From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Landry v. Apache Corp.

United States District Court, W.D. Louisiana, Lafayette-Opelousas Division
Jan 7, 2008
Civil Action No. 06-0262 (W.D. La. Jan. 7, 2008)

Opinion

Civil Action No. 06-0262.

January 7, 2008


ORDER


Before the Court is Plaintiff's Motion For A Daubert Hearing Regarding The Testimony of Defendants' Economist [Rec. Doc. 68], Dr. Kenneth Boudreaux, as to his reliance upon the Camus Study to calculate plaintiff's loss of future earning capacity. In their motion, plaintiffs submit that "[t]he Camus study is a biased statistical analysis of the longevity of the work life of offshore oil workers, which was completed in 1985 by Richard Camus Associates. The Camus report suggests that offshore oilfield workers have shorter work life expectancies than other workers studied by the United States Department of Labor."

Plaintiffs assert that pertinent jurisprudence has repeatedly excluded the Camus Study on the grounds that its reliability cannot be established. In support of their position, plaintiffs cite Marcel v. Placid Oil Co., 11 F.3d 563 (5th Cir. 1994) and Brommarito v. Penrod Drilling Corp., 929 F.2d 186 (5th Cir. 1991), in which the Fifth Circuit affirmed the District Courts' exclusion of testimony based on the Camus Study. Plaintiffs also cite the affidavit of Shirley J. Smith, Ph.D, Exh, B, who opines that the Camus Study "cannot be used to accurately determine the worklife of offshore oilfield workers" because "the methodology employed by Mr. Camus has not been tested or subjected to peer scientific community. Furthermore, the known or potential rate of error of the technique cannot be established." Aff. Of Shirley J. Smith, Ph.D, Exh.B.

In Marcel, the Fifth Circuit specifically considered Dr. Boudreaux's proposed testimony based on the Camus Study and stated the following:

In presenting the proposed testimony of Dr. Boudreaux, Placid did not tender any evidence comparing the worklife in the oilfield with the national average or with the worklife of any other occupation. Placid attempted to introduce the specific statistics in the Camus study without reference to any other information which would show that Marcel would likely have a shorter worklife and thus should not receive damages based on an average worklife.

This Court has never allowed the Camus Study to be used in any previous proceedings, although counsel who have retained Dr. Boudreaux have attempted to have the Court do so on numerous occasions. It is therefore

ORDERED that plaintiffs' motion is GRANTED to the extent that Dr. Boudreaux makes any reference to the Camus Study. It is

FURTHER ORDERED that Kenneth J. Boudreaux, Ph.D, Consulting Economist, and/or any economist associated with his group, is prohibited from using the Camus Study in any future report that may be generated by him or his group after engagement by an attorney in any case over which the undersigned United States District Judge presides. It is

FURTHER ORDERED that defense counsel is to personally provide Dr. Boudreaux with a copy of this Order after which she is to certify to this Court that she has done so.


Summaries of

Landry v. Apache Corp.

United States District Court, W.D. Louisiana, Lafayette-Opelousas Division
Jan 7, 2008
Civil Action No. 06-0262 (W.D. La. Jan. 7, 2008)
Case details for

Landry v. Apache Corp.

Case Details

Full title:John Landry, et al v. Apache Corp., et al

Court:United States District Court, W.D. Louisiana, Lafayette-Opelousas Division

Date published: Jan 7, 2008

Citations

Civil Action No. 06-0262 (W.D. La. Jan. 7, 2008)

Citing Cases

Henderson v. McMoran Oil & Gas, LLC

" Munoz v. Orr, 200 F.3d 291, 301 (5th Cir. 2000). Plaintiffs cite Landry v. Apache Corp., 2008 WL 10396…