Tajonera v. Black Elk Energy Offshore Operations, L.L.C.

• Decision Date: 02 March 2015
• Docket Number: c/w 13-6022 SECTION: "G"(5),c/w 13-0550 SECTION: "G"(5),c/w 14-374 SECTION: "G"(5),c/w 13-6099 SECTION: "G"(5),c/w 13-5508 SECTION: "G"(5),c/w 13-5137 SECTION: "G"(5),c/w 13-2496 SECTION: "G"(5),CIVIL ACTION NO. 13-0366 SECTION: "G"(5),c/w 13-6413 SECTION: "G"(5)
• Parties: EDNA TAJONERA, et al. v. BLACK ELK ENERGY OFFSHORE OPERATIONS, L.L.C., et al.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Louisiana

EDNA TAJONERA, et al. v. BLACK ELK ENERGY OFFSHORE OPERATIONS, L.L.C., et al.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 13-0366 SECTION: "G"(5)

c/w 13-0550 SECTION: "G"(5)

c/w 13-5137 SECTION: "G"(5)

c/w 13-2496 SECTION: "G"(5)

c/w 13-5508 SECTION: "G"(5)

c/w 13-6022 SECTION: "G"(5)

c/w 13-6099 SECTION: "G"(5)

c/w 13-6413 SECTION: "G"(5)

c/w 14-374 SECTION: "G"(5)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

March 2, 2015

ORDER

Before the Court is the United States of America's "Motion to Intervene and Stay Civil Proceedings," wherein the United States seeks "to intervene under Rule 24 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for the limited purpose of staying the instant proceedings until the conclusion of an ongoing federal criminal investigation involving, among others, Black Elk Energy Offshore Operations, L.L.C., defendant herein, and the same facts, evidence, witnesses, and circumstances at issue in the instant civil suit."¹ Having considered the motion, the memoranda in opposition and in support, the record, and the applicable law, the Court will allow the government to intervene and will grant a limited 60-day stay in this matter.

I. Background

The pending civil case and the nine civil cases consolidated with it arise out of a November 16, 2012 explosion that occurred on the West Delta 32 Block Platform ("WD-32"), an offshore oil production platform owned by Black Elk Energy Offshore Operations, L.L.C. ("BEEOO"). The explosion resulted in the deaths of three individuals, injury to others, and the spillage of 500 barrelsof oil into the Gulf of Mexico. Plaintiffs allege that BEEOO, Wood Group PSN, L.L.C. ("Wood Group"), Shamrock Management, L.L.C. ("Shamrock"), Compass Engineering & Consultants, LLC ("Compass"),² Enviro Tech Systems, LLC ("Enviro Tech"),³ and Grand Isle Shipyard, Inc. ("GIS") were contractors of BEEOO allegedly involved in work being done on the Platform that day.⁴

The United States filed the pending motion, along with a motion to expedite hearing,⁵ on February 25, 2015.⁶ The Court granted the motion to expedite hearing, set the motion for hearing on the briefs at 3:00 p.m. on February 27, 2015, and ordered that any memoranda in opposition to the motion be filed by noon on February 27, 2015.⁷ The following parties have filed memoranda in opposition: D&R Resources, L.L.C. ("D&R");⁸ Plaintiff Dominguez;⁹ Corporal Plaintiffs;¹⁰ Plaintiff Voclain;¹¹ Wood Group;¹² and Canencia Plaintiffs.¹³ Additionally, Tamayo and Ilagan Plaintiffs¹⁴and Intervenor the Gray Insurance Company¹⁵ adopt by reference the oppositions filed by D&R, Plaintiff Dominguez, Plaintiff Voclain, the Tajonera and Corporal Plaintiffs, and Wood Group. Plaintiff Jordan Major¹⁶ and the Srubar Plaintiffs¹⁷ adopt by reference the oppositions filed by D&R, Plaintiff Dominguez, Plaintiff Voclain, and the Tajonera and Corporal Plaintiffs. BEEOO adopts all other oppositions filed in response to the pending motion.¹⁸ Finally, GIS filed a "Memorandum of No Opposition" to the pending motion, wherein it states that it joins the government in seeking a stay of the civil proceedings.¹⁹

II. Parties' Arguments

A. United States' Arguments in Support

The United States contends that intervention and a stay are appropriate here because BEEOO, Wood Group, GIS, Chris Srubar, and Curtis Dantin are subjects of "a federal criminal investigation involving the exact same set of facts, circumstances, witnesses, and evidence relating to this case and the other consolidated cases arising from the explosion."²⁰ The United States argues that pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(b), an applicant may intervene with leave of court when the applicant "has a claim or defense that shares with the main action a common question of law or fact." The United States notes that federal courts have the authority to stay civilproceedings pending the outcome of an ongoing criminal investigation.²¹ The United States cites Campbell v. Eastland, where the Fifth Circuit set out guidelines for district courts to follow when deciding whether to stay a civil proceeding pending the result of an ongoing criminal investigation of prosecution:

There is a clearcut distinction between private interests in civil litigation and the public interest in a criminal prosecution, between a civil trial and a criminal trial, and between the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. [B]ut these distinctions do not mean that a civil action and a criminal action involving the same parties and some of the same issues are so unrelated that in determining good cause for discovery in the civil suit, a determination that requires the weighing of effects, the trial judge in the civil proceeding should ignore the effect discovery would have on a criminal proceeding that is pending or just about to be brought. The very fact that there is clear distinction between civil and criminal actions requires a government policy determination of priority: which case should be tried first. Administrative policy gives priority to the public interest in law enforcement. This seems so necessary and wise that a trial judge should give substantial weight to it in balancing the policy against the right of a civil litigant to a reasonably prompt determination of his civil claims or liabilities.²²

The United States argues that the Campbell court advised district courts to remember the differences and policy objectives in civil and criminal discovery; specifically, the Fifth Circuit cautioned that criminal defendants should not be able to benefit from the more liberal discovery available in civil matters.²³

The United States notes that district courts within the Fifth Circuit have recognized several factors in considering whether to stay a civil proceeding: "(1) the extent to which the issues in the criminal case overlap with those presented in the civil case; (2) the status of the criminal case, including whether defendants have been indicted; (3) the private interests of the plaintiff inproceeding expeditiously, weighed against the prejudice to plaintiffs caused by the delay; (4) the private interests of the burden on the defendants; (5) the interests of the courts; and (6) the public interest."²⁴

Concerning the first factor, the United States acknowledges that the similarities in the facts and issues between the civil and the criminal matter is the most important factor in determining whether to grant a stay.²⁵ The United States contends that "[h]ere, there is a common nucleus of operative facts in both the civil and criminal matters."²⁶ Attached to the pending motion, the United States has appended the sealed declaration of a Department of Interior-Officer of Inspector General Special Agent, who states that the parties, witnesses, evidence, and operative events are nearly identical in the two parallel proceedings.²⁷

With regard to the second factor, the United States argues that "while the criminal matter relating to this case has yet to ripen to an indictment, investigation into potential criminal violations has been ongoing and is still an active investigation."²⁸ The United States notes that the fact that a criminal investigation is ongoing does not foreclose the availability of a stay in the civil matter.²⁹ Moreover, "the applicability of the Speedy Trial Act guarantees that the criminal trial will occurquickly after indictment."³⁰

In connection with the third factor, the United States avers that the prejudice to plaintiffs based on a delay of the civil proceedings will not be substantial.³¹ The United States explains that Plaintiffs may be victims in the criminal proceedings and therefore entitled to restitution under 18 U.S.C. § 3663.³² Further, the United States maintains that Plaintiffs may actually benefit from the stay because they would have the benefit of the information gathered during the criminal investigation.³³ Additionally, the United States notes that the Court may require the government to periodically provide in camera status updates of the progress of the criminal matter to ensure the government's need for the stay is still valid.³⁴

Next, the United States avers that the interests of the defendants would be served by the stay, because any defendant who has criminal exposure would be able to address criminal liability first, prior to any civil liability.³⁵

In addressing the fifth and sixth factors, the United States argues that as the role of the prosecutor is to serve both private victims and the general public, the criminal case is entitled to precedence over the civil litigation.³⁶ The United States avers that the parties have noticed the deposition of Keith King, one of the Special Investigators of the Bureau of Safety andEnvironmental Enforcement ("BSEE") who was involved in the investigation of the cause of the explosion.³⁷ The United States explains that if King's deposition is allowed to proceed, the subjects of the criminal matter will be afforded an opportunity to secure sworn testimony of an investigator regarding matters that are currently the subject of criminal investigation.³⁸ Therefore, according to the United States, even though discovery in this matter is otherwise close to completion, the public interest lies with law enforcement and the need to prevent civil discovery rules from being used to otherwise circumvent criminal discovery rules.³⁹ Finally, concerning the sixth factor, the United States argues that the interests of judicial economy counsel in favor of a stay in the civil proceeding pending the outcome of the ongoing criminal matter, because the criminal matter may streamline the civil litigation by eliminating certain evidentiary issues.⁴⁰

B. Arguments in Opposition

In opposition to the government's motion, D&R Resources argues that "it seems only fair to assume that the investigation began shortly after the incident" two years ago, and that the depositions of most, if not all, fact witnesses have already been taken.⁴¹ D&R Resources contends that it...