Red Rocks Resources LLC v. Trident Steel Corporation
5:14-cv-00948
W.D. Okla.May 25, 2017Background
- Red Rocks Resources (Plaintiff) sued Trident Steel (Defendant) over allegedly defective casing sold for an oil well (Virgil Dougherty #4 Well).
- Central factual dispute: whether the casing was defective at sale and whether similar casing sold to Tema Oil & Gas shows defect/notice.
- Parties filed multiple motions in limine addressing admissibility of evidence about non-parties, an "innocent seller" defense, expert witnesses (Dr. Gary Wooley, John Hadjioannou), and various categories of evidence (other lawsuits, settlements, financials, insurance, demonstratives, attorney fees, prejudicial arguments).
- The Final Pretrial Report, not earlier filings, governs trial evidence and witness lists; some witnesses/reports were withdrawn by stipulation.
- Court held several evidentiary rulings limiting certain defenses and evidence while preserving others for voir dire or bench determination before admission.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Evidence blaming non-parties | Such evidence is irrelevant/misleading and should be barred | Evidence about manufacturing process and non-party actions is relevant to defect and should be admissible | Denied: evidence of non-parties not categorically barred; limiting instructions/bench approaches allowed |
| "Innocent seller" defense | Statute bars defense; mention would mislead jury | Statute not in Pretrial Report; but evidence about manufacture generally needed for defense | Granted: specific prohibition on asserting innocent seller defense; general manufacturing evidence still allowed |
| Exclude Dr. Gary W. Wooley | Wooley should be excluded as undisclosed expert | Trident withdrew Wooley as expert/court-listed witness | Granted: Wooley excluded given Defendant's concession |
| Trident's motion to exclude various evidence (other lawsuits/products, settlement talks, finances, insurance, demonstratives, undisclosed opinions, fees, "for the community" arguments) | N/A (Defendant sought broad exclusions) | Plaintiff opposed some exclusions, sought to admit similar-circumstance evidence (Tema) for defect/notice | Granted in part/denied in part: settlements, insurance, fees, community-appeal, finances (unless punitive damages) excluded; other-products evidence limited—may be admitted only after bench foundation; demonstratives handled by parties; undisclosed lay opinions denied as to recollection witnesses |
| Exclude Plaintiff expert John Hadjioannou, P.E. | N/A (Defendant moved to exclude based on methodology) | Hadjioannou relied on testing and compared results to Tema report; conducted own analyses | Denied: court found methods sufficiently reliable and relevant under Rule 702; testimony admissible |
Key Cases Cited
- Ahrens v. Ford Motor Co., 340 F.3d 1142 (10th Cir.) (other-accident evidence admissible only if substantially similar in products-liability cases)
- Wheeler v. John Deere Co., 862 F.2d 1404 (10th Cir.) (degree of similarity depends on purpose; relaxed standard for notice evidence)
- Adamscheck v. Am. Family Mut. Ins. Co., 818 F.3d 576 (10th Cir.) (trial courts must ensure scientific testimony is reliable and relevant under Rule 702)
- Bitler v. A.O. Smith Corp., 400 F.3d 1227 (10th Cir.) (assess relation between expert method, conclusions, and case facts; perfection not required)
- Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (U.S.) (gatekeeping standard for admissibility of expert scientific testimony)