bp filing against hal re cement testing

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

IN RE: OIL SPILL by the OIL RIG “DEEPWATER HORIZON” in the GULF OF MEXICO, on APRIL 20, 2010 This Pleading Applies To: All cases

: : : : : : : : : : : : :

MDL No. 2179

SECTION: J

Honorable CARL J. BARBIER Magistrate Judge SHUSHAN

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

BP’S MOTION FOR SPOLIATION SANCTIONS

BP Exploration & Production Inc. (“BP”) respectfully moves this Court for sanctions

against Halliburton Energy Services, Inc. (“Halliburton”) pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 37 and this Court’s inherent authority.

For the reasons set forth in BP’s accompanying Memorandum in Support of Motion for

Spoliation Sanctions, BP respectfully submits that Halliburton has intentionally destroyed

evidence and has violated this Court’s orders regarding the production of documents. As

explained in the accompanying Memorandum, these actions warrant corrective civil sanctions

from this Court as a matter of law, specifically: (1) an adverse finding of fact and award of

attorneys’ fees for Halliburton employees’ destruction of uniquely relevant cement testing; and

(2) an order compelling Halliburton to deliver to a third-party forensic electronic firm reasonably

acceptable to BP the computer that Halliburton used to produce proprietary 3D modeling results

that it now inexplicably claims are “gone.”

Case 2:10-md-02179-CJB-SS Document 4799 Filed 12/05/11 of 3

2

Dated: December 5, 2011 Robert C. “Mike” Brock Covington & Burling LLP 1201 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20004-2401 Telephone: 202-662-5985 Facsimile: 202-662-6291 Robert R. Gasaway Jeffrey Bossert Clark Aditya Bamzai Kirkland & Ellis LLP 655 Fifteenth Street, NW Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: 202-879-5000 Facsimile: 202-879-5200

Respectfully submitted, /s/ Don K. Haycraft Don K. Haycraft (Bar #14361) R. Keith Jarrett (Bar #16984) Liskow & Lewis 701 Poydras Street, Suite 5000 New Orleans, Louisiana 70139-5099 Telephone: 504-581-7979 Facsimile: 504-556-4108 Richard C. Godfrey, P.C. J. Andrew Langan, P.C. Kirkland & Ellis LLP 300 North LaSalle Street Chicago, IL 60654 Telephone: 312-862-2000 Facsimile: 312-862-2200

Attorneys for BP Exploration & Production Company


3

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that the above and foregoing pleading has been served on All Counsel by

electronically uploading the same to Lexis Nexis File & Serve in accordance with Pretrial Order

No. 12, and that the foregoing was electronically filed with the Clerk of Court of the United

States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana by using the CM/ECF System, which

will send a notice of electronic filing in accordance with the procedures established in MDL

2179, on this 5th day of December, 2011.

/s/ Don K. Haycraft Don K. Haycraft



IN RE: OIL SPILL BY THE OIL RIG “DEEPWATER HORIZON” IN THE GULF OF MEXICO, ON APRIL 20, 2010

THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO ALL ACTIONS

* * * * * * * * *

MDL NO. 2179

SECTION: J JUDGE BARBIER MAGISTRATE JUDGE SHUSHAN

*****************************************************************************

BP’S MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SPOLIATION SANCTIONS

Robert C. “Mike” Brock Covington & Burling LLP 1201 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20004-2401 Telephone: 202-662-5985 Facsimile: 202-662-6291 Robert R. Gasaway Jeffrey Bossert Clark Aditya Bamzai Kirkland & Ellis LLP 655 Fifteenth Street, NW Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: 202-879-5000 Facsimile: 202-879-5200

Don K. Haycraft (Bar #14361) R. Keith Jarrett (Bar #16984) Liskow & Lewis 701 Poydras Street, Suite 5000 New Orleans, Louisiana 70139-5099 Telephone: 504-581-7979 Facsimile: 504-556-4108 Richard C. Godfrey, P.C. J. Andrew Langan, P.C. Kirkland & Ellis LLP 300 North LaSalle Street Chicago, IL 60654 Telephone: 312-862-2000 Facsimile: 312-862-2200


December 5, 2011

Case 2:10-md-02179-CJB-SS Document 4799-1 Filed 12/05/11 Page 1 of 31

i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

INTRODUCTION ...........................................................................................................................1

BACKGROUND .............................................................................................................................4

A. Halliburton’s Destruction of Foam Stability Testing Results. .................................5

B. Halliburton’s Consumption of Limited Quantities of Physical Samples. ................7

C. Halliburton’s Statements Attributing the Failure of the Cement to Channeling. ..............................................................................................................8

D. Halliburton’s Proprietary “Displace 3D” Modeling of Possible Channeling. ..............................................................................................................9

E. Halliburton’s Failure to Produce Its Proprietary Modeling Results. .....................10

ARGUMENT .................................................................................................................................14

I. THE COURT HAS AUTHORITY TO REMEDY HALLIBURTON’S MISCONDUCT. ................................................................................................................14

II. THE COURT SHOULD SANCTION HALLIBURTON’S SPOLIATION OF POST-INCIDENT CEMENT SLURRY TESTING MATERIALS AND RESULTS. .........................................................................................................................17

A. Halliburton Wrongfully and Willfully Destroyed Post-Incident Cement Slurry Testing Results. ...........................................................................................18

1. Halliburton Conducted Tests that Destroyed Physical Evidence in Halliburton’s Exclusive Control. ...............................................................18

2. Halliburton Did Not Give Notice that Its Testing Would Occur, Nor Did It Preserve and Share the Results of the Testing. ........................18

3. The Destruction of the Cement Testing Results by Halliburton Employees Was Intentional and Willful. ...................................................19

B. An Adverse Finding of Fact Against Halliburton Is Warranted. ...........................21

III. THE COURT SHOULD RECTIFY HALLIBURTON’S WRONGFUL FAILURE TO PRODUCE NON-PRIVILEGED, PROPRIETARY, POST-INCIDENT “DISPLACE 3D” MODELING RESULTS. .....................................................................22

A. Halliburton Wrongfully Failed to Produce the Results of Its Proprietary 3D Modeling or to Notify the Court of Its Apparent Disappearance. ...................23


ii

B. The Court Should Order the Forensic Recovery of the Proprietary Modeling Results Halliburton Lost. .......................................................................24

CONCLUSION ..............................................................................................................................25


iii

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page(s)

Cases

Ashton v. Knight Transp., Inc., 772 F. Supp. 2d 772 (N.D. Tex. 2011) ................................................................................ 16, 24

Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32 (1991) .................................................................................................................... 16

Compaq Computer Corp. v. Ergonome Inc., 387 F.3d 403 (5th Cir. 2004) ..................................................................................................... 15

Duque v. Werner Enters., Inc., 2007 WL 998156 (S.D. Tex. Mar. 30, 2007) ...................................................................... 14, 17

In re Enron Corp. Sec. Derivatives & ERISA Litig., 762 F. Supp. 2d 942 (S.D. Tex. 2010) ................................................................................ 14, 15

Ins. Corp. of Ireland, Ltd. v. Compagnie des Bauxites de Guinee, 456 U.S. 694 (2002) .................................................................................................................. 15

Pipes v. UPS, Inc., 2009 WL 2214990 (W.D. La. July 22, 2009) ............................................................... 14, 15, 16

Powell v. Town of Sharpsburg, 591 F. Supp. 2d 814 (E.D.N.C. 2008) ....................................................................................... 20

Pressey v. Patterson, 898 F.2d 1018 (5th Cir. 1990) ............................................................................................. 16, 24

Rimkus Consulting Grp., Inc. v. Cammarata, 688 F. Supp. 2d 598 (S.D. Tex. 2010) ...................................................................................... 16

Vodusek v. Bayliner Marine Corp., 71 F.3d 148 (4th Cir. 1995) ....................................................................................................... 24

Whitt v. Stephens Cnty., 529 F.3d 278 (5th Cir. 2008) ..................................................................................................... 20

Rules

FED. R. CIV. P. 37(b) ......................................................................................................... 15, 16, 19

FED. R. CIV. P. 37(b)(2)(A) ..................................................................................................... 15, 16


INTRODUCTION

Halliburton has consistently held fast to two core assertions regarding the cement that it

pumped into the Macondo well on April 19, 2010. These core assertions have formed the

backbone of Halliburton’s defense of its conduct leading up to the Macondo oil spill.

• First, Halliburton has insisted that the foam cement Halliburton pumped into the Macondo well on April 19, 2010 was “stable,” despite testing results from multiple sources to the contrary and despite the bald fact that Halliburton’s cement allowed hydrocarbons to flow up the well and into the riser on the night of April 20, 2010.

• Second, Halliburton has maintained that the real problem at Macondo was that the cement “channeled” inside the well because of BP’s engineering decisions, including the decision to use fewer centralizers than Halliburton had recommended.

Recently, it has become clear that results from Halliburton’s own non-privileged, post-

incident testing contradict both of Halliburton’s core positions. As set forth in full detail below,

deposition testimony by Halliburton witnesses and Halliburton internal documents show (1) that

Halliburton’s own post-incident, non-privileged cement testing indicates that the Macondo well

cement slurry was not stable, and (2) that Halliburton’s own post-incident, non-privileged,

proprietary computer modeling indicates that there was no “channeling” of the cement in the

Macondo well.

Halliburton has steadfastly refused to provide these critical testing and modeling results

in discovery. Halliburton’s refusal has been unwavering, despite repeated BP discovery requests

and a specific order from this Court. BP has now learned the reason for Halliburton’s

intransigence — Halliburton destroyed the results of physical slurry testing, and it has, at best,

lost the computer modeling outputs that showed no channeling.

More egregious still, Halliburton intentionally destroyed the evidence related to its non-

privileged cement testing, in part because it wanted to eliminate any risk that this evidence would

be used against it at trial. Moreover, with respect to the post-incident computer modeling,


2

Halliburton has asserted, without any explanation, that the information is simply “gone.” As

described in detail below, the key facts include the following:

Cement Testing

• In late April or early May of 2010, Halliburton directed its employees to prepare and test a batch of the cement slurry — testing that appears likely to have used (and so destroyed) limited cement additives from the Macondo well project. See, e.g., Ex. 1 (Morgan Dep.) at 16:16-19, 17:3-20:5; Ex. 2 (Quirk Dep.) at 88:23-89:2.

• According to deposition testimony, Halliburton’s post-Incident testing in Duncan, Oklahoma, showed that (1) the Macondo well slurry settled, meaning that solids in the cement mixture were separating from liquids; and (2) the base slurry could not be foamed. Ex. 2 (Quirk Dep.) at 124:23-25; Ex. 3 (Faul Dep.) at 264:2-11;

Such sedimentation is an indication of instability. Rickey Morgan in the Duncan lab also reported that the slurry looked “thin” to him, meaning that the slurry could be unstable once poured into the well. Ex. 1 (Morgan Dep.) at 20:23-22:9.

• One of Halliburton’s Duncan employees, Rickey Morgan, testified under oath that he destroyed test results in order to keep the information from being “misinterpreted” in ways adverse to Halliburton in litigation. See, e.g., id. at 101:7-23.

• After the Duncan experiments showed settling, Ron Faul asked another Halliburton lab to replicate the tests. See Ex. 2 (Quirk Dep.) at 88:23-89:18.

The new tests indicated foam instability. Id. at 333:6-10; 480:13-481:2.

• Upon reviewing these latest testing results, Halliburton employees destroyed records of the testing as well as the physical cement samples used in the testing. See, e.g., id. at 331:21-24; 393:11-21.

Modeling

• Similarly, Halliburton conducted modeling of the Macondo well cement job using Halliburton’s proprietary Displace 3D Simulator. Ex. 5 (Roth Dep.) at 495:14-496:5. Tommy Roth, Halliburton’s Vice President in charge of its cement business at the time of the incident, stated in a July 25, 2010 e-mail that this post-incident modeling demonstrates that there was no channeling in the Macondo well: “[S]pacer was sufficient to sweep channel. Subsequent testing with 3D confirms statement that spacer was sufficient.”

• Notwithstanding the relevance of this post-incident modeling, and its responsiveness to BP discovery requests, Halliburton did not produce the results generated by its proprietary Displace 3D modeling software or additional documents associated with that modeling. See Ex. 7 (11/22/2011 letter, B. Harding to J. Martinez). Even Tommy Roth’s


3

e-mail describing the results of the Displace 3D modeling was not produced until July 2011, near the end of fact discovery.

• On August 15, 2011, after discovering the critical Roth email and searching for and failing to find the documents associated with the modeling, BP promptly requested an immediate production of documents and communications pertaining to the Displace 3D modeling. See Ex. 8 (08/15/2011 letter, B. Harding to J. Martinez); Ex. 9 (9/22/2011 e-mail, X. McKeever to J. Martinez). BP ultimately moved to compel, and the Court ordered Halliburton to produce, all non-privileged, post-incident investigative materials by October 12, 2011. See Ex. 10 (9/27/2011 Order).

• Halliburton responded by producing thousands of pages of documents in the days leading up to October 12, 2011. Still, Halliburton failed to notify BP that it did not produce the modeling referenced in Tommy Roth’s July 25, 2010 e-mail despite BP’s repeated requests. Nor did Halliburton inform BP that the modeling was “gone.”

• After still more waiting, and still further requests, BP arranged a meet-and-confer session. During this meet-and-confer session, Halliburton stated for the first time that these critical modeling results were now “gone.” Ex. 11 (11/11/2011 letter, B. Harding to J. Martinez). Halliburton has not explained to BP or the Court why or how such essential evidence could, and apparently did, simply vanish. See Ex. 7 (11/22/2011 letter, B. Harding to J. Martinez).

• Nonetheless, Halliburton continues to contend that the Halliburton cement job failed, not because of Halliburton’s own errors in designing the slurry, but rather because BP’s decisions caused the Halliburton cement to “channel.” Most recently, Halliburton submitted expert reports espousing this very theory, despite apparently having conducted post-incident modeling using proprietary software that indicated the exact opposite.

Because Halliburton has deprived the Court and parties of uniquely relevant evidence, BP

respectfully requests that the Court impose adverse findings of fact, award attorneys’ fees, and

direct Halliburton to implement additional remedial steps as described below.

Specifically, with respect to the evidence of cement testing destroyed by Halliburton’s

employees — thereby forever depriving the Court and parties of uniquely relevant evidence —

BP respectfully requests that the Court impose adverse findings of fact and award attorneys’

fees. With respect to the inexplicably missing computer modeling results, BP respectfully

requests that the Court direct and supervise forensic efforts to recover the missing data. If those

efforts prove unsuccessful, BP requests that the Court then grant expedited discovery into the


4

circumstances surrounding this data loss and expedited remedies to cure it. These remedies are

amply warranted in law and by principles of fair play, and they are essential to ensure this

Court’s trial is not tainted by Halliburton’s misconduct.

BACKGROUND

There is no serious dispute that Halliburton’s cement job failed to isolate hydrocarbons in

the Macondo well. But what precisely led to this failure of Halliburton’s cement job —

Halliburton’s poorly-designed and unstable cement slurry or other decisions and factors —

remains hotly contested. As the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation made clear, such

disputes over what “cause[d] the Deepwater Horizon [incident] and the role, if any, that each

defendant played in it” are at the very center of this multidistrict litigation. Ex. 12 (J.P.M.L.

8/10/2010 Order at 3).

Given the central importance of causation questions, multiple courts have issued orders

directing parties involved in the Deepwater Horizon incident to preserve potentially relevant

evidence. Such orders and directives include (among others):

• An April 30, 2010 temporary restraining order issued just 10 days after the blowout, directing Halliburton to refrain from any “destruction of any documents pertaining to the April 20, 2010 explosion,” Ex. 13 (4/30/2010 Stone TRO);

• A May 5, 2010 preservation order, requiring Halliburton “[t]o reasonably refrain and resist from any changing, alteration and/or destruction of any documents pertaining to the April 20, 2010 explosion or subsequent efforts expended in connection with such event … and to take immediate action to prevent the automatic and/or systematic programmed deletion or discarding of such documents,” Ex. 14 (5/5/2010 Order at 1);

• A June 18, 2010 preservation order, mandating that Halliburton “preserve all documents and other physical evidence” in connection with the blowout on the Deepwater Horizon, Ex. 15 (6/18/2010 Order); and

• This Court’s August 10, 2010 Pretrial Order No. 1, directing all parties to “take reasonable steps to preserve all documents, data and tangible things containing information potentially relevant to the subject matter of this litigation” and warning that “[f]ailure to comply [could] lead to dismissal of claims, striking of defenses, imposition of adverse inferences or other dire consequences,” Ex. 16 (Pretrial Order No. 1 at ¶ 14)).


5

A. Halliburton’s Destruction of Foam Stability Testing Results.

Notwithstanding its duty to preserve potentially relevant evidence in the weeks and

months following the April 20, 2010 incident, Halliburton proceeded deliberately to destroy

relevant evidence generated in the course of non-privileged, post-incident investigations.

