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 Texas Petroleum Investment Company’s Motion in Limine,
filed by Petitioner Texas Petroleum Investment Company (“TPIC”).1 Claimants
George Walcott and Evelyn Walcott (the “Walcott Claimants”) oppose 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
TPIC 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. 207.
2 R. Doc. 213
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 231 Filed 05/17/26 Page 1 of 6

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 231 Filed 05/17/26 Page 2 of 6

3
III. 	ANALYSIS
TPIC seeks to exclude an April 11, 2024 incident review memorandum from
Scott Barrilleaux (the “Barrilleaux Memorandum”) and TPIC’s First Report of
Incident for a February 6, 2019 allision involving the M/V SYDNEY (the “2019
Incident Report”).12 The Court addresses each in turn.
A. The Barrilleaux Memorandum
The Barrilleaux Memorandum purports to show an incident review and
corresponding notes compiled by Scott Barrilleaux, a Health and Safety Manager13
at TPIC.14 TPIC contends that because “Barrilleaux has no first-hand knowledge of
what transpired as evidenced by inaccuracies in his memo[,]” “any testimony from
Mr. Barrilleaux on the points referenced in his memo would be hearsay absent
claimant showing there is an exception to the hearsay rule in connection with that
information.”15 	Further, 	TPIC 	argues 	that 	the 	Barrilleaux 	Memorandum 	is
unreliable because it contradicts the deposition testimony of the other passengers in
the M/V SYDNEY at the time of the April 10, 2024 allision.16 In opposition, the
Walcott Claimants assert that “Mr. Barrilleaux is under subpoena and should he be
called as a witness, he can authenticate his out-of-court statement. Moreover, he can
also explain any inaccuracies TPIC contends are present with respect to the root
cause analysis he apparently performed in his capacity as TPIC’s Health and Safety
12 R. Doc. 207.
13 R. Doc. 213 at p. 2.
14 R. Doc. 207 at p. 5.
15 Id. at p. 2.
16 Id. at pp. 2–3.
Case 2:24-cv-02344-WBV-DPC Document 231 Filed 05/17/26 Page 3 of 6

4
director.”17 Lastly, the Walcott Claimants submit that “[t]his Court can evaluate the
accuracy and relevance of the Barrilleaux memo at the time of trial, and should defer
ruling on the Motion to exclude the memo until such time Barrilleaux takes the stand
to be questioned about it.”18
The Court agrees and defers ruling on this objection until raised at trial
depending on whether the Walcott Claimants call Barrilleaux as a witness at trial.
To be clear, however, any hearsay is inadmissible at trial.
B. The 2019 Incident Report
The 2019 Incident Report is a First Report of Incident for a previous allision
occurring on February 6, 2019.19 In the February 6, 2019 allision report, the M/V
SIDNEY “side swiped a well jacket while making [a] crew change . . . .”20 After the
February 6, 2019 allision, TPIC established a new rule that a licensed captain must
operate any vessel that is to transit during foggy conditions.21
TPIC “objects to the relevancy of introduction of this report and any testimony
derived therefrom for the reason that it involves a different time, different location
(there are no well jackets in the Mississippi River, Tiger Pass or Grande Pass)
different weather conditions (fog v. night) and a different operator.”22 The Walcott
Claimants counter that:
TPIC had prior knowledge of incidents aboard the SYDNEY involving
foggy conditions and did not want operation of the SYDNEY to occur
17 R. Doc. 213 at p. 2.
18 Id. at p. 3.
19 R. Doc. 207 at p. 3.
20 Id.
21 Id.
22 Id.
Case 2:24-cv-02344-WBV-DPC Document 231 Filed 05/17/26 Page 4 of 6

5
during the fog. Hollis Wallace testified that prior to the April 10, 2024
incident, the M/V SYDNEY had been involved in at least one other
collision “in the fog” and on ten to fifteen occasions since 2015, TPIC sent
licensed captains to perform crew changes when it was foggy because
“they didn’t want us driving in the fog.” The 2/6/2019 First Report of
Incident is the other collision in low visibility conditions. Clearly, TPIC
was aware that low visibility conditions affected TPIC’s small vessel
operators’ ability to detect and appreciate underwater or in-water
hazards in operating the SYDNEY. The 2/6/2019 incident simply drives
this point home. While TPIC attempts to draw a distinction between fog
and dark, TPIC misses the point. A prior allision in low visibility
conditions is relevant to showing TPIC had privity or knowledge of the
conditions leading up to the April 10, 2024 allision.23
The Court finds that the 2019 Incident Report is not relevant to the April 10, 2024
allision – the allision at issue in the above-captioned matter. As noted by TPIC, the
February 6, 2019 allision involved a different operator, occurred in a different
location, and occurred in different weather conditions.24 Further, and importantly for
the Court’s determination, the previous incident involving this vessel occurred more
than five years earlier. Indeed, the only common factor between the February 6, 2019
allision and the April 10, 2024 allision is that both allisions involved the M/V
SYDNEY. The Court finds that this singular nexus of an incident more than five
years earlier involving the M/V SYDNEY does not have any tendency to make a fact
more or less probable than it would be without the evidence. Without more, the Court
finds the February 6, 2019 Incident Report to be irrelevant and therefore excludes it
pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. 401.
23 R. Doc. 213 at p. 5.
24 R. Doc. 207 at p. 3.
Case 2:24-cv-02344-WBV-DPC Document 231 Filed 05/17/26 Page 5 of 6

6
IV. 	CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that TPIC’s Motion in
Limine25 is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART as stated herein.
New Orleans, Louisiana, May 17, 2026.
______________________________
WENDY B. VITTER
United States District Judge
25 R. Doc. 207.
Case 2:24-cv-02344-WBV-DPC Document 231 Filed 05/17/26 Page 6 of 6