plaintiff's BHOO and Edison Chouest Offshore, L.L.C ("ECO" have filed separate motions specifically seeking to limit the testimony of Borison, Taylor and Torborg. The Court shall address each expert report, to the extent they rely upon the Coast Guard report, individually. 46 U.S.C. § 6308(a) provides:
(a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no part of a report of a [U.S. Coast Guard] marine casualty investigation . . ., including findings of fact, opinions, recommendations, deliberations, or conclusions, shall be admissible as evidence . . . in any civil or administrative proceedings, other than an administrative proceeding initiated by the United States.
See 46 U.S.C § 6308(a). By the plain language of that statute, the Coast Guard report disputed here is not admissible evidence in this case. "The content of report may not be introduced into evidence by any party or witness and no portion of the report may be considered." The Tokio Marine and Fire Insurance Co., Ltd. v. MVFLORA, 1998 WL 516110 (E.D. La. 1998); see Complaint of Danos Curole Marine Contractors, Inc., 278 F. Supp.2d 783 (E.D. La. 2003); Eckstein Marine Service, Inc. v. Crescent Marine Towing, Inc. 1999 WL 58264 (E.D. La. 1999). Certainly, the Coast Guard report or any portion is inadmissable as a general rule.
This Court intends to enforce 46 U.S.C § 6308(a) by striking any portion of the Coast Guard report, however it may be presented. Thus, the instant motion is GRANTED except as modified in the Court's disposition of the specific motions related to specific experts.
The entire third page of Torborg's expert report reiterates the findings included in the Coast Guard report. The Court will excise the portion of Torborg's report relating to the Coast Guard report and any opinion shown to be predominantly based upon that report. However, from a reading of Torborg's report, it does not appear his conclusions rely on the Coast Guard report. Thus, this motion is denied in part to the extent that it seeks to strike Torborg's conclusions under 46 U.S.C § 6308(a).
BHOO objects to expert Borison's testimony on the grounds that he relies upon the Coast Guard report. However, upon reviewing Borison's expert report, the Court takes notice that the expert is making an assumption on information that is not included in the report. Therefore, Borison's testimony does not violate 46 U.S.C § 6308(a) and BHOO's motion to is denied as to this witness's opinion.
Finally, BHOO objects to expert Taylor's testimony on the grounds that Taylor based his opinions on Torborg's conclusions. Having found Torborg's conclusions admissible supra, the Court denies this portion of BHOO's motion for reasons stated above. Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that BHOO's Motion in Limine to Limit Testimony, Exhibits, and Reports Containing References to Coast Guard Report, Including Any Opinions Based on the Coast Guard Report is hereby GRANTED.