In late April or early May 2010, Halliburton’s Global Advisor in Gulf Cementing, Rickey

Morgan, analyzed a cement slurry with the same composition as the foam slurry pumped at the

Macondo well. See Ex. 1 (Morgan Dep.) at 10:14-20; 19:12-20:5; 92:7-93:6. He testified that

the slurry “looked thin,” which he explained implied lower-than-expected viscosity, a property

that reflects how stable the slurry is when mixed and pumped into the well. Id. at 20:23-21:8;

98:3-8. Moreover, although Mr. Morgan testified that he did not observe any “settling,” id. at

180:20-21 — which is another condition that can potentially indicate a cement slurry’s instability

— Timothy Quirk and Ron Faul reported that Mr. Morgan’s tests had indicated such “settling,”

Ex. 3 (Faul Dep.) at 264:2-11; 269:24-270:11; Ex. 2 (Quirk Dep.) at 124:19-125:3; 127:5-19.

Mr. Morgan verbally reported these testing results to his supervisor, Ronald Faul. Ex. 3

(Faul Dep.) at 270:3-6. Mr. Morgan did not document his observations in writing. See Ex. 1

(Morgan Dep.) at 22:10-23:6; 105:4-10. There is no suggestion that the relevant Halliburton

tests are privileged and Halliburton has not asserted any claims of privilege over them.

Significantly and remarkably, Mr. Morgan admitted under oath that he “threw out” the

slurry samples he tested because he was “worried about” those materials “being misinterpreted in

the litigation”:

Q. [D]id you take down any notes about the slurry?


6

A. No, ma’am.

Q. You didn’t take any pictures?

A. No, ma’am.

Q. And then you said you dumped out the sample?

A. Yes, ma’am.

Q. And you mentioned that the reason that you didn’t document the test and you threw out the sample was because you were worried about it being misinterpreted in the litigation?

A. Yes, that’s part of the reason yes, ma’am.

Id. at 101:9-23 (emphasis added).

After hearing Mr. Morgan’s verbal report of the slurry testing results, Mr. Faul contacted

Tim Quirk (Halliburton’s Area Lab Manager for its Broussard Laboratory) to request a variety of

foam stability tests on a cement slurry with the same composition as used at the Macondo well.

See Ex. 3 (Faul Dep.) at 263:12-265:6. Mr. Faul explained that the cement sample tested by Mr.

Morgan at Halliburton’s Duncan Laboratory showed signs of “settling,” an indicator of possible

instability. Mr. Faul further explained that he wanted Mr. Quirk to verify the stability of

Halliburton’s foam design. Id.; Ex. 2 (Quirk Dep.) at 89:11-24.

Mr. Faul expressly ordered Mr. Quirk not to create a record of these tests or their results.

See id. at 128:18-22; Instead, Mr. Faul instructed Mr. Quirk to conduct the tests

— meaning Mr. Quirk was not to record the tests in Halliburton’s “Viking” system or

otherwise document them as called for by Halliburton’s normal cement testing procedures. Ex. 3

(Faul Dep.) at 387:1-388:8; Ex. 2 (Quirk Dep.) at 128:18-22;

As requested, Mr. Quirk performed various foam stability tests, with and without mud

contamination. See id. at 122:12-123:7. At his deposition, Mr. Quirk

but was unable to recall other details — including, for example,


7

the densities of the cured

foam, or other essential testing results. Id. at 333:2-5.

To BP’s knowledge, the results for the uncontaminated foam stability tests are not

recorded in any standard or customary scientific manner anywhere. This is apparently because,

in accordance with Mr. Faul’s express instructions, Mr. Quirk did not create a written report of

the foam stability tests he conducted or otherwise document his findings in the Viking system.

See id. at 330:5-14). Moreover, although Mr. Quirk actually did make notes of the contaminated

foam stability test results, he “got rid of” those notes after reporting the testing results to Mr.

Faul. See id. at 393:11-21 (emphasis added). Likewise, Mr. Quirk purposefully discarded the

physical cement test samples after completing the tests, despite having not recorded the results

and destroying the limited notes that he did take. See id. at 331:21-24.

The combination of Halliburton’s decision not to document this testing and the

intentional destruction by its employees, both of the testing notes that were taken and the slurry

sample that was used, have deprived BP, other parties, and the Court of unique, relevant

evidence that cannot be replicated. Moreover, deposition testimony firmly establishes such

evidence would have supported BP’s claims and undermined Halliburton’s defenses had it been

preserved.

B. Halliburton’s Consumption of Limited Quantities of Physical Samples.

It appears that the testing by Mr. Quirk may well have been conducted by using (and thus

destroying) limited cement additives from the Macondo well project. Because Mr. Quirk’s

testing was not documented, however, there are no documents that definitively indicate, one way

or another, what type of cementing material was employed.

Nonetheless,


8

Ex. 19 (Richard Dep.) at 198:10-16 (confirming lot 6264 was used in both post-incident

testing and on the rig).

Halliburton has recognized

that the lot 6264 material is subject to the Court’s preservation order. See Ex. 21, at 4-5 (HESI

request to modify preservation order).

C. Halliburton’s Statements Attributing the Failure of the Cement to Channeling.

Before the incident, Halliburton used OptiCem software to model how the cement would

be placed in the well. Halliburton has maintained

that its OptiCem modeling predicted channeling of the cement in the annulus above the main pay

zones of the well. See Ex. 24 (T. Roth, BP Deepwater Horizon

Investigation: Preliminary Insights), at 9.


9

Indeed, Halliburton has not

produced a single post-cement job communication indicating that Halliburton believed, after the

cement was pumped, that channeling had occurred. Despite this, Halliburton has consistently

maintained, after the fact and for purposes of litigation, that channeling did in fact occur and,

moreover, that this channeling is the reason Halliburton’s cement failed to isolate the

hydrocarbons that eventually flowed up the well and exploded.

Critically, Halliburton has further contended that this alleged channeling is attributable to

BP’s decisions, not Halliburton’s.

Now, however, BP has come to learn that these opinions from Halliburton’s experts

appear to run contrary to results of non-privileged, post-incident modeling using proprietary

software that was conducted in July 2010 by Halliburton itself — results never produced in this

litigation; results that are now, inexplicably, “gone.” Ex. 11 (11/11/2011 letter, B. Harding to J.

Martinez).

D. Halliburton’s Proprietary “Displace 3D” Modeling of Possible Channeling.

Halliburton’s Displace 3D Simulator is a proprietary computational fluid dynamics tool

designed to help engineers assess (among other things) the risk of channeling. Ex. 26 (Displace


10

3D™ Simulator, http://www.halliburton.com/public/cem/contents/Data_Sheets/web/H/H06210.pdf).

Because this model is proprietary, it is not available to BP or other litigants.

To avoid channeling, engineers pump specialized fluids called “spacers” into the

wellbore to help clear a well of residual drilling mud and contaminants before pumping cement.

See, e.g., Ex. 27 (Nguyen Dep.) at 338:16-339:3. According to Halliburton, its

proprietary Displace 3D Simulator models in three dimensions how mud, spacer, and cement

pumped into the wellbore move about over time, which in turn allows engineers to determine the

degree of mud displacement success and to predict with accuracy the possibility of channeling.

See Ex. 26 (Halliburton Data Sheet). Halliburton’s OptiCem program, which was used as the

basis for Halliburton decisionmaking before the April 20, 2010, incident, does not include such

sophisticated functionality. See Ex. 3 (Faul Dep.) at 509:17-20; Ex. 28 (Sweatman Dep.) at

210:21-211:9 (reporting that he never saw 3D modeling of the Macondo well).

At some time after April 20, 2010, Halliburton employees conducted non-privileged

analysis of its April 19 cementing operation using the proprietary Displace 3D Simulator. See

Ex. 6 (HAL_1071448). As best as BP can determine, the results from those modeling runs

indicate that there was no channeling at the Macondo well — confirming what Halliburton

communicated internally and to BP after the cement was pumped on April 19, 2010. See id.; see

also Ex. 29 (Dugas Dep.) at 293:23-296:3.

E. Halliburton’s Failure to Produce Its Proprietary Modeling Results.

Despite BP’s discovery requests, the non-privileged results of Halliburton’s proprietary

Displace 3D modeling have not been produced in this litigation. Instead, BP learned of them

from an e-mail that Halliburton did not produce until July 2011. In that e-mail, dated July 25,

2010, Tommy Roth dismissed the possibility of channeling at the Macondo well based on the

results of post-incident modeling performed with Halliburton’s proprietary Displace 3D


11

software. See Specifically, in responding to internal concerns that

Halliburton had recommended foam cement despite possible channeling, Mr. Roth stated:

“Spacer volume was sufficient to sweep entire anulus [sic] volume. As such, spacer was

sufficient to sweep channel. Subsequent testing with 3D confirms statement that spacer was

sufficient.” Id.

According to Mr. Roth’s July 25, 2010, e-mail, Halliburton’s proprietary 3D modeling

showed that the volume of spacer fluid pumped into the Macondo well before cementing had

been sufficient to clear out residual drilling mud from the annulus and thus eliminate the mud

channeling that is now the linchpin of Halliburton’s defense. Roth’s e-mail had stated that the

“[s]pacer volume was sufficient to sweep entire anulus [sic] volume,” id., and Roger Dugas

agreed in his deposition that this meant the possibility of channeling was not a significant issue.

See Ex. 29 (Dugas Dep.) at 295:12-296:3.

The proprietary, post-incident Displace 3D modeling referenced in Mr. Roth’s July 25,

2010 e-mail is responsive to numerous BP requests for production propounded on March 25,

2011. Specifically, this modeling should have been produced in response to BP’s Requests Nos.

9, 20, 29, and 61. See Ex. 30. In particular, Request for Production No. 29 states: “Please

produce all documents discussing, reflecting or relating to the displacement efficiency of the

spacer fluid used in the Macondo well, including simulations.”

Upon learning of their existence, BP made repeated requests that these modeling results

be produced, together with all other post-incident investigative materials being improperly

withheld by Halliburton. See Ex. 8 (8/15/2011 letter, B. Harding to J. Martinez). When

Halliburton failed to produce these materials, BP moved to compel Halliburton to provide

documents and witnesses related to its post-incident investigative activities not conducted at the


12

direction of counsel. See Ex. 31 (BP’s 8/29/2011 Motion to Compel). On September 27, 2011,

the Court ordered Halliburton to produce all remaining non-privileged, post-incident

investigative materials “by Wednesday, October 12, 2011.” Ex. 10 (9/27/2011 Order at 2-3)

(emphasis added).

In the days following the Court’s Order and leading up the October 12, 2011 court-

ordered deadline, Halliburton produced over ten thousand pages of documents. In producing

these documents, Halliburton never mentioned that the proprietary post-incident modeling

referenced in Tommy Roth’s July 25, 2010 e-mail was unavailable. Accordingly, BP was forced

to make several further attempts to secure Halliburton’s compliance with the Court’s order and

obtain the missing proprietary modeling:

• October 13, 2011 letter from BP to Halliburton: “We understand that the testing referenced in Mr. Roth’s e-mail refers to Displace 3D modeling of the Macondo well, which modeling is responsive to several of BP’s Requests …. Accordingly, please produce this modeling. If, for any reason, you contend that this modeling is privileged, please advise and point us to the privilege log entry describing the basis of the privilege claim.” Ex. 32 (10/13/2011 Letter at 2).

• October 20, 2011 e-mail from BP to Halliburton (sent three days after Halliburton’s submission of expert reports claiming channeling occurred): “I am sending this e-mail due to the urgency of this request which is a follow-up request to previous requests and the Court’s recent orders …. We have searched all recent productions and still cannot locate the 3D modeling referenced by Mr. Roth in [his] email. Please direct us to the [B]ates numbers where the modeling can be found, or produce the modeling as soon as possible.” Ex. 33 (10/20/2011 email, B. Harding to J. Martinez).

Finally, on October 24, 2011, almost two weeks after this Court’s production deadline

had elapsed, Halliburton promised that it would search for the missing modeling results. This is

the entirety of Halliburton’s response:

Subject to HESI’s objections to BP’s document requests, HESI has produced responsive, non-privileged documents based on agreed-upon search terms and custodians. In addition to the existing production, HESI will make a good faith reasonable search for additional responsive and non-privileged documents reflecting the 3D testing referenced in Mr. Roth’s e-mail.


13

Ex. 34 (10/24/2011 letter, C. Raines to B. Harding) at 2.

On October 27, 2011, BP notified Halliburton that it would seek the Court’s intervention

unless Halliburton could provide a definitive date by which it would produce the missing results

generated by its proprietary modeling software:

As you know, Judge Shushan ordered Halliburton to complete its production of documents related to any non-privileged post-incident activities of Halliburton personnel by October 12, 2011. That deadline passed two weeks ago, yet we are still waiting for you to produce the [] Displace 3D modeling … which we have repeatedly requested for over a month. The prejudice to BP from this failure by Halliburton to comply with the Court’s September 27, 2011 order is substantial. Moreover, that prejudice continues to grow with each passing day that Halliburton fails to produce the requested materials …. Accordingly, unless Halliburton produces these items by the end of the week (or gives us a definitive date by the end of the week for production shortly thereafter), we will have no choice but to seek the Court’s intervention.

Ex. 35 (10/27/2011 letter, B. Harding to J. Martinez) at 2-3 (emphasis added).

After receiving no response, BP requested that the parties discuss the missing modeling

results in a meet-and-confer session, which occurred on November 8, 2011. During that

conference, Halliburton revealed for the first time that the results of its proprietary modeling

were now “gone,” meaning that they could no longer be located. See Ex. 11 (11/11/2011 letter,

B. Harding to J. Martinez).

Because Halliburton failed to explain the circumstances surrounding the disappearance of

the proprietary 3D modeling results during the November 8 conference, BP requested the

following clarification on November 11, 2011:

We do not have a written response explaining how or why the 3D modeling evidence is no longer available. I believe you stated the computer is gone but it was somewhat unclear what happened. Would you please describe why the evidence is no longer available so that we can accurately represent the issue to the Court? We plan to file our motion on this issue next week and would appreciate a response by the end of the day on Monday.


14

Id. (emphasis added). Halliburton later clarified that, while the testing results were “gone” from

the computer, Halliburton still has the computer itself. See Ex. 7 (11/22/2011 letter, B. Harding

to J. Martinez). Halliburton has not otherwise responded as of the date of this Memorandum, nor

has it indicated that it plans a further response.

ARGUMENT

As to the critical cement testing evidence, the record is unequivocal that Halliburton

deliberately destroyed inculpatory testing results that go to the heart of multiple parties’ claims

and defenses. Indeed, the evidence recounted above strongly indicates Halliburton destroyed at

least some of this evidence precisely because Halliburton believed other parties could use the

evidence against it. As described below, this conduct merits the substantive sanction of adverse

factual findings in the MDL case — in addition to attorneys’ fees and additional discovery

remedies. In addition, and as described below, Halliburton’s inexplicable failure to produce

inculpatory computer modeling, which it now claims is simply “gone,” merits court-ordered

remedial forensic measures to recover the missing modeling results, and, failing that, expedited

discovery accompanied by further relief as appropriate.

I. THE COURT HAS AUTHORITY TO REMEDY HALLIBURTON’S MISCONDUCT.

A party’s duty to preserve evidence “arises when the party has notice that the evidence is

relevant to litigation or when a party should have known that the evidence may be relevant to

future litigation.” In re Enron Corp. Sec. Derivatives & ERISA Litig., 762 F. Supp. 2d 942, 963

(S.D. Tex. 2010). A person “anticipat[ing] being a party … to a lawsuit must not destroy unique,

relevant evidence that might be useful to an adversary.” Pipes v. United Parcel Serv., 2009 WL

2214990, at *1 (W.D. La. July 22, 2009) (internal quotations omitted). “[T]he duty to preserve


15

material exists throughout the litigation.” Duque v. Werner Enters., Inc., 2007 WL 998156, at *3

(S.D. Tex. Mar. 30, 2007).

Halliburton’s duty to preserve evidence relevant to the explosion on board the Deepwater

Horizon arose in the days and weeks following April 20, 2010. Within a relatively short period

of time following the explosion, Halliburton knew (or should have known) that evidence relevant

to determining the cause of the incident — and in particular to assessing whether failures of

Halliburton’s cement had contributed to the Deepwater Horizon explosion — would be relevant

to issues in pending litigation. See In re Enron, 762 F. Supp. 2d at 963. Against this backdrop,

the Court’s authority to remedy Halliburton’s intentional destruction of evidence and violation of

prior court orders independently derives from two separate sources.

First, where, as here, a party has destroyed evidence in violation of a specific court order,

the court may impose sanctions under Rule 37(b). See FED. R. CIV. P. 37(b)(2)(A). Such civil

sanctions may include (among others) barring the disobedient party from introducing evidence or

directing that certain facts shall “be taken as established for purposes of the action.” Such

sanctions may also include striking the disobedient party’s pleadings, dismissing the action, and

rendering a default judgment against the disobedient party. FED. R. CIV. P. 37(b)(2)(A)(i)-(vi).

Rule 37(b) requires that sanctions be “‘just’” and “‘relate[d] to the particular claim’” that

was the subject of the discovery violations. Compaq Computer Corp. v. Ergonome Inc., 387

F.3d 403, 413 (5th Cir. 2004) (quoting Ins. Corp. of Ireland, Ltd. v. Compagnie des Bauxites de

Guinee, 456 U.S. 694 (2002)). In applying sanctions under Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b), courts consider

the following factors: “(1) the degree of fault of the party who altered or destroyed the evidence;

(2) the degree of prejudice suffered by the opposing party; and (3) whether there is a lesser

sanction that will avoid substantial unfairness to the opposing party and, where the offending


16

party is seriously at fault, will serve to deter such conduct by others in the future.” Pipes, 2009

WL 2214990, at *2 (internal quotations omitted).

Second, discovery sanctions may be based on the Court’s inherent power to control the

judicial process and prevent its abuse. See generally Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32

(1991) (inherent power to sanction not displaced by federal statute or rules of procedure); see

also Rimkus Consulting Grp., Inc. v. Cammarata, 688 F. Supp. 2d 598, 611 (S.D. Tex. 2010).

Sanctions available under a court’s inherent powers encompass a broad choice of remedies and

penalties, including all of the same sanctions a court may impose under Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b).

See Ashton v. Knight Transp., Inc., 772 F. Supp. 2d 772, 801 (N.D. Tex. 2011) (listing available

civil sanctions and noting that federal courts have “broad discretion in crafting a remedy that is

proportionate to both the culpable conduct of the spoliating party and resulting prejudice to the

innocent party”).

Sanctions available under a court’s inherent powers are “confined … to instances of bad

faith or willful abuse of the judicial process.” Pressey v. Patterson, 898 F.2d 1018, 1021 (5th

Cir. 1990). Undoubtedly “‘bad faith’ is to be judged by ‘necessarily stringent’ standards.”

Pressey, 898 F.2d at 1021. Hence, “courts do ‘not automatically draw an inference of bad faith

simply because documents are destroyed after the initiation of litigation.” Pipes, 2009 WL

2214990, at *1. BP thus readily concedes that in the context of this MDL litigation, among the

most complex in history, the aspirational goal of complete and total preservation of any and all

documents that are created within a corporation is too much to ask from anyone. But, with

respect to the cement testing, Halliburton’s actions go beyond merely making a mistake — or

even a series of mistakes. Rather, they amount to the intentional, bad-faith destruction of

uniquely relevant evidence. In addition, Halliburton has failed to provide any explanation for its


17

supposed loss of the inculpatory computer modeling, a circumstance that, at a minimum, is

highly suspicious. Should further facts emerge that provide a basis to believe that Halliburton

acted intentionally or in bad faith with respect to the loss of this evidence, additional sanctions

may be warranted under the Court’s inherent powers.

II. THE COURT SHOULD SANCTION HALLIBURTON’S SPOLIATION OF POST-INCIDENT CEMENT SLURRY TESTING MATERIALS AND RESULTS.

“Sanctions are appropriate when a party’s destruction of evidence causes prejudice and

the party knew or should have known the evidence was relevant to pending or potential

[litigation].” Duque, 2007 WL 998156, at *3. Here, the record establishes that Halliburton

undertook a single, integrated course of non-privileged conduct that led ultimately to its

destroying key physical evidence and testing results.

Halliburton conducted tests that (1) destroyed scarce physical evidence, which

(2) Halliburton alone had access to, notwithstanding (3) Halliburton’s knowledge that litigation

was pending, but (4) without notice to other parties that the testing would occur, and (5) with a

conscious decision not to record the testing results and to destroy the only notes reflecting the

conduct of the testing, out of (6) a professed and admitted — albeit discreditable — fear the

testing results would later be “misinterpreted in th[is] litigation.” Halliburton’s spoliation of

unique physical and documentary evidence — done intentionally to prevent parties from

obtaining and possibly “misinterpreting” this evidence in circumstances where all six of the

above factors are present — rises to the level of bad faith. Accordingly, Halliburton’s conduct,

coupled to the bad faith it evinces, merits the remedies requested in this Memorandum, whether

under Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b) or pursuant to the Court’s inherent powers.


18

A. Halliburton Wrongfully and Willfully Destroyed Post-Incident Cement Slurry Testing Results.

The record establishes that Halliburton disregarded its obligations by deliberately and in

bad faith destroying key evidence from post-incident cement slurry testing. This intentional

destruction of relevant evidence has prejudiced BP and other parties to this litigation.

1. Halliburton Conducted Tests that Destroyed Physical Evidence in Halliburton’s Exclusive Control.

As explained above, in late April or early May 2010, Mr. Morgan analyzed a cement

slurry with the same composition as the foam slurry pumped at the Macondo well. See supra

p. 5. Mr. Morgan’s testing appears to have used part of Halliburton’s limited stock of the cement

ingredients from the same lot as those used at the Macondo well. See supra p. 8. After those

tests, Mr. Faul subsequently instructed Mr. Quirk to conduct additional testing. See supra p. 6.

This additional testing was then performed by Mr. Quirk, and likely used up — and thus

destroyed — limited cement additives from the Macondo well project. Indisputably, these

same-lot cement additives were within the exclusive control of Halliburton and not available to

other parties. See supra p. 8.

2. Halliburton Did Not Give Notice that Its Testing Would Occur, Nor Did It Preserve and Share the Results of the Testing.

Halliburton failed to provide notice to any party that the non-privileged tests conducted

by Messrs. Morgan and Quirk were going to occur and, as a result, no party knew of them in

advance. No party could go to Court to seek to prevent Halliburton’s use and destruction of the

evidence or alter the protocols used for the testing. Nor could any other party monitor the results

of that testing or request copies of the testing results. Halliburton alone had prior knowledge of,

and access to, this destructive testing process.


19

Indeed, not only did other parties not know about these destructive tests, but even within

Halliburton itself, it appears that the tests were conducted in such a way that their results were

not preserved or made generally available. Mr. Faul asked Mr. Quirk to conduct foam stability

tests on the slurry used at the Macondo well Ex. 3 (Faul Dep.) at 263:12-264:1;

Ex. 2 (Quirk Dep.) at 128:2-22; Mr. Quirk conducted those tests and,

significantly, destroyed both his notes and the test results. See id. at 393:11-21.

3. The Destruction of the Cement Testing Results by Halliburton Employees Was Intentional and Willful.

There can be little doubt that Halliburton employees intentionally and willfully destroyed

relevant evidence for improper reasons. Mr. Quirk testified as follows:

“Q. Do you recall what happened to the physical pieces of cement that you tested? Did you dispose of that?

A. Yeah, just discarded it.”

Ex. 2 (Quirk Dep.) at 331:21-24 (emphasis added).

“Q. Did you have hand notes before you talk[ed] to Mr. Faul?

A. Yes.

Q. And what happened to those hand notes?

A. I got rid of them.”

Id. at 393:16-21 (emphasis added);

Likewise, Mr. Morgan testified:

“Q. And then you said you dumped out the sample?

A. Yes, ma’am.”

Ex. 1 (Morgan Dep.) at 101:14-16 (emphasis added).


20

The facts surrounding this intentional destruction of evidence manifest “bad faith” within

the meaning of applicable civil discovery precedent applying Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b) and the

Court’s inherent powers. Critically, BP does not assert that Halliburton’s apparent decisions to

avoid documenting the test results and dispose of the slurry upon conclusion of the testing, in

and of themselves, warrant discovery sanctions. Rather, BP contends that these decisions —

combined with the intentional destruction of all other evidence of the test, including scarce

cement ingredients and all notes reflecting the testing protocols and results — rises to the level of

sanctionable spoliation of evidence under applicable civil discovery rules.

Here, unlike in many other spoliation cases where the alleged spoliator’s motivation for

destroying evidence is unclear, Rickey Morgan, Halliburton’s Global Advisor in Gulf

Cementing, has candidly admitted that he destroyed evidence willfully, with full knowledge of

pending litigation, and for the express purpose of keeping unfavorable information out of the

hands of Halliburton’s litigation adversaries.

Mr. Morgan testified as follows:

“Q. And you mentioned that the reason that you didn’t document the test and you threw out the sample was because you were worried about it being misinterpreted in the litigation?

A. Yes, that’s part of the reason yes, ma’am.”

Ex. 1 (Morgan Dep.) at 101:17-23 (emphasis added).

Purposefully destroying evidence because it is deemed to contain potentially unfavorable

information that could benefit a litigation adversary is, by definition, “bad faith” conduct. See,

e.g., Whitt v. Stephens Cnty., 529 F.3d 278, 284 (5th Cir. 2008) (bad faith shown where party

“intentionally destroy[ed] important evidence” and “did so because the contents of those

documents were unfavorable to that party”); Powell v. Town of Sharpsburg, 591 F. Supp. 2d 814,

820 (E.D.N.C. 2008) (describing bad faith as “destruction for the purpose of depriving the


21

adversary of the evidence”). In this case, Mr. Morgan’s candid admissions that he dumped test

samples to prevent such information from being “misinterpreted” and “twisted” against

Halliburton, in circumstances where no other record of the testing was made or kept, underscores

the wrongfulness of these actions. Parties in this MDL litigation do not have the right to destroy

evidence because they fear it may be “misinterpreted.” Interpretation of evidence is the

responsibility of a trier of fact, and litigating parties cannot decide for themselves what facts a

trier of fact is and is not capable of accurately “interpreting.”

B. An Adverse Finding of Fact Against Halliburton Is Warranted.

There can be no question BP and other parties have been prejudiced by Halliburton’s

undisclosed, deliberate destruction of scarce physical evidence. The slurry tested by Mr. Morgan

had precisely the same composition as that used at Macondo and may have included some of the

same ingredients. See Ex. 1 (Morgan Dep.) at 19:12-20:5; 92:7-93:6. Moreover, Mr. Morgan’s

testing showed that the slurry appeared thinner than expected and was settling — two indications

of potential problems with the Halliburton slurry design. See id. at 20:8-21:3; 180:12-24;

187:16-188:2; Ex. 2 (Quirk Dep.) at 124:23-25; Ex. 3 (Faul Dep.) at 264:2-11. Mr. Morgan then

destroyed the scarce materials used in the test because he was afraid that it could be used in

litigation. See Ex. 1 (Morgan Dep.) at 101:7-23.

Indeed, Mr. Morgan’s verbal report concerning those testing results so concerned Mr.

Faul that he asked Mr. Quirk to conduct foam stability tests on the slurry used at the Macondo

well Ex. 3 (Faul Dep.) at 263:12-264:1; Ex. 2 (Quirk Dep.) at 128:2-17;

Mr. Quirk then conducted those tests and destroyed his notes and the test results.

By deliberately destroying this documentary and scarce physical evidence

in the manner described above, Halliburton forever deprived other litigating parties of the

opportunity to analyze and review the results of Halliburton’s own testing of the slurry.


22

Significantly, Halliburton is contending that post-incident testing performed by CSI

Technologies, Inc. (“CSI”) — one of the world’s leading cement laboratories — using simulated

slurry (because Halliburton would not provide BP with laboratory stock additives) is not reliable

and that post-incident testing by Chevron and by Oilfield Testing & Consulting (“OTC”) using

Halliburton laboratory stock additives is likewise not reliable. Halliburton further contends that

test results using the rig samples that it turned over to the government for testing are also

unreliable, because of the passage of time. In this fashion, Halliburton conveniently contends

that the only reliable testing is the pre-incident testing that Halliburton itself performed.

Tellingly, Halliburton’s experts did not conduct and do not rely on any post-incident testing.

But directly belying these multiple Halliburton contentions of convenience is the glaring

fact that the non-privileged, post-incident, testing described above, performed by Halliburton

itself, appears to have confirmed the CSI, Chevron, and OTC reports — and refuted

Halliburton’s own litigating positions. Given these unusual, extraordinary facts, the Court

should order an appropriately framed finding of fact adverse to Halliburton. This factual finding

should be available for use by all MDL parties. It should stipulate, in essence, that the testing

performed by Messrs. Morgan and Quirk showed Halliburton’s slurry design to be unstable.

III. THE COURT SHOULD RECTIFY HALLIBURTON’S WRONGFUL FAILURE TO PRODUCE NON-PRIVILEGED, PROPRIETARY, POST-INCIDENT “DISPLACE 3D” MODELING RESULTS.

Undisputed facts establish that Halliburton has failed to produce highly valuable,

non-privileged, proprietary, post-incident, Displace 3D modeling results that Halliburton claims

— without explanation — are simply “gone.” Because these results were produced using

proprietary software, BP and other parties are simply unable to reproduce them using their own

resources. Accordingly, the Court should direct a forensic examination (at Halliburton’s

expense) to recover the proprietary modeling results. In the event such an examination proves


23

unsuccessful — and the modeling results truly are “gone” for good — the Court should then

grant BP expedited discovery into the circumstances of that data loss, and, if justified by

evidence of bad faith or sufficiently wrongful conduct by Halliburton, make an adverse finding

of fact against Halliburton as to what this proprietary modeling would have shown.

A. Halliburton Wrongfully Failed to Produce the Results of Its Proprietary 3D Modeling or to Notify the Court of Its Apparent Disappearance.

Halliburton was obliged to produce all non-privileged, post-incident modeling results,

first in response to BP’s March 2011 requests for production, see Ex. 30 (BP Requests); and,

second, pursuant to the Court’s September 27 Order “Regarding BP’s Motion to Compel

Halliburton Investigation Materials,” see Ex. 10 (September 27, 2011 Order).

After repeated inquiries and follow-up requests seeking to enforce this Court’s September

27 Order, Halliburton now claims that its modeling results are “gone,” cannot be found, and will

not be produced. See Ex. 11 (11/11/2011 letter, B. Harding to J. Martinez); Ex. 7 (11/22/2011

letter, B. Harding to J. Martinez).

Asked to explain how critical evidence could disappear in clear disregard of this Court’s

Order, Halliburton at first ignored the question. See Ex. 7 (11/11/2011 letter, B. Harding to J.

Martinez) (“Would you please describe why the evidence is no longer available so that we can

accurately represent the issue to the Court?”). After BP’s follow-on inquiries, Halliburton’s only

response was to say that the results of its proprietary modeling has disappeared from the

computer on which it was performed. See Ex. 7 (11/22/2011 letter, B. Harding to J. Martinez).

Halliburton’s explanation is, at a minimum, highly suspicious and warrants further

inquiry, especially given the following:

• The indisputable relevance of these modeling results to Halliburton’s core allegations of channeling, see supra at p. 9;


24

• Halliburton’s protracted refusal to respond to BP’s repeated requests for such modeling results, see supra at pp. 11-14;

• The significant prejudice Halliburton’s supposed loss of this modeling has caused BP by potentially forever depriving it of the ability to examine and rely upon results of Halliburton’s own proprietary 3D modeling to refute Halliburton’s core allegations, see supra at p. 10;

• The unfair advantage Halliburton is poised to reap from the unexplained disappearance of this unfavorable evidence, see supra at p. 9, which BP alone cannot possibly reproduce, due to the proprietary nature of the computer model used to generate it; and

• The testimony establishing Halliburton’s willingness to destroy and suppress other potentially unfavorable evidence, see supra at pp. 5-8.

B. The Court Should Order the Forensic Recovery of the Proprietary Modeling Results Halliburton Lost.

BP has been prejudiced by being prevented from buttressing key claims and defenses by

showing them to be supported by Halliburton’s own proprietary modeling. See Rimkus, 688

F. Supp. 2d at 616-17 (prejudice may be shown where evidence “as a whole would allow a

reasonable fact finder to conclude that the missing evidence would have helped the requesting

party support its claims and defenses”); Ashton, 772 F. Supp. 2d at 801 (“Generally, the

prejudice element is satisfied where a party’s ability to present its case … is compromised.”)

(internal quotations omitted); see also Vodusek v. Bayliner Marine Corp., 71 F.3d 148, 155-57

(4th Cir. 1995).

In choosing an appropriate remedy for Halliburton’s failure to produce its proprietary

modeling results, the Court enjoys “broad discretion” to fashion relief adapted to address

Halliburton’s misconduct, see Pressey, 898 F.2d at 1021, provided the sanction is “no harsher

than necessary to respond to the need to punish or deter and to address the impact on discovery,”

Ashton, 772 F. Supp. 2d at 801.

Applying these principles, an appropriate sanction would be for the Court to compel

Halliburton to fund an examination by a third-party specialist (one reasonably acceptable to the


25

Court, other parties, and BP) of the computer used to produce the proprietary 3D modeling

results referenced in Tommy Roth’s July 25, 2010 e-mail. Such a sanction obviously will not

fully cure the prejudice suffered by BP and other parties from having been denied timely access

to Halliburton’s proprietary 3D modeling results. Still, such an examination might well recover

the missing modeling results, or shed light on the circumstances of their apparent disappearance.

If the model outputs are recoverable, that would tend to ameliorate the prejudice the MDL parties

have suffered, by providing BP and other parties what is perhaps as close a substitute as possible

to the evidence Halliburton wrongfully failed to produce. See Rimkus, 688 F. Supp. 2d at 618

(“appropriateness of a sanction” can be measured by whether it ‘restore[s] the prejudiced party to

the same position he would have been in absent the wrongful destruction of evidence.”).

Furthermore, assuming the forensic recovery efforts succeed, such a remedy would preclude

Halliburton from unjustly benefitting from its failure to preserve evidence.

If the model outputs are not recoverable, BP respectfully submits that it should then be

entitled to expedited discovery into the circumstances of the data loss. Furthermore, BP reserves

the right to come to the Court on an expedited basis seeking a finding of fact, under both Fed. R.

Civ. P. 37(b) and this Court’s inherent discovery powers, to the effect that the missing

proprietary modeling showed no channeling occurred at the Macondo well — in the event the

full record reveals Halliburton’s bad-faith destruction or wrongful failure to preserve the results

of its proprietary modeling.

CONCLUSION

For these reasons, BP respectfully requests that the Court impose the remedies requested

herein, plus reasonable attorneys’ fees, to redress Halliburton’s misconduct and rectify the

resulting prejudice to BP.


26

Dated: December 5, 2011 Robert C. “Mike” Brock Covington & Burling LLP 1201 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20004-2401 Telephone: 202-662-5985 Facsimile: 202-662-6291 Robert R. Gasaway Jeffrey Bossert Clark Aditya Bamzai Kirkland & Ellis LLP 655 Fifteenth Street, NW Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: 202-879-5000 Facsimile: 202-879-5200

Respectfully submitted, /s/ Don K. Haycraft Don K. Haycraft (Bar #14361) R. Keith Jarrett (Bar #16984) Liskow & Lewis 701 Poydras Street, Suite 5000 New Orleans, Louisiana 70139-5099 Telephone: 504-581-7979 Facsimile: 504-556-4108 Richard C. Godfrey, P.C. J. Andrew Langan, P.C. Kirkland & Ellis LLP 300 North LaSalle Street Chicago, IL 60654 Telephone: 312-862-2000 Facsimile: 312-862-2200



27


I hereby certify that the above and foregoing pleading has been served on All Counsel by

electronically uploading the same to Lexis Nexis File & Serve in accordance with Pretrial Order

No. 12, and that the foregoing was electronically filed with the Clerk of Court of the United

States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana by using the CM/ECF System, which

will send a notice of electronic filing in accordance with the procedures established in MDL

2179, on this 5th day of December, 2011.

/s/ Don K. Haycraft Don K. Haycraft


Exhibit 1


PURSUANT TO CONFIDENTIALITY ORDER

1

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

2

3 IN RE: OIL SPILL ) MDL NO. 2179

BY THE OIL RIG )

4 "DEEPWATER HORIZON" IN ) SECTION "J"

THE GULF OF MEXICO, ON )

5 APRIL 20, 2010 ) JUDGE BARBIER

) MAG. JUDGE SHUSHAN

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20 Deposition of RICKEY LYNN

21 MORGAN, taken at Pan-American Building,

22 601 Poydras Street, 11th Floor, New Orleans,

23 Louisiana, 70130, on the 17th day of October,

24 2011.

25



9

1 A. It's a university, actually.

2 Q. Oh, I'm sorry, Cameron

3 University. What did you do after -- first

4 of all, when did you grad- -- when did you

508:35 stop taking courses at Cameron University?

6 A. 1978, I think.

7 Q. And I'm smiling, 1978, because

8 that's an important year of my life. That's

9 my high school graduation year. So I

1008:35 remember it very fondly. What did you do

11 after 1978?

12 A. I worked in the oil field on a

13 rig for two years.

14 Q. What did you do at the rig?

1508:35 A. I was a motorman and a mud man.

16 Q. How many years were you there?

17 A. A year and a half, two years.

18 Q. For what company did you work?

19 A. McCaslin Drilling.

2008:35 Q. Where were they located?

21 A. Duncan, Oklahoma.

22 Q. And the drilling was also there?

23 A. They were drilling all over

24 southern Oklahoma.

2508:36 Q. In Oklahoma. And so that takes



10

1 us roughly to 19 --

2 A. '80.

3 Q. -- 80. Where did you go after

4 that?

508:36 A. I started at Halliburton in

6 January of 1980 as a lab technician.

7 Q. What did you do as a lab

8 technician in the early years?

9 A. We ran large-scale tests.

1008:36 Q. What type of tests?

11 A. We would make our own formations

12 and pump mud into them and then cement, see

13 how good a cement job we got.

14 Q. Can you tell me from 1980 to the

1508:36 present the types of positions that you've

16 held at Halliburton, including the title and

17 description of the work?

18 A. I was a lab technician, Sr. lab

19 technician, principal technologist, and now

2008:37 I'm a global adviser in the Gulf cementing.

21 Q. Okay. What years were you a lab

22 technician?

23 A. I'd say '83, to '83.

24 Q. 1980 to '83?

2508:37 A. That's an approximation. I



11

1 don't know the --

2 Q. Yeah, of course. I don't think

3 anyone knows -- except maybe your lawyer he

4 remembers everything.

508:37 MR. BOWMAN: Not really.

6 Q. (BY MR. GONZALEZ) Then roughly

7 when you became a senior lab technician

8 roughly in 1983 how did your duties and

9 obligations at Halliburton change?

1008:37 A. They didn't change.

11 Q. You just had to supervise

12 others?

13 A. No. I did essentially the same

14 job.

1508:37 Q. Okay. And how long were you a

16 senior lab technician?

17 A. Until approximately '92 or so.

18 Q. So about nine years or so?

19 A. Yeah.

2008:37 Q. Then roughly in 1992, more or

21 less, you became a -- a principal

22 technologist?

23 A. Yes, sir.

24 Q. Tell us what that means.

2508:38 A. You can run projects on -- on



14

1 mean any capacity.

2 A. I didn't know there was a

3 Macondo.

4 Q. Okay. So not even a casual

508:40 connection?

6 A. No, sir.

7 Q. Nothing?

8 A. None at all.

9 Q. Okay. The reason I said it so

1008:40 many times because I have to be very

11 specific. That's the way lawyers talk. If

12 we don't ask the question the right way, then

13 later someone could interpret that it wasn't

14 clear, ambiguous, and that you actually did

1508:40 know; and it was my fault because I didn't

16 ask it the right way. So I do apologize if I

17 sound like I'm repeating myself.

18 A. That's all right.

19 Q. So you first found out about the

2008:41 Macondo well 252 project involving the

21 Deepwater Horizon rig when?

22 A. I saw on the news that there was

23 a problem, and I didn't know Halliburton was

24 on it or not.

2508:41 Q. At what point did you become



15

1 aware that Halliburton was on that project?

2 A. I think there was an e-mail came

3 out several days later that said Halliburton

4 was on the rig and no one was hurt.

508:41 Q. No one from Halliburton?

6 A. Yeah.

7 Q. So when did you become involved

8 with the project in any capacity?

9 A. When Ronnie Faul called me.

1008:41 Q. Tell us who Ronnie Faul is.

11 A. He -- as far as I know, he's

12 the -- kind of the supervisor down on the

13 Gulf Coast over the technology engineers?

14 Q. Is he an engineer?

1508:42 A. I have no idea what his

16 education is.

17 Q. In the -- this is now 2010 when

18 he's contacting you, right?

19 A. Yes, sir.

2008:42 Q. How much after the April 20th

21 explosion did he call you?

22 A. He called me twice, I think.

23 Q. And roughly how many weeks after

24 or days after?

2508:42 A. Roughly two weeks, two to four



16

1 weeks.

2 Q. So towards the end of April, or

3 beginning of May?

4 A. Yes, sir.

508:42 Q. And that would be 2010?

6 A. Yes, sir.

7 Q. Where were you working at that

8 time?

9 A. I was principal technologist in

1008:42 the cementing, materials, and maintenance

11 group.

12 Q. And the location?

13 A. Duncan.

14 Q. Oklahoma?

1508:42 A. Yes, sir.

16 Q. What did Ronnie Faul want you to

17 do?

18 A. He asked me to take a look at

19 the Macondo slurry.

2008:43 Q. What aspect of it?

21 A. He didn't say. He said, just

22 take a look at it.

23 Q. Tell us what slurry means.

24 A. Slurry is the wetted cement

2508:43 mixed together. Cemented mixed with the



17

1 water.

2 Q. Now, I'm going to ask you to go

3 back in time roughly to the time that

4 Mr. Faul -- did he call you, or did he send

508:43 you a text message?

6 A. Called. Called.

7 Q. Or an e-mail?

8 A. Called.

9 Q. Okay. In the old days we could

1008:43 just say that he called you. Now we have

11 five different ways he could contact you.

12 A. Exactly.

13 Q. And what -- to the best of your

14 knowledge, tell me everything you can

1508:43 remember about that first conversation.

16 A. He just asked me to take a look

17 at the slurry and give him my opinion of it.

18 Q. Did you ask him any questions as

19 to what he meant or what the scope was?

2008:44 A. No.

21 Q. So he -- he said, Mr. Morgan, I

22 want you to look at the slurry used on the

23 Macondo well 252?

24 A. (Nodding head.)

2508:44 Q. "Yes"?



18

1 A. Yes.

2 Q. And then you said?

3 A. Okay.

4 Q. And what did -- what did you do?

508:44 A. I got the slurry sheet, and I

6 went and mixed the slurry up.

7 Q. Where did you find the slurry

8 sheet?

9 A. I got it from Brian Wall.

1008:44 Q. Who is he?

11 A. He is a princ- -- I don't know

12 what his exact title is. He's a technician

13 that works there at Halliburton in Duncan.

14 Q. And what's on the slurry sheet?

1508:44 A. The recipe for the slurry.

16 Q. So the exact -- is it the exact

17 slurry recipe that was used for the Macondo

18 well 252?

19 A. I have no idea if it was.

2008:44 Q. Why did you pick that slurry

21 sheet?

22 A. That's what was on Viking, where

23 they keep track of what the slurry designs

24 are.

2508:45 Q. Viking is a system where you



19

1 keep a log of the type of slurry designs that

2 are used in different projects --

3 A. Yes, sir.

4 Q. -- is that right? And for the

508:45 Macondo well 252 you picked the slurry sheet

6 that you felt in the Viking system would be

7 the one that was used in the Macondo well

8 252; is that right?

9 A. No. I got the slurry sheet from

1008:45 Brian.

11 Q. Okay. And Brian was -- here's

12 my question: You're trying to figure out the

13 slurry -- look at the slurry that was used in

14 the Macondo well 252, right?

1508:45 A. Yes, sir.

16 Q. So it's important that you pick

17 the right recipe?

18 A. Yes, sir.

19 Q. So how -- what assurances did

2008:45 you have that made you feel comfortable,

21 okay, I'm checking the right slurry?

22 A. That was the slurry Brian was

23 using, as far as mixing his test -- he was in

24 the field service.

2508:45 Q. Okay. And Brian was also



20

1 testing the slurry for the Macondo 252?

2 A. Yes, sir.

3 Q. So you felt fairly comfortable

4 that it was the right slurry recipe?

508:46 A. Yes, sir.

6 Q. Was it a foam slurry?

7 A. Yes, sir.

8 Q. How would you describe that

9 slurry?

1008:46 MR. BOWMAN: Object to the form.

11 THE WITNESS: What did you say?

12 Q. (BY MR. GONZALEZ) Oh, he

13 objected to protect the legal record.

14 MR. BOWMAN: I objected to form, but

1508:46 you can go ahead and answer the question,

16 unless I instruct you not to. I have to make

17 objections for the legal record.

18 THE WITNESS: Okay.

19 MR. GONZALEZ: Otherwise, he doesn't

2008:46 get paid.

21 MR. BOWMAN: Right. That's very

22 important.

23 A. When I mixed it up it looked

24 thin to me.

2508:46 Q. (BY MR. GONZALEZ) And what does



21

1 that mean?

2 A. It was not as viscous as I was

3 expecting it to be.

4 Q. And why is viscosity important?

508:47 A. Viscosity determines how easy a

6 slurry is to pump. It -- it determines how

7 stable a slurry is once it's pumped and

8 mixed.

9 Q. So the thinner the slurry, the

1008:47 less likely that it will be stable?

11 MR. BOWMAN: Objection; form.

12 A. Not -- not necessarily.

13 Q. (BY MR. GONZALEZ) But

14 generally, right?

1508:47 A. I was mixing it on surface.

16 Q. Right.

17 A. Not necessarily. It depends on

18 what's in the slurry, how stable it is

19 downhole.

2008:47 Q. Right. But when you're looking

21 at it, you expected it to be thicker, not

22 th- -- not as thin?

23 A. I expected it to be thicker, yes

24 sir.

2508:47 Q. Right. And if it were thicker,



22

1 that would tell you greater chances of

2 stability?

3 A. Generally, but not necessary, we

4 have additives in there that don't react

508:47 until it gets downhole so...

6 Q. I understand. But as an

7 experienced person, it was something that you

8 felt was noteworthy?

9 A. Yes, sir.

1008:48 Q. And you reported it?

11 A. No, sir.

12 Q. You didn't tell it to anyone?

13 A. I didn't record it. I told it

14 to Ronnie Faul.

1508:48 Q. Right, you told it to Ronnie.

16 On the phone?

17 A. Yes, sir.

18 Q. Now, did Ronnie tell you not to

19 write it down?

2008:48 A. No, sir.

21 Q. You just chose not to?

22 A. Yes, sir.

23 Q. And was that because you were

24 concerned that it might be considered

2508:48 something that could be used in litigation



23

1 against the company down the road?

2 A. No, sir. He was asking for my

3 opinion, and I gave him my opinion. I didn't

4 want to put anything on an e-mail that could

508:48 be twisted, and turned, just like we were

6 talking about earlier.

7 Q. Okay. So tell me exactly what

8 you remember telling Ronnie about the

9 third -- slurry being thinner than you

1008:48 thought it would be.

11 A. That's exactly what I told him.

12 Q. Well, give me your words.

13 A. Oh.

14 Q. Those are mine.

1508:48 A. I told him that I thought the

16 slurry was thin.

17 Q. What did he say?

18 A. He said okay put it in an

19 e-mail.

2008:48 Q. Did you?

21 A. No.

22 Q. Why?

23 A. Same reason we just discussed.

24 Q. You didn't want your words

2508:49 turned around -- down the road?



24

1 A. Twisted, exactly, taken out of

2 context.

3 Q. What did you mean when you said

4 the -- what were you intending to explain to

508:49 Ronnie when you said the slurry was thin?

6 A. The slurry was thinner than

7 I'm -- than I normally see for a foam slurry

8 is what I -- what I was expressing to him.

9 What I would normally expect, put it that

1008:49 way.

11 Q. Now, we don't have the benefit

12 of your experience and work in the lab. So

13 can you take us there and show us with --

14 through your words on how you would get the

1508:49 slurry sheet, prepare the mixture, do what

16 you do in order to reach whatever opinions or

17 conclusions you reached.

18 MR. BOWMAN: Just answer every

19 question, unless I tell you not to.

2008:50 A. Okay. Get the slurry sheet.

21 You weigh up all the dry materials and blend

22 it together, shake it up in a blender -- I

23 mean, in a dry container. You take the

24 water, weigh it up in a, in this case a

2508:50 2-quart blender, because you have to have a



91

1 job?

2 A. No, ma'am.

3 Q. Okay. I'd like to go back to

4 one thing that you mentioned in your training

510:22 earlier this morning. I think you mentioned

6 at some point that you went to a mud school;

7 is that right?

8 A. Yes, ma'am.

9 Q. And can you tell me

1010:22 approximately when you went to that mud

11 school?

12 A. I would say late '80s. It was

13 the Baroid mud school in Houston, Texas.

14 Q. And about how long was that

1510:22 course?

16 A. One week.

17 Q. And what were the topics covered

18 in that course?

19 A. General basics of mud design and

2010:22 testing.

21 Q. Okay. So it went to sort of the

22 properties of the muds that you'd be working

23 with?

24 A. Yes, ma'am.

2510:22 Q. Was there anything involved with



92

1 mud logging or anything --

2 A. No ma'am.

3 Q. Do you have any experience with

4 mud logging or monitoring a well during a

510:22 cement job?

6 A. No, ma'am.

7 Q. Okay. I'll turn now to the --

8 the testing that you did that Mr. Faul asked

9 you to perform. Did you call that a cement

1010:23 mixing test? I can't remember the exact word

11 you used.

12 A. Yes, ma'am.

13 Q. Now, you mentioned that you

14 got -- to do this cement mixing test, you got

1510:23 the slurry recipe from Mr. Brian Wall?

16 A. Yes, ma'am.

17 Q. And he was a lab tech in the

18 Duncan facility?

19 A. Yes, ma'am.

2010:23 Q. And you got it off one of the --

21 and he provided you with a cement weigh-up

22 sheet from Viking?

23 A. Yes, ma'am.

24 Q. And that was how you figured out

2510:23 the slurry recipe?



93

1 A. Yes, ma'am.

2 Q. When you first saw the recipe

3 for the slurry, did you understand it was the

4 one pumped for the Macondo well production

510:23 casing?

6 A. Yes, ma'am.

7 Q. And did you notice anything odd

8 or concerning about the slurry recipe when

9 you saw the ingredients that went into it?

1010:24 A. No, ma'am.

11 Q. Did you notice that the

12 D-Air 3000 was in the slurry recipe?

13 A. Not until I started weighing it.

14 Q. But you do understand the

1510:24 D-Air 3000 is a defoamer?

16 A. Yes, ma'am.

17 Q. Did you notice that SCR-100L was

18 the retarder that was used in that slurry

19 formulation?

2010:24 A. When I started weighing it, yes,

21 ma'am.

22 Q. And you understand the SCR-100L

23 to be a disburser?

24 A. It can be.

2510:24 Q. And what do you mean "it can



94

1 be"?

2 A. Certain situations I've seen it

3 actually seen it gel a slurry some when you

4 go static.

510:24 Q. Can you first give me a little

6 bit more detail on that? What kind of

7 situations would that happen?

8 A. SCR-100L or SCR-100 helps you

9 build strength quicker than most retarders we

1010:25 have.

11 Q. Let me stop you for one second,

12 because you said something that I'd like to

13 know. SCR-100 and SCR-100L, are those the

14 same chemical formulations?

1510:25 A. One's liquid and one's powder

16 form.

17 Q. Okay. But other than that

18 they're the same composition?

19 A. Yes, ma'am.

2010:25 Q. Okay. Sorry to interrupt.

21 Please go on.

22 A. In certain slurries it can

23 actually help with gelation a little bit, but

24 it does act as a dispersants as well

2510:25 sometimes.



98

1 right?

2 A. Exactly, yes, ma'am.

3 Q. But regardless of the hole

4 conditions, you still need a slurry that has

510:28 a rheology that'll enable it to foam properly

6 in order to achieve the job; would you agree

7 with that?

8 A. Yes, ma'am.

9 Q. And did you believe, based upon

1010:28 what you saw, about the slurry that you

11 mixed, that it would be able to foam

12 properly?

13 A. It did foam properly, yes,

14 ma'am.

1510:28 Q. It did foam properly. I'm

16 sorry, I missed that. I didn't catch that

17 you foamed it. So after you mixed the

18 slurry, you made the observation that it was

19 thinner than you were expecting to see, but

2010:28 then you foamed it?

21 A. Yes, ma'am.

22 Q. And you were able to

23 successfully foam it?

24 A. Yes, ma'am.

2510:29 Q. Did you see any signs of gas



100

1 Mr. Faul and tell him that the slurry looked

2 thin?

3 A. Yes, ma'am.

4 Q. And you felt that was something

510:30 important to bring to his attention even

6 though the slurry foamed?

7 A. Yes, ma'am.

8 Q. Now, on the second run that you

9 did -- oh, let me back up one second.

1010:30 And you mentioned before that

11 the first time you ran this test you didn't

12 condition the slurry; is that right?

13 A. Yes, ma'am.

14 Q. Why didn't you condition it?

1510:30 A. Normally, we don't. And he --

16 it wasn't a formal request of any kind, so I

17 just mixed it up and gave him my opinion.

18 Q. And when you say "normally" you

19 don't condition it, are there -- is it just

2010:30 in general the lab testing doesn't --

21 A. If it's asked for, we do.

22 Q. But it's typically not asked

23 for?

24 A. Well, you got to realize, we're

2510:30 doing research and -- we're not doing field



101

1 work. I don't know if it is in the field or

2 not.

3 Q. But in your research did you

4 find that people requested it frequently?

510:31 A. Well, not in the research part

6 of it.

7 Q. Okay. And, now, the second

8 slurry that you foamed -- oh, well, first,

9 let me confirm, you didn't -- did you take

1010:31 down any notes about the slurry?

11 A. No, ma'am.

12 Q. You didn't take any pictures?

13 A. No, ma'am.

14 Q. And then you said you dumped out

1510:31 the sample?

16 A. Yes, ma'am.

17 Q. And you mentioned that the

18 reason that you didn't document the test and

19 you threw out the sample was because you were

2010:31 worried about it being misinterpreted in the

21 litigation?

22 A. Yes, that's part of the reason

23 yes, ma'am.

24 Q. Now, for the second test you

2510:31 mentioned that the -- before you ran this



102

1 test you talked to Mr. Quirk?

2 A. Yes, ma'am.

3 Q. And he told you that the for the

4 testing he had done in his facility, in the

510:31 Broussard facility, that he had conditioned

6 the slurry prior to his testing?

7 A. Yes, ma'am.

8 Q. Did he tell you what testing he

9 was doing?

1010:32 A. No, ma'am.

11 Q. So he didn't tell you any

12 results or anything like that, either?

13 A. No, ma'am.

14 Q. And so based on what Mr. Quirk

1510:32 said, you also conditioned the slurry and

16 reran the test; is that right?

17 A. Yes, ma'am, yes.

18 Q. How long did you condition the

19 slurry?

2010:32 A. It's two or three hours. I

21 don't know exactly.

22 Q. And do you remember how you

23 determined that?

24 A. It was on the Viking sheet, I

2510:32 think, on the back page somewhere.



103

1 Q. So just when they were doing the

2 testing for the job, that's how long they

3 conditioned the slurry?

4 A. I would assume.

510:32 Q. And so you were just trying to

6 match what they did?

7 A. Yes, ma'am.

8 Q. And do you remember the

9 temperature that you conditioned at?

1010:32 A. 134 or 135. I don't remember

11 exactly.

12 Q. And why did you condition at

13 that temperature?

14 A. That was the circulating

1510:32 temperature of the well.

16 Q. And why would you condition a

17 slurry at the circulating temperature?

18 A. Because that is the ultimate

19 temperature that the slurry will see

2010:33 downhole.

21 Q. Do you have any understanding of

22 whether the testing performed on the slurry

23 prior to the incident was conditioned at that

24 same temperature?

2510:33 A. I don't know.



104

1 Q. But just based on your

2 experience and all your years in the lab, you

3 knew that that was the appropriate

4 temperature to conditioned at?

510:33 A. Yes, it was on the Viking sheet.

6 Q. Oh, it was on the Viking sheet?

7 A. Yeah, the bottom hole

8 circulating temperature.

9 Q. Okay, let me just clarify that

1010:33 one second, because I think there is a small

11 difference here. You saw on the Viking sheet

12 that the bottom hole circulating temperature

13 was 135; is that right?

14 A. Yes, ma'am.

1510:33 Q. You didn't see on the Viking

16 sheet that they conditioned at 135?

17 A. Right.

18 Q. Okay. Thank you. And then even

19 after you conditioned the slurry for two to

2010:34 three hours at 135, it still looked the same

21 as the first test; is that right?

22 A. The viscosity was, yes, ma'am.

23 Q. So it was still thinner than you

24 would expect for a foam slurry?

2510:34 A. Yes, ma'am.



105

1 Q. Now, did you notice any other

2 differences after you conditioned the slurry?

3 A. No, ma'am.

4 Q. And do you know -- and same with

510:34 this test result, you just called and told

6 Mr. Faul; is that right?

7 A. Yes, ma'am.

8 Q. There is no documentation or

9 pictures or anything like that of it?

1010:34 A. No, ma'am.

11 Q. And you also threw away the

12 slurry sample?

13 A. No. I actually poured the

14 sample into a -- a cylinder and ran a test

1510:34 there.

16 Q. And what test did you run for

17 the second one?

18 A. I poured it in a 250 milliliter

19 cylinder that is about an inch and a half in

2010:35 diameter and 1 foot tall. I set it in a

21 134-degree water bath for an hour and a half

22 to two hours, and then I observed what the

23 slurry looked like.

24 Q. So pretty much like the API

2510:35 onset foam slurry test?



106

1 A. Close to it, yeah.

2 Q. Why did you set the slurry up in

3 a 135-degree water bath?

4 A. That is what most of the

510:35 customers are asking for now. Used to we

6 just set them on the countertop at room

7 temperature. But most customers want to have

8 the slurry at whatever circulating

9 temperature is now.

1010:35 Q. And is that, again, to try to

11 simulate the downhole conditions?

12 A. Yes, ma'am.

13 Q. Have you ever seen any

14 circumstances where somebody would set the

1510:36 slurry sample in a temperature that was

16 higher than bottom hole circulating

17 temperature?

18 A. I haven't, but it could -- if

19 it's requested, it could happen.

2010:36 Q. But if it was done that way,

21 would it simulate the conditions that the

22 slurry would experience when it's first

23 placed; is that right?

24 A. It would be more like bottom

2510:36 hole static temperature, yes, ma'am.



179

1 viscosifier, just to highlighted it.

2 Q. And your handwriting on the

3 other page that you were asked about, that

4 the PV 84 and the YP-0, you told us how you

501:15 arrived at that, right?

6 A. Yes, sir.

7 Q. And you said the YP -- the yield

8 point of zero is equivalent to water in terms

9 of viscosity?

1001:15 A. Yes, sir.

11 Q. Somebody who's -- doesn't

12 have -- have your background or know about

13 rheology of cements, would they be able to

14 look at this and tell that that's -- without

1501:15 your handwriting, that that's a problem here?


17 A. If they didn't know how to -- if

18 they didn't know what they was looking for,

19 no.

2001:15 Q. (BY MR. FLEMING) And at

21 least -- and you said this -- this applied --

22 or was done only as to the base slurry?

23 A. Yes, sir, yes, unfoamed slurry.

24 Q. Why would the crushed

2501:15 compressive strength test here, if you know,



180

1 be done just as to the unfoamed slurry and

2 not the foam slurry?

3 A. Typically, that's how

4 Halliburton does it.

501:16 Q. But a yield point of zero, at

6 least as to the base slurry, indicates a

7 significant risk of instability, right?


9 A. Well, you've got to realize that

1001:16 the SA-541 doesn't kick in until it gets some

11 temperature on it, so...

12 Q. (BY MR. FLEMING) You reported

13 to -- to Mr. Faul that -- after you did the

14 initial batch that you -- you saw it as thin,

1501:16 right?

16 A. Yes, sir.

17 Q. Did you tell him you saw any

18 settling?

19 A. No, sir.

2001:16 Q. Did you see any settling?

21 A. No, sir.

22 Q. And did you regard both the base

23 slurry and the foam slurry as thin?

24 A. Yes, sir.

2501:16 Q. The -- the first slurry, you



181

1 prepared the base slurry, you foamed it, you

2 saw it was thin, and you dumped it out,

3 right?

4 A. Yes, sir.

501:17 Q. The second slurry you did after

6 you talked to Mr. Quirk --

7 A. Yes, sir.

8 Q. -- about the condition? You

9 conditioned the base slurry this time for

1001:17 three hours?

11 A. Yes, sir.

12 Q. All right. And then you did the

13 test you described?

14 A. Yes, sir.

1501:17 Q. When -- in a non-slurry job --

16 excuse me, a non-foam job, straight cement is

17 being used, is not foamed, there is, in

18 effect, some conditioning as the cement is

19 pumped down the casing, right?

2001:17 A. Yes, sir, viscosity particularly

21 goes -- gets -- it decreases, yes, sir.

22 Q. Because, in essence, the cement,

23 the slurry is being stirred as it moves down?

24 A. Yes, sir.

2501:18 Q. And so in that situation, in a



186

1 doing separate tests?

2 A. Yes, sir.

3 Q. Are they at Duncan or -- or

4 Broussard?

501:21 A. Duncan.

6 Q. At Duncan?

7 A. Yes, sir.

8 Q. And was there any further

9 conversation among you about the fact that

1001:21 this was the mix used at the Macondo well and

11 all three of you found it to be thin?

12 A. No, sir. It was just all said

13 it looked thin to us.

14 Q. And you were never asked to

1501:22 determine what went wrong with the cement job

16 at Macondo?

17 A. No, sir.

18 Q. Will you agree something went

19 wrong with the cement job at Macondo?

2001:22 MR. BOWMAN: Objection; form.

21 MS. YANG: Objection; form.

22 A. No, sir, I don't -- I don't

23 know. I wasn't there.

24 Q. (BY MR. FLEMING) Based on your

2501:22 work in replicating the slurry used, would



187

1 you agree at least that it is possible that

2 instability of the foam cement was a

3 contributing cause?


501:22 A. I don't know if it was unstable

6 or not once it got placed.

7 Q. (BY MR. FLEMING) But you can't

8 rule out instability of cement based on what

9 you saw, right?

1001:22 MR. BOWMAN: Objection; form.

11 A. Yes, sir.

12 Q. (BY MR. FLEMING) Any changes in

13 Halliburton testing procedures since Macondo,

14 that you're aware?

1501:22 A. No, sir.

16 Q. When you mixed that a slurry at

17 Mr. Faul's request and knew it was the recipe

18 used at Macondo and you found it to be thin,

19 was that sort of an "oh, my gosh" moment for

2001:23 you?

21 A. It was something that I wasn't

22 expecting to see, so I thought I should call

23 him right back and let him know what I

24 thought, you know, I just -- I was expecting

2501:23 it to be thicker than it was. But I didn't



188

1 know what well parameters they had, they were

2 designing for.

3 MR. FLEMING: All right. That's all we

4 have. Thank you.

501:23 MR. BOWMAN: Thank you.

6 THE WITNESS: Thank you.

7 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Time is 1:23 p.m.

8 We're off the record.

9 (Recess from 1:23 p.m. to 1:25 p.m.)

1001:25 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Time is 1:25 p.m.

11 We're back on the record.

12 E X A M I N A T I O N

13 BY MR. GUIDRY:

14 Q. Mr. Morgan, my name is Robert

1501:25 Guidry, and I along with my colleague here

16 Mark Best represent Anadarko.

17 A. Okay.

18 Q. I don't have a whole lot of

19 time, so I'll get right to it.

2001:25 A. Okay.

21 Q. Did you ever communicate with

22 anyone from Anadarko regarding the Macondo

23 well or any issue at all about the Macondo

24 cementing process or testing you performed?

2501:25 A. No, sir.



189

1 Q. Are you aware of anyone else

2 from Halliburton communicating with Anadarko

3 about any decision regarding the Macondo

4 cementing process or lab testing?

501:25 A. No, sir.

6 Q. Are you aware of any lab test

7 conducted on any cement slurry for purposes

8 of the Macondo well being transmitted to

9 Anadarko at any point in time prior to

1001:26 April 20, 2010?

11 A. No, sir.

12 Q. Are you aware of any lab tests

13 conducted after April 20, 2010 on

14 representative cement slurries for the

1501:26 Macondo well being transmitted to Anadarko?

16 A. No, sir.

17 Q. Do you have any information

18 leading you to believe that Anadarko had any

19 involvement in the -- the design, testing, or

2001:26 development of the cement program used on the

21 Macondo well?

22 A. No, sir.

23 Q. I'd like to ask you a couple

24 questions about the mixing test.

2501:26 A. Yes, sir.


Exhibit 2


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

GAUDET, KAISER, L.L.C.Board-Certified Court Reporters

1


IN RE: OIL SPILL BY THE OIL RIG "DEEPWATER HORIZON" IN THE GULF OF MEXICO, ON APRIL 20, 2010

MDL NO. 2179

SECTION: J

JUDGE BARBIERMAG. JUDGE SHUSHAN

Videotaped deposition of TIMOTHY L. QUIRK, 202 Founder Street, Lafayette, Louisiana 70508, taken in the Pan American Life Center, Bayou Room, 11th Floor, 601 Poydras Street, New Orleans, Louisiana 70130, on Monday, March 21, 2011.

APPEARANCES:

ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFFSSTEERING COMMITTEE

CUNNINGHAM BOUNDS, LLCBy: Robert T. Cunningham, Esquire1601 Dauphin Street Mobile, Alabama 36604


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Board-Certified Court Reporters

88

at that I was looking at the -- the testing

performed in April.

BY MR. PALMINTIER:

Q. Understood. Did you eventually

go back before April?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay. All right. If I

understood your testimony correctly, you

are saying that on your own, without any

instruction from your supervisors, you

looked at these materials you just

described to me, correct?

A. I think that's a correct

statement.

Q. Do you recall having gotten a

directive from your immediate supervisor or

anyone higher up to begin to look at slurry

design and testing results and -- and other

aspects of this project?

A. You -- specifically just

evaluating the slurry design?

Q. I understand. Let me -- let me

make it simpler. Do you recall having

gotten a directive from above saying we

want you to look at this cement job because


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


89

of this blowout?

A. Yes.

Q. Who contacted you?

A. Ronnie Faul.

Q. Okay. And what did Mr. Faul

say?

A. He just asked me to -- to foam

the, you know, foam the slurry and -- and

take a look at using lab stock additives.

And --

Q. And did he give you a reason why

he wanted you to foam the slurry using lab

stock additives?

A. He said that -- that they had

performed a test in -- in Duncan, Oklahoma

and that he wanted me to mix the slurry up

and see if, you know, see how it compared

to what they were seeing up there.

Q. Okay.

A. Mix it and -- and perform

stability. This was, you know, a foam

stability test and looking at different

concentrations of mud contamination with

the -- and the effects on cement --

Q. Okay. All right.


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


90

A. Using lab stock additives.

Q. Understood. Do you recall when

Mr. Faul communicated that request to you?

A. I don't remember the exact date.

I would -- I would estimate maybe a few

weeks after April 20th.

Q. Okay. Now, who -- who did the

testing to which Mr. Faul referred up in

Duncan, Oklahoma?

A. I don't know who actually

performed the tests. I'm trying to think

of the gentleman's name. His name -- I

don't work very much with these guys. I

just can't -- I can't recall his name right

now.

Q. That's okay.

A. If I would see his name I could

confirm it. I just can't think of his name

right now.

Q. But is the Duncan, Oklahoma,

another -- that location, is it another

Halliburton lab?

A. Yes. Yes.

Q. All right. And you from time to

time through the years you have --


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


121

conclusions, I don't know what you are

referring to, but I mean, I looked at the

data. I looked at the information that was

obtained.

Q. Did the test results that you

saw demonstrate the likelihood of

instability of the cement?

A. The test results that -- what

I -- what I looked at, I did not, in my

opinion, I did not feel the slurry was --

was unstable.

Q. Oh, there's that word, you see,

opinion. And that's what I was looking

for. So you -- there -- you do have an

opinion based on the test results that you

looked at, correct?

A. On the test results, right.

Q. I understand.

A. Not the well conditions.

Q. Okay. So we're just limited --

limiting our discussion to lab results,

correct?

A. That -- that's correct.

Q. Now, later we'll talk about the

specific results. But suffice it to say


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


122

that both of these tests that you ran, you

believe in terms of the lab results did not

demonstrate a high likelihood of

instability; is that your testimony?

A. Well, in my opinion it -- it

looked like the -- when I observed the

specimen, the specimen appeared to be

stable in my opinion.

Q. Okay. Did you do the -- do a

foam slurry test as --

A. Yes, foam. And --

Q. Okay. And you used the PVC

method that you described earlier?

A. Yes, used the PVC. I did use

the PVC method.

Q. Did you yourself actually remove

the sample after solidification and slice

it?

A. Yes, I was -- I was -- I was

doing -- I was taking part in that. I -- I

feel like I -- if my memory serves me

correctly, I think I went through the

process of cutting the sections. We had

the PVC piping. We also had a -- I poured

also in a cylinder to evaluate just using


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


123

-- not -- not a method that's actually a

practice or a work method. It's just a --

a different way of evaluating it. So I

ran -- I ran two tests actually.

Q. Okay. And you made the slices

and so forth yourself?

A. Yes, I'm pretty sure I did.

MR. PALMINTIER:

Okay. We are going to take

a break now.

VIDEOGRAPHER:

We're going off the record

at 10:39. This is the end of tape two.

(A SHORT BREAK WAS TAKEN.)

VIDEOGRAPHER:

We're back on the record at

10:51. This is the beginning of tape

three.

BY MR. PALMINTIER:

Q. Mr. Quirk, we're back. Before

we left you had mentioned tests that were

run in Duncan, Oklahoma. And as I

understand it, that used to be sort of a

major headquarters for Halliburton. It may

not be anymore, but the assumption that I


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


124

make is that they must have a big lab

facility still up there. Am I correct

about that?

A. Yes. Yes, they do.

Q. All right. Now, you also were

kind enough to explain that you were asked

to do a similar test that they had run,

correct?

A. Uh-huh. Right.

Q. And I'm interested in their

results. Do you know what their results

were?

A. I do not know.

Q. Were you provided with their

results or was this a totally blind study

on your part?

A. I was not provided with their

test results.

Q. Okay. Were you told by the

individual who asked you to do this work

that their results were -- demonstrated a

likelihood of instability?

A. Upon mixing, upon mixing the

slurry in a static state, that they had

noted settling when they -- when they mixed


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


125

the slurry. Beyond that, I don't have

any -- any test -- I don't have any test

results.

Q. Understood. So you were asked

to run it again by whom? Who asked you?

A. Ronnie Faul.

Q. Okay. All right. Now, did he

give you any instructions about how to run

the test; in other words, what method to

use?

A. From what I can recall, he just

asked me to repeat the test that we

performed, the way we tested it prior to

April 20.

Q. Okay.

A. For the -- for the stability

test.

Q. For the stability?

A. Right.

Q. Okay. And is it your

understanding as you sit here today that

that's what they did in Duncan?

A. I don't know what they did in

Duncan. I really don't.

Q. Okay. And you have not been


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


126

shown those results since the time you

performed your testing in response to

Mr. Faul's request? You haven't been shown

the Duncan results in order to compare them

with your own?

A. I have not viewed the Duncan

test results.

Q. All you were -- all you received

was a comment from Mr. Faul that they had

had some difficulty in their tests?

MR. BOWMAN:

Objection, form.

MR. PALMINTIER:

That's a good form

objection.

BY MR. PALMINTIER:

Q. Anyway, you had previously

testified that they had noticed a -- a

problem that could lead to the conclusion

of the likelihood of instability, correct?

MR. BOWMAN:

Objection, form.

THE WITNESS:

Upon mixing, just in a

static state after mixing, is what I


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


127

recall.

BY MR. PALMINTIER:

Q. Upon mixing. I'm sorry. I

don't understand that.

A. Foam the slurry and evaluate the

slurry after -- leave the slurry in static

conditions after mixing it is what I recall

the conversation being about, and that they

were noting settling problems where they

just mixed it and then left it sitting

static.

Q. Now, just for my purposes,

explain to a layperson the settling that

you're talking about in a -- in a foam

slurry. Are you talking about a polarizing

of the bubbles or are you talking about a

movement of solids in the --

A. A movement of solids down

towards -- sedimentation.

Q. Sedimentation. Okay.

Understood. When Mr. Faul communicated

with you, do you recall whether or not it

was in an e-mail; that is, for the -- for

the request that you run this follow-up

test?


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


128

A. He called me.

Q. Okay. Now, do you remember how

you got those results to him?

A. Telephone.

Q. By telephone. Do you remember

whether or not you gave him a written

report?

A. I did not give him a written

report.

Q. All right. Why not?

A. He didn't request a written

report.

Q. But isn't it routine and

universal that a report is produced when

you do a -- a test such as you performed?

A. It -- it -- that's usually the

case.

Q. All right. Did he instruct you

not to produce a report, sir?

A. That's -- he instructed me,

that's right, he did -- he did not want a

report.

Q. Okay. And did you ask him why

no report?

A. I did not ask him why.


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


129

Q. All right. If I understand your

testimony today, we have to rely on your

memory of what you saw because you didn't

produce a report, correct?

A. That's correct.

Q. Let's talk about what you saw.

You had a -- you -- you have been candid

with us, you did two tests.

A. Uh-huh.

Q. You used one of maybe an

industry-acceptable canister and the other

the PVC that you used in your lab

routinely, correct?

A. That's correct, the PVC standard

test and then the -- a cell that -- that

could be used also, just a different --

different way to look at it.

Q. But not the routine that you

usually use, correct?

A. That's correct.

Q. And who asked you to use that?

Was it Mr. Faul?

A. No, I just chose to evaluate it

just really to get a -- a visual of what it

looked like.


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


132

What is that putting in the

water bath called? Is there an industry

term for that?

A. It's a foam stability test.

Q. Understood. But I mean, what's

the purpose of putting it into the heat,

the hot water?

A. So that -- so that it's exposed

to temperature, so that the cement can cure

and --

Q. But are the -- do you know

whether or not the temperatures are

designed in the testing of this type to

simulate the conditions in the well?

MR. CHEN:

Objection to form.

BY MR. PALMINTIER:

Q. Do you know?

A. I don't know what the bottom

hole well conditions are. I only know what

was on the lab report, or on the lab

request I should say.

Q. Okay. And that temperature

would vary from test to test, correct; that

is, the water bath temperature would vary


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


133

from test to test?

A. If it were -- if it were cooler,

then yes. If it was not up to 180 degrees

in the bottom hole well conditions, then

yes.


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


134


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


135


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


139


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


140

Q. Okay. I would like to ask you

some questions about what you did to

prepare for the deposition today. You had

no transcript to read like all the other

witnesses so I assume that you didn't

-- did you read anyone else's transcript in

preparation for your deposition?

A. No, I did not.

Q. Did you read any materials at

all?

A. I read -- reviewed, you know,


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


141

some documents, you know.

Q. Which documents?

A. The BP internal investigation.

Q. Okay.

A. And then --

Q. The Bly report?

A. In terms of lab testing, in

regards to lab testing, yes.

Q. Okay.

A. The CSI report.

Q. Okay.

A. And just kind of reviewed some

API, you know, just kind of refamiliarize

myself with some of the API procedures.

Global best practices from my lab, stuff

like that.

Q. Okay. Were you shown a legal

document with a caption on it called a

notice of 30(b)(6)?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay. One second here.

MR. PALMINTIER:

Well, you know what I'm

going to do to save time, I'll introduce

this as an exhibit next, just the portion


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


154


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


155


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


156

Q. No. What if they -- this is a

hypothet.

A. Okay. Sorry.


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


157

Q. This is a hypothet. What if

they were both 15, would you have said that

was acceptable and reported that to

Mr. Faul?

A. I would have reported the test

results, you know, I mean, I -- to

say -- it -- it would be my opinion that --

that that would be acceptable. But I

don't -- I don't create the standards.

MR. CHEN:

Object to form.

BY MR. PALMINTIER:

Q. Understood. But your training

isn't in chemistry, is it?

A. No, it's not.

Q. Your training relative to what

these test results would actually mean in

an -- in the actual drilling environment is

nonexistent, isn't it? You don't have

training about that? You have training for

the lab?

A. That's correct.

Q. So your opinion, would you agree

with me, with all due respect, is limited

to the lab and has nothing to do with the


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


316


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


317


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


318

Q. Okay. You also mentioned that

your standards in your lab are similar to

the ones for the API and that you reviewed

the API standards before your deposition.

A. Yes, ma'am.

Q. Do you remember or do you recall

any differences between the standards that


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Board Certified Court Reporters

319

your lab uses and the API standards?

A. In reference to foam foam

testing?

Q. Yes.

A. Just the the time to foam it

rather than over foaming it, actually

foaming it to the right density. Or then

having an offset factor with global our

global best practice says that you can use

either one, either use the offset factor,

if I recall correctly, or adjust the time

that you that you foam it.

When you are foaming it you can

hear, you can hear the blender labor when

the slurry falls.

Q. And API, you don't have that

choice?

A. If I recall reading the API, it

just says foam it for 15 seconds and many

times that's it over foams it.

MS. MARTIN:

Okay. I have no further

questions. Follow up?

MR. POTE:

Quick follow up.


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


329

it.

Q. And is it possible that after

mixing the slurry and watching it settle

that they ran additional tests that you

didn't know about?

MR. BOWMAN:

Objection to form.

THE WITNESS:

It's possible.

BY MR. CHEN:

Q. Okay. Did you ask Ronnie

whether or not they ran additional tests

when you talked to him to report your

results?

A. I don't remember discussing that

with Ronnie.

Q. Okay. Do you know if Ronnie --

at any time since then have you talked to

Ronnie again about the tests that he

performed?

A. In Duncan?

Q. In Duncan.

A. No, I didn't -- I didn't -- I

don't recall talking to him about that.

Q. Okay. And if I understand


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


330

correctly, you don't know if there were any

written results of the tests in Duncan or

not?

A. That's correct.

Q. And this morning when you said

that Mr. Faul asked you not to record any

results, you didn't prepare a report for

your tests in Broussard?

A. That's correct.

Q. Did you prepare a lab worksheet?

A. No, I didn't. I did not.

Q. So there's no notes or any --

anything?

A. Right.

Q. Okay. I was a little confused

about the two different tests you

performed. I understand one of them you

performed a set cement slurry test in the

PVC pipe, correct?

A. Uh-huh.

Q. And that's according to the

Halliburton procedures set forth in the

global lab procedures handbook?

A. Yes.

Q. So this morning I thought your


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


331

second test was a unset foam stability test

but I'm not sure. Can you -- is there a

name for the test you performed?

A. It's a -- it was foaming slurry

and it was -- essentially it was -- it was

similar to a foam stability test but just

using something other than the -- than the

PVC pipe that's in what you see in API.

Q. Okay. And the purpose of that

was so that -- I believe you said it was

some sort of Teflon structure so you could

pop it out and you could look at the side

of it?

A. Right. Right.

Q. And did you measure the density

of that second set cement block?

A. I did measure the density. I

can't recall the numbers. I did give that

to Ronnie Faul but I can't recall the

numbers.

Q. Do you recall what happened to

the physical pieces of cement that you

tested? Did you dispose of that?

A. Yeah, just discarded it.

Q. And I think -- and I'm just


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


332

trying to clear it up. I think this

morning you testified that the results of

the standard set foam stability test were

in line with the results reported on

the -- reports -- reports -- the results.

I'll say that again.

I believe this morning you

testified that the results of your set foam

stability test performed in the normal

manner were similar to the results obtained

in the second April test; is that correct?

A. Yes. I don't remember the

numbers that I -- that I reported to

Ronnie. It's been quite a while now. I

don't remember exactly what those were.

And they were using, you know, lab stock

back then. I didn't really think much of

it, you know, it's just lab stock

additives. You know, it can be reproduced

at any time.

I just ran the test and told

them that -- you know, gave them the

numbers and I remember commenting that --

that the specimen looked good, you know. I

just don't remember the -- the visual part


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


333

is what I remember of the specimen, you

know, that it looked good. But I don't --

I don't recall the number that I reported

and the densities from the top and on the

bottom.

Q. So you don't recall whether it

was closer to 14 and a half or it was

closer to 15 pounds per gallon?

A. My memory tells me that it was

closer to 15 pounds.

Q. Okay. Do you recall if it was

above or below 15?

A. I recall -- I just don't

remember. I just cannot remember the

numbers.

Q. Okay. And the results for the

density of the second test you performed

with the cube and the Teflon, do you

remember the results of that test?

A. No, I don't. I just remember it

being somewhere in line -- both of the

tests appeared to -- to match up pretty

well is what I remember.

Q. Okay. All right. So this

morning you said it was -- you performed


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


334

the test under the same condition that they

used in the April testing; is that correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And that was Mr. Faul's

instruction?

A. Yes.

Q. And was it the conditions in the

first April test or the second April test?

A. The conditions for the final

slurry design with three hours conditioning

time.

Q. Okay. And we have been talking

about conditioning time a lot. And so when

you say three hours conditioning time, that

is -- and correct me if I'm wrong -- that

means conditioning, stirring the slurry at

temperature for three hours?

A. Right.

Q. Or a set amount of time before

foaming?

A. That's correct.

Q. So -- so it's not conditioning

after the cement slurry has been foamed but

it's before it's been foamed?

A. Yes.


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


392

A. That's correct.

Q. Okay.

A. This is not a set cement test.

Q. Okay. And when you have a

measure density number there, where were

you taking the sample from the -- from the

cylinder or was that the density of the

entire --

A. I -- that was just the density

of the entire --

Q. Of the entire sample?

A. Yes. Yes.

Q. And I think some of the other

ones are self-explanatory, percent increase

in density --

A. Yeah.

Q. -- would be what? How much

density increased over what you would have

expected it to be, correct?

A. Yes, over the -- above the base.

Q. And what does percent free water

mean?

A. That's just how much free fluid

migrated to the top. In other words, it

could have been oil. You know, don't


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


393

really know. I don't -- I don't -- I don't

know. It says free water. But I don't

know. Maybe -- it may be free fluid. I

don't know. I don't -- I don't -- I don't

think that I typed this up, for one. I

don't -- because I didn't -- I didn't send

out any type of report, so I guess this is

from the information that was given by --

Q. Okay.

A. -- Mr. Faul.

Q. Fair enough. So you provided

Mr. Faul with another set of notes that --

that looks different from this?

A. I verbally gave him the numbers.

Q. Okay. But this is a lot of

numbers to remember. Did you have hand

notes before you talked to Mr. Faul?

A. Yes.

Q. And what happened to those hand

notes?

A. I got rid of them.

Q. Okay. And to your best

recollection, is this an accurate

reflection of --

A. This looks about right. This


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


394

looks about right.

Q. Okay. And did you when talking

with Mr. Faul -- before talking with him or

afterwards reach any conclusions as to

whether these results were -- what these

results show?

A. I think that we, you know, from

what I -- from what I can recall we felt

like with the mud contamination that --

that the slurry actually looked pretty

decent.

Q. And we is you and Mr. Faul?

A. Right. Right.

Q. And was there anyone else on the

phone that you discussed --

A. Just us two.

Q. Okay. So these samples were

disposed of before they set completely?

A. Yes. Yes. In stock, the

graduated cylinder.

Q. And you didn't keep the samples

from this test either?

A. No. No.

Q. And this was -- this

contaminated foam stability test was


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


480

top of 1.8 and almost 1.8 at the bottom,

correct?

A. Uh-huh.

Q. And that translates into a 15

PPG, pounds per gallon weight, correct?

A. Yes. Yes.

Q. And I think you indicated in

response to a hypothetical question that

you thought a 15 PPG result at top and

bottom would in your opinion indicate

stability; is that correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And what would be the foam

quality of 15 PPG cement?

A. 9.95 percent.

Q. And 14.5 PPG would be almost 13

percent; isn't that correct?

A. Yes.

Q. That's a substantial reduction

in the foam quality, about 25 percent,

isn't it?

A. 23 percent.

Q. That would indicate that about a

quarter of the nitrogen has been lost from

the sample, correct?


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


481

A. Based on these -- on these

calculations.

Q. I think you testified yesterday

that at 15.9 PPG, you think that would be

too much of a variation; that would

indicate instability; isn't that correct?

A. Yes.

Q. How about 15.5, would that be

okay in your book?

A. I think 15 -- top and bottom,

15.5?

Q. Yes.

A. Yeah, I think that that would

be -- that would be a -- that would be a

good amount -- that would be probably too

much.

Q. Is it your testimony that a loss

of 25 percent of the foam quality is not a

sign of instability?

A. I don't -- I -- I don't have --

I don't know the guidelines. I don't know.

I'm giving you my opinions. You know, I

don't -- I don't know the guidelines. You

know, we are reporting the test results and

that evaluation is up to someone else.


Exhibit 3



1


2 EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA


by the OIL RIG )

4 "DEEPWATER HORIZON" in ) SECTION "J"

the GULF OF MEXICO, ON )


)

6 ) MAG. JUDGE

) SHUSHAN

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20 VOLUME 1 OF 2

21

22 Deposition of RONALD RAY FAUL, taken

23 at Pan American Life Center, 601 Poydras

24 Street, Ponchartrain Room, New Orleans,

25 Louisiana, on the 29th of June, 2011.



262

1 that software was not the same as that

2 which Halliburton uses in its labs; is

3 that correct?

4 A. Yeah, I'm not --

5 MR. CHEN: Objection, form.

6 A. I'm not sure what features would

7 be different.

8 Q. (BY MR. THORNHILL) Have you

9 looked at the off-the-shelf version that

10 Halliburton sells and compared it to what

11 Halliburton uses in its labs?

12 A. I have not.

13 Q. All right.

14 A. And we -- you know, that wouldn't

15 be in the lab as well; it would be the

16 engineering design software.

17 Q. Okay. All right. I gotcha.

18 Now, tell me -- tell me a

19 little bit about what you had Mr. Quirk

20 do. Did you call him on the phone or did

21 you send him an e-mail and say, I want you

22 to do some tests?

23 A. Okay. I called him on the phone

24 and asked him to get lab stock

25 materials --



263

1 Q. Uh-huh.

2 A. -- and repeat the test that was on

3 the final BP Macondo production liner,

4 production casing report, repeat the

5 stability test specifically.

6 Q. Yeah. Yeah. Now -- now, you did

7 that, as I understand it, because somebody

8 in Duncan had told you that they had

9 attempted a duplication of the test, and

10 they found that the cement settled, right?

11 A. Yes.

12 Q. All right. So when you called

13 Mr. Quirk, it was probably within a week

14 or two after the blowout had started,

15 right?

16 A. It would have been in May

17 sometime.

18 Q. In May?

19 A. Yes.

20 Q. The blowout's April 20, so in

21 early May you were calling and saying --

22 A. Probably --

23 Q. -- let's --

24 A. Probably a little later in May.

25 Q. Now --



264

1 A. After the 15th.

2 Q. Okay. You had from Duncan a

3 report that the cement was settling,

4 and -- I got that right, correct, you --

5 that they -- they told you the cement

6 samples that they tested that they thought

7 were samples similar to the Macondo job,

8 they -- they were settling, right?

9 A. Yes. He called me and said that

10 the sample he mixed up was showing some

11 signs of settling.

12 Q. Had you guys sent up to Duncan

13 some of the samples that you had on hand

14 at that time so that they could perform

15 the tests?

16 A. We had sent up lab stock.

17 Q. That'd be some of the same samples

18 you and I just went over in tab 60, right?

19 A. No. Tab 60, I believe, was

20 samples from the Macondo well specific to

21 the Macondo well, and those were isolated.

22 So lab stock would have been samples in

23 the lab that -- that had -- we -- we

24 didn't touch the -- those were under lock

25 and key.



265

1 Q. Okay. Now, when you say lab

2 stock, though, for Duncan to test the

3 cement blends similar to what was used in

4 the Macondo production casing job, you

5 know, the 7-inch job --

6 A. Yes.

7 Q. -- they would have needed to have

8 blended into the cement essentially the

9 same materials that were blended into the

10 cement for the Macondo 7-inch production

11 job?

12 A. We could have sent them samples of

13 Lafarge cement and samples of materials

14 from the lot numbers that we had in the

15 lab, but we didn't send them any of the

16 material from the -- from the rig --

17 Q. Okay.

18 A. -- Macondo.

19 Q. Okay. All right. So you sent

20 them the cement -- the Lafarge cement.

21 Did --

22 A. Yeah.

23 Q. -- you take that out of the bin

24 down in Port Fourchon?

25 A. I don't know where they got it.



266

1 It would have been just cement that was in 2 the lab, representative of what was in 3 Port Fourchon.4 Q. Yeah. So it's fair for me to say, 5 isn't it, that you wouldn't have sent them 6 somebody else's cement, you'd have sent 7 them the cement from -- from that which 8 you sent out to the rig, right, out of 9 that Port Fourchon bin, I guess, huh?

10 A. Out of the Port -- yes, out of 11 Port Fourchon that was current at that 12 time.13 Q. Sure. Sure. So you get out of 14 the Port Fourchon bin some cement, the 15 Lafarge Class H cement, API rated, all 16 right, and that's the same stuff that was 17 used on the job, the -- the Macondo job, 18 and you get some of the -- the additives 19 that you had in the lab that were the same 20 additives that you used out on the job and 21 you sent it up to Duncan and they tested 22 it?23 A. Yes.24 Q. Is Duncan the headquarters?25 A. Duncan is our technology center.



268

1 Q. You just sent it up to Duncan?

2 A. Correct.

3 Q. All right. So they -- they get

4 cement out of the bin and they get the

5 additives out of the -- out of the lab in

6 Broussard and they test it. And then did

7 they send you a written result?

8 A. We did not do a foam stability

9 test. These samples were sent up to do a

10 conductivity test --

11 Q. Uh-huh.

12 A. -- and which I did get a -- a

13 written result on.

14 Q. Uh-huh. Now, BP asked you to do

15 the conductivity test --

16 A. That's --

17 Q. -- correct?

18 A. -- correct.

19 Q. I got that right.

20 Now, tell me, did I get this

21 wrong? Did -- did Duncan's lab write down

22 or print up the results?

23 A. All I got was --

24 MR. HILL: Object to form.

25 Q. (BY MR. THORNHILL) Did it? This



269

1 is the conductivity test that you're

2 talking about having been done for BP. I

3 can pull out the e-mails, if you want to,

4 where they're asking you to do it.

5 A. Yeah.

6 Q. Yeah. And so they asked you to do

7 the test?

8 A. Yes.

9 Q. And you have the test run in -- in

10 Duncan?

11 A. That's correct. I had the

12 conductivity test run in Duncan.

13 Q. You picked up the phone or

14 e-mailed or somehow or another told the

15 guys in Duncan what to do, right?

16 A. Yes.

17 Q. All right. Who did you talk to up

18 there?

19 A. I talked to a number of people.

20 From the beginning, I started talking with

21 Tom Daly, David Jones and traded e-mails

22 with several people. On the results, I

23 was dealing with Ricky Morgan.

24 Q. Okay. And so did Ricky send to

25 you the results in an e-mail?



270

1 A. Ricky would send me the results of

2 the conductivity test in an e-mail.

3 Q. Yeah. How about the test that

4 showed the settling; did Ricky send you

5 that?

6 A. No, he called me.

7 Q. What did he do with those results

8 that showed the settling?


10 A. I don't know what he did with the

11 results.

12 Q. (BY MR. THORNHILL) What did Ricky

13 tell you he did with those results?

14 A. He didn't tell me anything he'd

15 done with them.

16 Q. Did you tell Ricky to do what you

17 told Mr. Quirk to do, i.e., destroy the

18 test results?


20 A. I don't recall telling Mr. Quirk

21 to do that.

22 Q. (BY MR. THORNHILL) Have you read

23 Mr. Quirk's deposition?

24 A. No, I have not.

25 Q. Have you talked to Mr. Quirk?



271

1 A. I have talked to him, but not

2 about this topic.

3 Q. Well, you obviously talked to him

4 to tell him what to do, didn't you?

5 A. Yes, I did.

6 Q. And he talked to you and you

7 talked to him when he had the results,

8 didn't he?

9 A. He called me with the results.

10 Q. And when he called you, are you

11 telling us that you told Mr. Quirk not to

12 destroy the results?

13 A. I'm saying that I did not tell him

14 to destroy the results.

15 Q. What did you tell him?

16 A. I just told him to call me with

17 the results.

18 Q. Well, where are the results from

19 the tests in -- in Duncan that were done

20 on the exact same cement that you've just

21 identified for us and -- and the same

22 additives?


24 Q. (BY MR. THORNHILL) Where are

25 those results?



274

1 With -- with BP, you shared

2 this information from your hard drive,

3 correct?

4 A. With BP, I shared that document on

5 conductivity test results.

6 Q. Did you send that to BP by e-mail?

7 A. Yes.

8 Q. Who'd you send it to?

9 A. Ken Allen.

10 Q. Spell it again.

11 A. Kenneth Allen.

12 Q. A-L-L-E-N or A-L-A-N?

13 A. A-L-L-E-N, I believe.

14 Q. Where is Mr. Allen? Where does he

15 work?

16 A. He has a BP e-mail address. He

17 was at Westlake, the BP office.

18 Q. Did you meet him at the Westlake

19 office?

20 A. I didn't meet him. I just

21 corresponded with him by e-mail.

22 Q. You had more than one e-mail with

23 him?

24 A. Yes.

25 Q. All righty. And --



275

1 (Discussion off the record.)

2 Q. So let me see if I got it right.

3 Mr. Allen got the information. Did he

4 e-mail you back that he had received it?

5 A. Yes.

6 Q. Did the two of you discuss in

7 e-mails the results of the test?

8 A. Nope.

9 Q. Did the -- did the results of the

10 tests show that the -- that the cement had

11 any particular characteristics that we

12 could identify as being good or bad,

13 according to conductivity tests?

14 A. The only results in that e-mail

15 were on the conductivity test itself.

16 Q. What's a conductivity test

17 intended to show? Explain --

18 A. The --

19 Q. -- that to the jury.

20 A. The conductivity are the

21 resistance of the cement itself. My

22 understanding is that the directional

23 drillers wanted this information to assist

24 in locating the relief well to the

25 original well.



276

1 Q. Okay. Now, would you expect the

2 cement that has set up and hardened for a

3 long time to have less conductivity or

4 more conductivity than that which is wet

5 and first going in the hole?

6 A. No, it -- we would have more.

7 Q. More conductivity?

8 A. Yes, as it -- as it gains

9 strength.

10 Q. All right. And what did the

11 conductivity tests show on the cement that

12 was tested in -- in Duncan?


14 A. Just -- just numbers.

15 Q. (BY MR. THORNHILL) Okay. Was

16 there any other information sent to you by

17 the Duncan lab to show the results of

18 tests?

19 A. No.

20 Q. So Ricky called you but didn't

21 send you anything in writing to show the

22 settling of the cement that was tested?

23 A. That's correct.

24 Q. Was the cement he was testing that

25 showed the settling the same cement that



386

1 requested the retarder concentration be

2 increased?

3 A. No, I don't really -- I don't

4 really know that.

5 Q. Do you know -- I think earlier you

6 spoke with Mr. Thornhill about some

7 additional testing that was done after the

8 blowout.

9 A. Yes.

10 Q. We know that you worked on some

11 foam stability testing and then some

12 contamination testing that you did with

13 the foam and you also -- and also the

14 conductivity and resistivity testing that

15 was done at the Duncan labs. I'm not

16 going to go back into that because he

17 covered those areas pretty well.

18 I do want to know about the

19 clean foam stability without the

20 contamination. I know you asked Mr. Quirk

21 to run that test. Correct?

22 A. I asked Mr. Quirk to perform a

23 foam stability test with lab stock

24 materials to repeat the test that was

25 given on the final BP report.



387

1 Q. And I know you were asked earlier

2 today whether or not you told Mr. Quirk to

3 destroy his -- his notes or any results

4 that he had gotten. You testified that

5 you didn't instruct him to do that at all.

6 A. I don't remember instructing him

7 to destroy any -- any work that he had

8 done. I did ask him not to put it in the

9 Viking system because it was not

10 associated with a customer need. It was

11 internal Halliburton information.

12 Q. Okay. So you told him not to put

13 it into the Viking system --


15 Q. -- which is an -- that's an

16 electronic sort of process, isn't it?

17 A. Yes.

18 Q. Did you also instruct him not to

19 generate a report in connection with the

20 testing he was conducting?

21 A. He gave me all the information

22 that I wanted when -- over the phone call.

23 I didn't tell him to -- to generate a

24 report.

25 Q. Okay. But that -- I appreciate



388

1 that. But my question is, did you

2 specifically tell Mr. Quirk not to

3 generate a report in connection with the

4 foam stability test he was running for you

5 after the blowout?

6 A. He would have had to put it in

7 Viking to do that, and I asked him not to

8 put it in Viking.

9 Q. And I know today you've talked

10 about -- and just so I understand, you've

11 talked quite a bit about information

12 gathering, that you -- you were -- you

13 were conducting these tests after the fact

14 so you could gather facts and information,

15 and you used some of that information to

16 brief and educate some of the -- the other

17 people at Halliburton about what had

18 happened on Macondo; is that right?

19 A. To give information to them so

20 that they could build -- we could build

21 presentations and they could go to

22 Washington and -- and present that

23 information.

24 We specifically did not do any

25 investigation. We didn't look into how it



389

1 happened or why it happened, just what

2 happened, and that's it.

3 Q. So you were -- you were handling

4 gathering factual information? That was

5 what your job was?

6 A. I was one of the people, yes.

7 Q. Okay. Well, I'm a little

8 confused, so I wanted to let you look at

9 an e-mail that I have behind tab 20. And

10 maybe you can help clear this up for me.

11 You're not a -- you're not a

12 recipient of this e-mail, but this is an

13 e-mail dated June 12th, 2010 from Ronald

14 Sweatman.

15 A. Yes.

16 Q. Is he a Halliburton employee?

17 A. Yes, he is.

18 Q. And what's his position?

19 A. Ron is on the GBTS, global

20 business and technical solutions, team.

21 Q. Okay. And he's sending an e-mail

22 to several folks, and he -- and this

23 e-mail's about kick and casing modeling

24 teams. And it's my appreciation, after

25 reviewing this e-mail -- and particularly



390

1 if you turn the page, there's an agenda

2 that some kick simulation and modeling was

3 being performed by Halliburton with

4 respect to the Macondo well, and please

5 take a moment to look at it.

6 A. Okay. I'm not familiar with this

7 work.

8 Q. You're not familiar with this?

9 A. No.

10 Q. So do you know if this was being

11 used as part of an investigation by

12 Halliburton as to what happened on

13 Macondo?

14 A. I don't know what they were doing.

15 Q. Fair enough.

16 MS. SULLIVAN: I'm going to

17 mark Exhibit 20 as 3116.

18 (Exhibit Number 3116 marked.)

19 MR. HILL: I'm sorry, 31 --

20 MS. SULLIVAN: 16.

21 Q. (BY MS. SULLIVAN) All right. So

22 we know there wasn't a static gel strength

23 transition time test conducted before

24 Macondo?

25 A. That is correct.



416




by the OIL RIG )




)

6 ) MAG. JUDGE

) SHUSHAN

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20 VOLUME 2 OF 2

21

22 Deposition of RONALD RAY FAUL, taken

23 at Pan American Life Center, 601 Poydras

24 Street, Ponchartrain Room, New Orleans,

25 Louisiana, on the 30th of June, 2011.



508

1 and figure out what went wrong?


3 A. I'm -- I'm not in charge of this

4 event.

5 Q. (BY MR. CHEN) Right. If you were

6 in charge of this event --

7 A. I don't know what I'd do.

8 Q. Don't know what you'd do. But

9 possibly what you'd normally do, if there

10 were a charge that your cement failed?

11 A. That -- that's not my decision to

12 make.

13 Q. Now, you also said one of your

14 conclusions was that there was severe

15 channeling.

16 Now, channeling is an

17 effective displacement efficiency, right?


19 Q. Yesterday we talked about two

20 different displacement programs, the --

21 the new program you have, iCem, and also

22 Displace 3D?

23 A. Correct.

24 Q. Does Halliburton have any other

25 displacement programs?



509

1 A. No. Those are -- those are the

2 programs that we have.

3 Q. Now, were either of those two

4 programs run to analyze the displacement

5 for the April cement job?

6 A. I don't --


8 A. I don't think so.

9 Q. (BY MR. CHEN) Okay. Based on all

10 your review of materials and your talking

11 to people, those -- Halliburton did not

12 run a displacement program to analyze

13 displacement for the April cement job?


