The Babcock & Wilcox Company v. Philadelphia Energy Solutions Refining and Marketi
21-01014
Bankr. E.D. La.May 16, 2025Background
- The Babcock & Wilcox Company (B&W) brought an adversary proceeding against Philadelphia Energy Solutions Refining and Marketing LLC (PES) and related entities in the Eastern District of Louisiana Bankruptcy Court.
- The dispute concerns the admissibility of certain deposition testimony excerpts designated by both parties as evidence in a trial held in April 2025.
- The depositions involve key witnesses, including a corporate representative for Sunoco (Kocis), former PES employee (Giampino), former and current inspectors (Sitler), and B&W's corporate representative (Johnson).
- Both parties made objections to each other’s designated deposition excerpts based on lack of personal knowledge, hearsay, relevance, speculative/expert testimony by lay witnesses, optional completeness, and cumulative testimony.
- The Court was called upon to resolve these evidentiary objections and determine what deposition testimony would be admitted at trial.
- The procedural basis for the opinion is the need to rule on these evidentiary objections post-trial and clarify the permissible scope of deposition use under federal rules.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lack of Personal Knowledge (FRE 602) | Opposes admission lacking personal knowledge | Argues witnesses lack personal knowledge in certain excerpts | Sustained in part and overruled in part; testimony admitted or excluded as detailed |
| Hearsay (FRE 802) | Seeks exclusion of hearsay statements | Opposes exclusion, claims relevance or exception | Overruled; certain statements admitted |
| Optional Completeness (FRE 106) | Objects to incomplete presentation | Also objects to partial/incomplete presentation | Sustained in part; court admitted expanded excerpts for fairness |
| Expert Opinion by Lay Witness (FRE 701) | Seeks to exclude lay opinion as expert | Asserts testimony is lay and permissible | Sustained in part, overruled in part; only personal knowledge-based opinions allowed |
| Relevance (FRE 401/402) | Moves to exclude irrelevant testimony | Disputes irrelevance, claims materiality | Mostly overruled; generally found relevant or not inadmissible |
| Scope of 30(b)(6) Corporate Deposition | Limits corporate testimony to noticed topics | Argues broader scope for designee questions | Overruled B&W; full scope of notice ruled applicable |
Key Cases Cited
- Lyondell Chem. Co. v. Occidental Chem. Corp., 608 F.3d 284 (5th Cir. 2010) (Objections to evidence admissibility and burden on objector)
- Brazos River Auth. v. GE Ionics, Inc., 469 F.3d 416 (5th Cir. 2006) (Rule 30(b)(6) corporate witness preparation standards)
- Lubbock Feed Lots, Inc. v. Iowa Beef Processors, Inc., 630 F.2d 250 (5th Cir. 1980) (Definition and scope of relevance under FRE 401)