July Status Conference Held In Deepwater Horizon Litigation
On July 8, Judge Carl J. Barbier presided over the most recent status conference in the Deepwater Horizon oil spill litigation pending before the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana. Given the breadth of the litigation, a wide range of issues were taken up during the conference. The court later published its minute entry, which highlights the matters discussed.
On the same day, the Court issued certain pretrial orders relating to settlement negotiation confidentiality and sample testing. The Court's Pretrial Order 38: Order Relating To Confidentiality Of Settlement Communications essentially declares confidential all written and oral communications relating to the settlement of any claims or defenses arising out of the Deepwater Horizon catastrophe. By the Court's order, a party who receives such communications must keep them confidential and may not disclose them to persons outside the associated settlement negotiations. The order provides, however, that it does not limit the federal government or any state government from complying with public participation requirements and policies by publishing a final settlement agreement for public comment. Settlement communications cannot be released by the federal government or a state government pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act, absent a finding of good cause by the Court, the pretrial order says.
Pretrial Order No. 39 Relating To Testing Of Samples authorizes any party to the Deepwater Horizon multi-district litigation to perform analytical testing on samples within the party's possession, subject to a previously-established protocol for analytical testing. In pertinent part, destructive testing on oil, dispersant, or sediment samples can be carried out subject to additional restrictions, including the limitation that a sufficient amount of the sample should be preserved to ensure that another party can repeat the testing. If insufficient material is available to allow for testing and subsequent testing by another party, extracts must be preserved to allow for repetition of the final steps of analytical testing. A multi-district litigation party alternatively can notify all liaison counsel and then perform testing in keeping with any agreement reached should there be any objections lodged.
The Court further handed down an order on a motion by BP in which the oil giant sought confirmation that it could dispose of various items without violating its duty to preserve evidence in the case. Accompanying are a number of appendices setting out the items at issue.
The Court scheduled the next monthly status conference in the litigation for the morning of August 12.
To discuss a case with an experienced maritime lawyer, contact a maritime attorney online at Arnold & Itkin LLP, or call the maritime law office of Arnold & Itkin LLP toll free at 866-222-2606.
