In re: In the Matter of Texas Petroleum Investment Company

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
IN RE: IN THE MATTER OF TEXAS 	CIVIL ACTION
PETROLEUM INVESTMENT COMPANY
NO. 24-2344
SECTION: D (2)
ORDER AND REASONS
Before the Court is a Motion in Limine on Behalf of George and Evelyn Walcott,
filed by Claimants George Walcott and Evelyn Walcott (the “Walcott Claimants”).1
Texas Petroleum Investment Company (“TPIC”) opposes the Motion.2 After careful
consideration of the parties’ memoranda and the applicable law, the Court GRANTS
IN PART and DENIES IN PART the Motion.
I. 	FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On May 13, 2026, the parties submitted their Joint Exhibit List to the Court.3
The Walcott Claimants filed the instant Motion in Limine on May 8, 2026 to exclude
two exhibits from trial. The Court considers the arguments below.
II. 	LEGAL STANDARD
According to the Fifth Circuit, the purpose of a motion in limine is to prohibit
opposing counsel “from mentioning the existence of, alluding to, or offering evidence
on matters so highly prejudicial to the moving party that a timely motion to strike or
an instruction by the court to the jury to disregard the offending matter cannot
overcome its prejudicial influence on the jurors’ minds.”4 	Under Federal Rule of
1 R. Doc. 208.
2 R. Doc. 212.
3 See R. Doc. 204.
4 O’Rear v. Fruehauf Corp., 554 F.2d 1304, 1306 n.1 (5th Cir. 1977) (citation modified).
Case 2:24-cv-02344-WBV-DPC Document 232 Filed 05/17/26 Page 1 of 5

2
Evidence 401, evidence is relevant if it has any tendency to make a fact more or less
probable than it would be without the evidence, or if the fact it seeks to prove is of
consequence in determining the action.5
While all relevant evidence is admissible, the Court may exclude relevant
evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by danger of “unfair
prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the jury, undue delay, wasting time, or
needlessly presenting cumulative evidence.”6 	However, the Fifth Circuit has held
that, “[t]he exclusion of evidence under Rule 403 should occur only sparingly.”7
Additionally, “[r]elevant evidence is inherently prejudicial; but it is only unfair
prejudice, substantially outweighing probative value, which permits exclusion of
relevant matter under Rule 403.”8 	District courts are afforded wide discretion in
determining the relevance and admissibility of evidence under Fed. R. Evid. 401 and
402.9 A district court’s ruling on evidentiary issues is reviewed by an appellate court
for an abuse of discretion.10 	Thus, when the district court conducts “a carefully
detailed analysis of the evidentiary issues and the court’s own ruling, appellate courts
are chary about finding an abuse of discretion.”11
5 Fed. R. Evid. 401.
6 Fed. R. Evid. 403.
7 United States v. Pace, 10 F.3d 1106, 1115–16 (5th Cir. 1993); See United States v. Powers, 168 F.3d
741, 749 (5th Cir. 1999) (same).
8 Pace, 10 F.3d at 1115–16 (citation modified).
9 Sprint/United Management Co. v. Mendelsohn, 552 U.S. 379, 384 (2008).
10 Kelly v. Boeing Petroleum Services, Inc., 61 F.3d 350, 356 (5th Cir. 1995).
11 Id.
Case 2:24-cv-02344-WBV-DPC Document 232 Filed 05/17/26 Page 2 of 5

3
III. 	ANALYSIS
The Walcott Claimants seek to exclude a copy of a prior lawsuit titled George
Walcott, et al v. Safeco Insurance of Illinois, filed in the Twelfth Judicial District
Court, Parish of Avoyelles, State of Louisiana, in 2007 (the “2007 Lawsuit”).12 The
Walcott Claimants further seek to exclude medical records of George Walcott, taken
by Dr. Beau Brouillette, dated August 16, 2020 and October 26, 2023 (the “Medical
Records”). The Court takes each in turn.
A. The 2007 Lawsuit
The 2007 Lawsuit references a personal injury lawsuit in which George
Walcott was involved in a June 24, 2006 accident occurring in a parking lot in Texas
City, Texas.13 The Walcott Claimants contend that the 2007 Lawsuit should be
excluded because:
(1) it is hearsay as it was drafted by an out of court declarant (an
attorney who is not a testifying witness); and (2) under FRE 403 any
scant probative value the lawsuit may arguably have insofar as it
describes claimant’s injuries from a motor vehicle accident almost 20
years ago is substantially outweighed by the high danger of unfair
prejudice and confusion of issues.14
TPIC, in turn, argues that the 2007 Lawsuit is relevant because it includes references
to George Walcott’s prior injuries.15 TPIC specifically asserts that these prior injuries
are alleged to have occurred in:
[E]xactly the areas of his body which Mr. Walcott claims were injured in
the incident in suit which took place on April 10, 2024. One of the
physicians who examined Mr. Walcott at the request of his employer's
12 R. Doc. 208 at p. 1.
13 R. Doc. 212-1.
14 R. Doc. 208-1 at p. 2.
15 R. Doc. 212.
Case 2:24-cv-02344-WBV-DPC Document 232 Filed 05/17/26 Page 3 of 5

4
(Taylors) Workers' Compensation carrier, made specific reference to the
2007 incident suggesting that this may have been indicative that the
condition 	which 	has 	been 	diagnosed 	(pre-existing 	spondylosis 	and
spondylolisthesis in his cervical and lumbar spine) may have some
relevance to his current condition.16
The Court finds that, in general, prior lawsuits are irrelevant and will be excluded.
However, insofar as the 2007 Lawsuit contains relevant medical information, such as
the “specific reference made to ‘disc herniation at C4-5 moderately prominent and
producing significant restriction of the cervical spinal cord[,]’” the Court determines
that such medical information is admissible in this bench trial.17 The burden is on
TPIC to seek to introduce the relevant portions of the 2007 Lawsuit at trial, but the
2007 Lawsuit, in its entirety, will not be entered into evidence. The Court will rule
on the particular portions of the records from that lawsuit when offered into evidence
at the trial.
B. Medical Records
Dr. Brouillette is George Walcott’s primary care physician, and the Medical
Records purport to show Dr. Brouillette’s multi-year general health treatment of
George Walcott, including two instances – on August 16, 2020 and October 26, 2023
– where George Walcott advised Dr. Brouillette of back and neck pain.18 The Walcott
Claimants contend that “if the two records of August 16, 2020 and October 26, 2023
are permitted in evidence, the entirety of Dr. Brouillette’s certified records should
also be admitted.”19 	In response, TPIC advises that it “has no objection to that
16 Id. at p. 1.
17 Id. at p. 2.
18 R. Doc. 208-1 at p. 3.
19 Id.
Case 2:24-cv-02344-WBV-DPC Document 232 Filed 05/17/26 Page 4 of 5

5
proposal.”20 The Court finds that the two records indicating similar complaints of
back and neck pain, where George Walcott purportedly complained about to his
doctor less than one year earlier on October 26, 2023 and less than four years earlier
on August 16, 2020, are relevant to the issue of causation as back and neck pain are
at issue in this case. 	Those records will be allowed into evidence. 	As the Walcott
Claimants seek the admission of the entirety of the Medical Records, without
objection, the Court finds that the entirety of the Medical Records are admissible in
this bench trial.
IV. 	CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion in
Limine on Behalf of George and Evelyn Walcott21 is GRANTED IN PART and
DENIED IN PART as stated herein.
New Orleans, Louisiana, May 17, 2026.
______________________________
WENDY B. VITTER
United States District Judge
20 R. Doc. 212 at p. 4.
21 R. Doc. 208.
Case 2:24-cv-02344-WBV-DPC Document 232 Filed 05/17/26 Page 5 of 5