Civil Action No. 16-12316.


United States District Court, E.D. Louisiana.

Editors Note
Applicable Law: 00 U.S.C. § 0000
Cause: 00 U.S.C. § 0000 Cause Code Unknown
Nature of Suit: 340 Marine
Source: PACER

Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Donald W. Covington, Jr., Plaintiff, represented by Timothy J. Young , Young Firm.

Donald W. Covington, Jr., Plaintiff, represented by Megan C. Misko , Young Firm & Tammy D. Harris , Young Firm.

Noble Drilling U.S. LLC, Defendant, represented by Timothy William Hassinger , Galloway, Johnson, Tompkins, Burr & Smith & Patrick Joseph Schepens , Galloway, Johnson, Tompkins, Burr & Smith.


JAY C. ZAINEY, District Judge.

The following motion is before the Court: Motion in Limine (Rec. Doc. 28) filed by Defendant, Noble Drilling. Plaintiff, Donald W. Covington, Jr., opposes the motion. The motion, submitted to the Court on May 3, 2017, is before the Court on the briefs without oral argument.

This action arises out of a September 17, 2015 incident aboard Defendant's vessel the M/V PAUL ROMANO. Plaintiff was working aboard the vessel on navigable waters when he allegedly injured his shoulder while repairing a light fixture. Plaintiff alleges significant personal injuries as a result of the incident. Plaintiff has sued Defendant herein under the Jones Act and general maritime law (unseaworthiness).

The pretrial conference is scheduled for May 18, 2017, and a four-day jury trial is scheduled to commence on June 12, 2017 (Rec. Doc. 9). A settlement conference with the magistrate judge took place on May 4, 2017 and negotiations are continuing. (Rec. Doc. 38).

Defendant's Motion in Limine

Noble Drilling moves the Court to exclude certain portions of Dr. Kenneth Laughery's report and testimony.1 Laughery has been retained as Plaintiff's human factors and ergonomics expert. Noble Drilling complains inter alia that Dr. Laughery has offered some opinions that are outside his area of expertise.

The Court has reviewed Dr. Laughery's report (Rec. Doc. 28-4) in its entirety and is not persuaded that any portion of his opinions are so far outside of his area of expertise so as to require exclusion by the Court. Rather, all of the Defendant's alleged deficiencies can be properly vetted via rigorous cross examination before the jury.

Accordingly, and for the foregoing reasons;

IT IS ORDERED that the Motion in Limine (Rec. Doc. 28) filed by Defendant Noble Drilling is DENIED;

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that due to a conflict on the Court's docket the pretrial conference, currently scheduled for Thursday, May 18, 2017, is RESET for Monday, May 22, 2017, at 2:30 p.m. in chambers. The pretrial order remains due on Tuesday, May 16, 2017.


1. In a jury trial, this Court does not admit into evidence any expert reports unless all parties agree to admit them. Thus, the objectionable report itself will not go to the jury regardless of how the Court rules on the instant motion in limine.


1000 Characters Remaining reserves the right to edit or remove comments but is under no obligation to do so, or to explain individual moderation decisions.

User Comments

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases