Louisiana Crawfish Producers Accuses Oil and Gas Companies of Engaging in Dredging Activities

Louisiana Crawfish Producers Accuses Oil and Gas Companies of Engaging in Dredging Activities

By: Kent Patterson

In re: La. Crawfish Producers, No. 16-30353, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 5395 (5th Cir. 2017).Plaintiffs-Appellants, La. Crawfish Producers Association-West (Plaintiffs), sued a number of oil and gas companies and their insurers claiming the companies’ past dredging activities created spoil banks damaging the Atchafalaya Basin fisheries used by the Plaintiffs. Before a district court ruling was issued, the parties agreed on a proposed case management order that established litigation deadlines. In accordance with this order, the defendants, Florida Gas Transmission Co. (Florida Gas), Southern Natural Gas Co. (Southern Natural), and Dow Chemical (Dow) filed a joint motion seeking reconsideration of the district courts denial of their motion for summary judgment and motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ claims. During the pendency of this motion, an employee of Southern Natural was deposed and testified that it used dredge vessels in the construction of the canal at issue.While Plaintiffs’ had not yet received the official transcript of Southern Natural’s deposition, the district court granted summary judgment in favor of two of the companies, Florida Gas and Southern Natural, and dismissed all other defendant companies because Plaintiffs failed to allege that they had engaged in dredging activities. The Court found that there was no genuine issue of material fact as to whether the actions of Florida Gas or Southern Natural constituted “dredging;” therefore, there was nothing to validate the Plaintiffs’ maritime tort claims. Furthermore, the Plaintiffs received Southern Natural’s official deposition transcript five days after the district court’s ruling, which violated the case management order, and they later argued that this was one of the reasons they did not have time to supplement their opposition to the defendants’ motion, filing a Rule 59(e) motion. The district court denied the Plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration as to its grant of summary judgment to the defendant companies and dismissed the Rule 59(e) motion.The appellate court standard of review regarding Florida Gas is de novo instead of abuse of discretion because the district court did not refuse to consider materials attached to the motion for reconsideration. On appeal, the appellate court first looked at Plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration regarding Florida Gas. Florida Gas argued that it merely placed a pipeline into an already existing canal, which the appellate court found insufficient to support a maritime tort claim. The supplementary evidence that Plaintiffs’ provided did not create a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Florida Gas engaged in dredging activities. Additionally, the Plaintiffs’ contention that they did not bear the burden of proof was erroneous; all the defendants have to do in summary judgment is simply assert the absence of facts supporting the Plaintiffs’ theory. Accordingly, the appellate court affirmed the district court’s ruling in granting summary judgment in favor of Florida Gas.The Court then looked at Plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration with respect to Southern Natural’s grant of summary judgment and the dismissal of Plaintiffs’ Rule 59(3) motion. The appellate court standard of review regarding Southern Natural is abuse of discretion because the district court likely did not consider Plaintiffs’ new evidence pertaining to Southern Natural. The appellate court held that the district court abused its discretion in denying Plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration as to Southern Natural.In reversing, the court of appeals stated that the district court did not consider Plaintiffs’ three new types of evidence:

1. Southern Natural’s deposition transcript;
2. Documentary evidence offered during Southern Natural’s deposition; and
3. Southern Natural’s responses to requests for admission.

With that said, in light of the new evidence, there were several factors the district court should have considered when the Plaintiffs’ reconsideration motion is filed, including, but not limited to:

1. The probative value of the evidence;
2. The reason for Plaintiffs’ default;
3. Whether the evidence was available to Plaintiffs at the time of the summary judgment motion; and
4. Potential prejudice to Southern Natural.

The appellate court disagreed with the manner in which the district court analyzed Southern Natural’s deposition transcript, specifically the reasons as to why Plaintiffs defaulted on their opposition to the defendant’s motion. First, the Plaintiffs had not yet received an official copy of the transcript at the time of the district court’s ruling. Second, the district court faulted Plaintiffs for failing to immediately move to supplement their opposition when they received Southern Natural’s responses three days before the district court’s ruling. Third, the Plaintiffs did not have Southern Natural’s admission before Southern Natural responded to Plaintiffs’ requests for admissions and the deposition took place.The appellate court affirmed the district court’s ruling regarding Florida Gas Transmission Co. However, because the Plaintiffs presented new conclusive evidence in their motion for reconsideration of Southern Natural admitting to engaging in dredging activities, the appellate court vacated its grant of summary judgment to Southern Natural Gas Co. and reversed the denial of Plaintiffs’ Rule 59(e) motion.