United States v. Egan Marine Corp.
808 F. Supp. 2d 1065
| N.D. Ill. | 2011Background
- Exxon sold Clarified Slurry Oil (CSO) to Clark Oil; EMC transported CSO on a barge to Clark Oil.
- A valve issue caused Exxon to transfer CSO between storage tanks during loading on January 18–19, 2005, allegedly contaminating CSO with gasoline.
- A loading dispute exists over whether the CSO on EMC-423 was contaminated beyond contract tolerances; SGS tested CSO quality/quantity.
- On January 19, 2005, a CSO explosion on the EMC-423 occurred, causing the barge to sink and Oliva to die; large CSO spill followed in the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal.
- The Government filed a five-count OPA/Rivers and Harbors/Maritime action; EMC filed a Rule 14(c) third-party complaint against Exxon seeking indemnity, contribution, and maritime relief.
- EMC moves to dismiss for discovery sanctions, to strike Government experts, and Exxon moves for summary judgment; EMC also moves to strike portions of Exxon’s Rule 56.1 facts.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether EMC’s Rule 37(b)(2) dismissal motion is warranted | EMC asserts extensive discovery violations by Government warranting dismissal. | Government contends no willful misconduct or prejudice; discovery closed and sanctions unwarranted. | Denied; dismissal not warranted. |
| Whether expert witnesses should be struck for reliance on the MCIR | EMC contends MCIR taints Hall, DeHaan, and Wakefield reports. | Government argues some reliance permissible and some portions must be excluded. | Partially granted; some references stricken, rest admissible. |
| Whether Exxon’s summary judgment should be granted on EMC’s third-party claims | EMC contends Exxon violated Coast Guard regs, implied warranty of safe cargo, and duty to warn; genuine issues of fact exist. | Exxon argues no triable issues; no factual basis to hold Exxon liable under maritime law/OPA. | Exxon’s motion for summary judgment granted on all counts. |
| Whether EMC's motion to strike portions of Exxon’s Rule 56.1 facts is merited | EMC seeks to strike paragraphs that assert improper legal conclusions or rely on MCIR-derived facts. | Exxon maintains most facts are proper and relevant to summary judgment. | Partially granted; some paragraphs struck, others left intact. |
Key Cases Cited
- Halas v. Consumer Servs., Inc., 16 F.3d 161 (7th Cir. 1994) (sanctions under Rule 37(b)(2) must be limited and require willfulness or fault)
- Ladien v. Astrachan, 128 F.3d 1051 (7th Cir. 1997) (dismissal for discovery abuses is a harsh, sparing sanction)
- Judson Atkinson Candies, Inc. v. Latini-Hohberger Dhimantec, 529 F.3d 371 (7th Cir. 2008) (strict compliance with Local Rule 56.1; legal conclusions must be supported)
- East River S.S. Corp. v. Transamerica Delaval, Inc., 476 U.S. 858 (1986) (subject-matter jurisdiction; maritime claims require connection to navigable waters)
- Exec. Jet Aviation, Inc. v. City of Cleveland, 409 U.S. 249 (1972) (participation of federal courts in maritime and related actions; jurisdictional principles)
- Hammes v. AAMCO Transmissions, Inc., 33 F.3d 774 (7th Cir. 1994) ( maritime negligence framework and duty considerations)
- In re M/V DG Harmony, 533 F.3d 83 (2d Cir. 2008) (causation standard and foreseeability in maritime disputes)