SEAMAN'S EMPLOYER ENTITLED TO COPY OF WITNESS STATEMENT OBTAINED BY SEAMAN'S ATTORNEY OF PLAINTIFF'S SUPERVISOR. PLAINTIFF PRECLUDED FROM TAKING FURTHER EXPARTE STATEMENTS.
ELISHA WOODARD VERSUS NABORS OFFSHORE CORPORATION
CIVIL ACTION NO. 00-2461 SECTION "N" (2)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 177
January 4, 2001, Decided
January 4, 2001, Filed; January 5, 2001, Entered
PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Plaintiff was allegedly employed by defendant on its offshore oil rig, was injured, and brought Jones Act claims. Plaintiff's counsel hired a private investigator who contacted two of defendant's employees, and took a statement from one. Defendant moved to compel production of the statement and for a protective order.
OVERVIEW: Defendant first sought to compel plaintiff to produce the statement of an employee who gave an ex parte statement to plaintiff's counsel. Second, relying on its counsel's assertion that it would make its employees available to plaintiff for depositions, defendant sought a protective order prohibiting plaintiff's counsel from any further ex parte contacts with its current employees. The court held that defendant's motion to compel was governed by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(3). If the employee in question was defendant's agent, then defendant, a party, was entitled to receive his statement. It appeared that defendant's employee, who had supervisory authority over plaintiff, was defendant's agent when the statement was taken. Addressing the motion for protective order, the court found that the employee who gave the statement was a "party" under La. State Bar art. XVI, R. 4.2, and thus plaintiff's counsel could not contact him or employees like him without defendant's consent or unless authorized by law. The court then concluded that 45 U.S.C.S. § 60 did not authorize an attorney to conduct ex parte interviews of an opponent's employees under La. State Bar art. XVI, R. 4.2.
OUTCOME: Defendant's motion to compel production of its employee's statement was granted. The employee's statement was defendant's statement and defendant was entitled to receive a copy of it upon request, with no further showing. Defendant's motion for a protective order was granted as to employees who could be considered defendant's agents.