15 A. Halliburton ran the OptiCem

16 program.

17 Q. (BY MR. CHEN) Okay. Does OptiCem

18 have a displacement program within it?

19 A. It does not have Displace 3D in

20 it, no.

21 Q. But does it have a displacement

22 program in it to calculate displacement?

23 A. There is a calculation that

24 OptiCem can do that deals with -- not

25 particularly displacement, but



510

1 displacement efficiency, I guess.

2 Q. Okay. So OptiCem can calculate

3 displacement efficiency?

4 A. Based on -- it can estimate some

5 bypassed mud and make some estimates about

6 top of cement based on that.

7 Q. And when you say bypassed mud, is

8 that the same thing as displacement of mud

9 and displacement efficiency?

10 A. It --


12 A. It's -- it's mud that would --

13 would not be displaced in the well bore on

14 the bore hole.

15 Q. (BY MR. CHEN) Okay. I -- I

16 skipped over one thing earlier. Did your

17 team reach any conclusions regarding the

18 float collar?


20 A. No.

21 Q. (BY MR. CHEN) Did -- I mean, but

22 you examined some information about the

23 float collar, right?

24 A. We read the information in the

25 report about the -- the number of times


Exhibit 4 (Provided Under Seal)


Exhibit 5



415




by the OIL RIG )




)

6 ) MAG. JUDGE

) SHUSHAN

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20 VOLUME 2 OF 2

21

22 Deposition of THOMAS ROTH, taken at

23 Hilton St. Charles Hotel, 333 St. Charles

24 Avenue, Le Moyne Room, New Orleans,

25 Louisiana, on the 26th of July, 2011.



494

1 alternative.

2 Q. (BY MS. HARDING) Okay. And you

3 would agree with me that the BP wells team

4 should have been informed of that if that

5 were the case?


7 MR. MADIGAN: The same

8 objection.

9 A. Again, I answered that previously

10 by saying that in support of operations

11 that information would be valuable.

12 (Exhibit Number 4352 marked.)

13 Q. (BY MS. HARDING) I'm going to

14 show you Exhibit -- it's been marked 4352,

15 HAL_1071448. We don't have it in the tab.

16 I think we just found it.

17 It says Mr. -- I'm going to

18 read. It's from Simon Turton to you.

19 FYI, Fred Sabins is consulting

20 to BP, performing an investigation into

21 our foam slurry. Rumor is that he's

22 determined to prove slurry instability --

23 MR. HILL: What tab are you

24 on, please?

25 MS. HARDING: It's not a tab,



495

1 sorry.

2 Q. (BY MS. HARDING) -- as a

3 stand-alone system and when contaminated

4 with spacer mud.

5 Did you have any conversations

6 with anyone about this e-mail?

7 A. Could I see the e-mail?

8 Q. Yes, I'm sorry. I'm sorry I don't

9 have another copy.

10 A. Yeah. This is dated July the

11 23rd. I don't recall if I had any

12 conversation with -- with Simon. I see

13 the reply that is indicated here.

14 Q. Okay. The point I wanted to ask

15 you about is, you sent an e-mail at the

16 top to Anthony Badalamenti --

17 A. Badalamenti.

18 Q. -- and Simon Turton and you said

19 spacer volume was sufficient to sweep

20 entire annulus volume. As such, spacer

21 was sufficient to sweep channel.

22 Subsequent testing with 3-D confirms

23 statement that spacer was sufficient.

24 A. Can I see that, please?

25 Q. Do you see that?



496

1 A. Yes, I see that.

2 Q. Okay. Was that a correct

3 statement when you made it?

4 A. I would think that that -- that

5 statement is correct.

6 Q. Okay. And what 3-D modeling are

7 you referring to there?

8 A. 3-D modeling is a software program

9 that's -- that's available to track

10 placement of fluids in a well.

11 Q. Okay. And are you referring to

12 the 3-D modeling that was done after --

13 done after the cement -- after the

14 incident or before the incident?

15 A. This work is after.

16 Q. Okay. And who did the work that

17 you're referring to there?

18 A. I believe Mark Savery.

19 Q. Okay. And do you know whether or

20 not -- because it looks like it was in

21 your possession -- do you know that that

22 was part of the materials that you've

23 turned over to legal counsel?

24 A. I don't know.

25 Q. Okay. Agree with me -- would you



497

1 agree with me that the OptiCem predicts a

2 GFP number, correct?

3 A. It does.

4 Q. Okay. And then Halliburton,

5 according to its literature, designs a

6 cement slurry to meet the challenge posed

7 by the GFP, correct?


9 A. It makes recommendations back to

10 the customer with an understanding of the

11 implications of a gas flow potential.

12 Q. (BY MS. HARDING) Right. And

13 that's what it's -- all of your literature

14 talks about how you meet the GFP

15 challenge, correct?


17 A. The literature describes the

18 phenomenon of gas flow potential and

19 provides solutions based upon the relative

20 value of that -- that indicator.

21 Q. (BY MS. HARDING) Right. And one

22 of the ways -- one of the recommendations

23 that Halliburton makes for a GFP of 10 or

24 11 is to use a foam cement slurry,

25 correct?


Exhibit 7


655 Fifteenth Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20005

Barbara M. Harding To Call Writer Directly:

(202) 879-5081 [email protected]

(202) 879-5000

www.kirkland.com

Facsimile: (202) 879-5200

Chicago Hong Kong London Los Angeles Munich New York Palo Alto San Francisco Shanghai

November 22, 2011

Via Electronic Mail

Jenny Martinez Godwin Ronquillo PC 1201 Elm Street, Suite 1700 Dallas, Texas 75270-2041

Re: In Re: Oil Spill by the Oil Rig “Deepwater Horizon” in the Gulf of Mexico, on April 20, 2010, MDL No. 2179

Dear Jenny:

Thank you for returning my call from yesterday. This letter memorializes our discussion earlier today concerning the circumstances surrounding the disappearance of the Displace 3D modeling referenced in Tommy Roth’s July 25, 2010 e-mail. You explained that Halliburton preserved the computer on which the 3D modeling had been performed, but when Halliburton searched the computer for this modeling, the modeling could not longer be found. Accordingly, the modeling work is now gone from the computer, and Halliburton is unable to produce the modeling pursuant to the Court's September 27, 2011 Order. If I have not accurately described the circumstances surrounding the loss of the modeling evidence, as you have relayed them to me, please let me know immediately.

Sincerely,

/s/ Barbara M. Harding__ Barbara M. Harding

BMH/djs


Exhibit 10


1 Exhibit 5 to BP’s Motion (Rec. doc. 3919) is an email, dated May 22, 2010, from RonaldSweatman, Chief Technical Professional, Global Business & Technical Solutions and CCS, Halliburton, toDerrick Lewis with copies to others. Well diagrams and a slide on the negative test for the well wereattached. The email identifies members of the team. Lewis is asked if he can simulate the gas kick to helpthe team better understand the situation and answer certain questions, including the time period for the gasto bubble up the longstring/hole annulus to the wellhead. HESI refers to these as “Non-Privileged Post-Incident Activities.” Rec. doc. 3959 at 2.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTEASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

In re: Oil Spill by the Oil Rig MDL NO. 2179 “Deepwater Horizon” in the Gulf of Mexico, on April 20, 2010 SECTION J

Applies to: All Cases JUDGE BARBIERMAGISTRATE JUDGE SHUSHAN

ORDER

[Regarding BP’s Motion to Compel Halliburton Investigation Materials (Rec. doc. 3919)]

BP seeks an order: (1) finding that HESI’s post-incident investigative activities are not

protected by the work-product doctrine; and (2) compelling it to produce additional persons for

deposition concerning their participation in such activities. Rec. doc. 4066 at 10.

BACKGROUND

After the incident, BP commissioned the Bly Report. Transocean prepared a post-incident

report which was released to the public. These reports have been the subject of much discovery.

HESI contends that it did not conduct a comparable investigation. Rec. doc. 3959 at 3. It reports

that a few individuals within HESI, and not at the request of the company, initiated the organization

of a team to investigate certain issues related to the incident. Id. at 2.1 It acknowledges that these

documents are not protected from disclosure. It argues, however, that documents relating to

activities HESI undertook post-incident at the direction of counsel are protected from disclosure.

Case 2:10-md-02179-CJB-SS Document 4128 Filed 09/27/11 Page 1 of 7Case 2:10-md-02179-CJB-SS Document 4799-11 Filed 12/05/11 Page 2 of 8

2 HESI served BP with at least fifteen privilege logs. Rec. doc. 3919 (Exhibit 15).

2

The parties agree that documents relating to testing or modeling that was not done at the

direction of counsel must be produced. HESI states that: (1) documents relating to the fact gathering

or analysis done by employees who were not acting at the direction of counsel have been produced

pursuant to previously agreed search terms; (2) it recently became aware of additional documents

in the possession of Ronald Sweatman; (3) it is reviewing and producing any additional documents

related to the non-privileged post-incident activities; and (4) it will revise its privilege logs and

produce any inadvertently withheld documents.2 It contends that the request for additional

depositions is unreasonably duplicative. It urges that it is entitled to protection from discovery of

any testing conducted in anticipation of litigation.

BP replies that: (1) HESI has not met its burden to establish that the post-incident

investigation activities of its engineers and technical personnel are protected as work-product; (2)

HESI offers no evidence to shield any post-incident investigative materials from discovery; (3) it

has not defined what post-incident activities were conducted in anticipation of litigation; and (4) it

has not formally revised its privilege logs to withdraw any claims of privilege. It urges that it will

be prejudiced if it is not permitted to depose the four HESI representatives.

DOCUMENTS

HESI reports that documents related to non-privileged post-incident activities which have

not been produced are of two types: (1) documents which were recently discovered; and (2)

documents which were inadvertently withheld from production and logged as privileged. HESI

contends that because it agreed to produce these documents, no order is required.

HESI’s argument indicates that, because of the limited nature of the non-privileged


3 HESI’s privilege logs refer to the documents with an entry number rather than a Bates number.In some cases the privilege logs do not provide the dates for the documents. BP must be able to determinewhether a document on one of the privilege logs has been produced.

3

investigations, the volume of documents associated with them must be comparatively small. By

Wednesday, October 12, 2011, HESI shall complete the production of these documents. HESI’s

production of these documents shall be made in such a manner that BP can determine what

documents identified on the privilege logs are being produced.3

HESI contends that documents relating to activities that were undertaken post-incident at the

direction of counsel are protected from disclosure and that it has not waived any work-product

protection. Rec. doc. 3959 at 2. It also refers to this as testing conducted in anticipation of

litigation. Id. at 5.

Although HESI concedes that there was some initial, discoverable fact-gatheringdone by its employees for business purposes, subsequent efforts undertaken at thedirection of both in-house and outside counsel after the commencement of litigationare entitled to work product protection.

Id.

BP responds that HESI has not provided any evidence that any post-incident activities by

HESI engineers or technical representatives were conducted at the direction of counsel. HESI’s

privilege logs identify some documents as prepared at the direction of counsel. For example, entry

no. 553 on Privilege Log Ten is described as a May 30, 2010 email from Sweatman prepared at the

direction of counsel in preparation for governmental hearings. Rec. doc. 3915 (Exhibit 15 - Part F).

In its opposition and in response to BP’s request for Chemali’s deposition, HESI asserts that his

involvement relating to Phase One concerned analysis of Sperry data and hydrocarbon zones was

performed at the direction of counsel in preparation for litigation. Rec. doc. 3959 at 4. HESI has

not provided affidavits or other evidence to support the statements that certain testing was conducted


4

at the direction of counsel or that there were other post-incident activities conducted at the direction

of counsel.

In Hodges, Grant & Kaufman v. U.S., 768 F.2d 719 (5th Cir. 1985)(Rubin, J.), the district

judge denied the Government’s attempt to enforce an IRS subpoena for two documents. The issue

for one document was whether it was prepared in anticipation of litigation. The Fifth Circuit stated

that “[e]xamination of the document prepared by Touche Ross & Co. indicates the possibility that

it was prepared in anticipation of Jones’ involvement in tax litigation, but without evidence, we

cannot be certain.” Id. at 722. The question of whether the accountant’s report was work-product

was remanded. In Evans v. United Fire & Casualty Insurance Company, 2007 WL 23223363

(E.D.La.) (Wilkinson, M.J.), a party’s contention that documents were protected from disclosure as

work-product was “unsubstantiated.” Id. at *3. The Court stated that “[t]he mere assertion of a

lawyer in defendant’s opposition memorandum or in the privilege log that materials were prepared

in anticipation of litigation is not evidence sufficient to bear the burden.” Id. at *4 (emphasis in

original). See Pacamor Bearings, Inc. v. Minebea Co., Ltd., 918 F.Supp. 491, 513 (D.N.H.

1996)(“An affidavit from counsel indicating that such work was done at his direction in anticipation

of specified litigation will also help a party meet its burden under Rule 26(b)(3) of establishing that

the work was done in anticipation of litigation.”).

Within seven (7) calendar days of the entry of this order, HESI shall provide affidavits

specifically demonstrating that modeling or other post-incident activities were undertaken at the

direction of counsel. As promptly possible after the service of the affidavits, the parties shall meet-

and-confer on whether the documents are properly withheld as work-product. If they cannot resolve

the issue, they shall submit further memoranda on the issue and provide the Court with an agreed


5

upon sample of documents to review in camera.

DEPOSITIONS

In its motion to compel, BP requested the depositions of Marc Edwards, Ronald Sweatman,

and Roland Chemali. Rec. doc. 3919 at 1. HESI responded to the request for these three

depositions. Rec. doc. 3959 at 4. In its reply, BP added Anthony Badalamenti as a HESI person to

be deposed. HESI provided an opposition to the request for Badalamenti. Rec. doc. 4111.

HESI contends that Sweatman is an inappropriate Phase One deponent because: (1) Tommy

Roth testified in his deposition about his discussions with Sweatman concerning certain calculations

and modeling; (2) Roth testified that any work Sweatman may have done on modeling was not done

as part of any team; and (3) Sweatman’s deposition would be duplicative of prior testimony and

unnecessary. Rec. doc. 3959 at 4. HESI reports that it recently became aware of additional

documents in Sweatman’s possession. Id. at 2. Sweatman is HESI’s chief technical professional.

Rec. doc. 3919 at 4. BP contends that it appears that Sweatman was a key member and leader of the

team that HESI admits was formed to investigate certain issues related to the Macondo incident.

Rec. doc. 4066 at 7.

HESI shall produce Sweatman for a one day deposition. HESI and BP shall schedule the

deposition to occur no later than November 12, 2011. The examination time for Sweatman shall be

allocated as for James Bement, with BP receiving 210 minutes. See Rec. doc. 4018.

Edwards is HESI’s senior vice president for completion and production. Rec. doc. 3919 at

4. HESI contends that: (1) Edwards has no personal knowledge of events relating to the Macondo

well or the incident; (2) his involvement in conversations regarding general processes and/or media

releases is tangential to Phase One issues; (3) he did not participate in any investigation; and (4) his


6

only knowledge relevant to the litigation was derived from briefings by Ronnie Faul, Badalamenti

and HESI’s legal team. Rec. doc. 3959 at 4. BP disputes this. It cites an April 23, 2010 email from

Edwards to Jonathan Lewis, a senior vice-president in which Edwards states “[o]n the cementing

issue, we did a thorough internal investigation which has taken much of the last few days. We are

in the clear, the production string was tested as ok at 1100hrs the morning of the accident.” Rec.

doc. 4066 (Exhibit 37). BP cites other communications that it contends demonstrate justification

for Edwards’ deposition. Rec. doc. 4066 at 9. BP has not demonstrated sufficient direct

involvement by Edwards in the post-incident investigation activities to require his deposition. The

request for Edwards’ deposition is denied.

Chemali is HESI’s chief petrophysicist at Sperry Drilling. Rec. doc. 3919 at 4. HESI

contends that: (1) his involvement in the Deepwater Horizon incident related to the analysis of

Sperry data and hydrocarbon zones; (2) it was performed at the direction of counsel in preparation

for trial; and (3) it is protected from discovery as work-product. Rec. doc. 3959 at 4. BP responds

that: (1) HESI has not presented any evidence to support this contention; and (2) even if Chemali

was acting at the direction of counsel, the facts learned by him remain discoverable.

Within seven (7) calendar days of the entry of this order, HESI shall provide affidavits

demonstrating that Chemali’s analysis was performed at the direction of counsel. The parties shall

meet-and-confer to determine if they can resolve the issue of the discovery of the facts learned from

the analysis. If they cannot resolve the issue, they shall submit further memoranda on the issue and

HESI may submit in camera information relating to the analysis that it contends is protected as

work-product.

BP requested that HESI produce Badalamenti for a post-July 31 Phase One fact deposition.


7

The request was denied. HESI was required to produce James Bement and Jim Prestidge. Rec. doc.

3090. BP describes Badalamenti as a key member of the HESI team formed to investigate certain

issues related to the Macondo incident. It contends that he participated in relevant post-incident

activities including efforts to model the gas kick, efforts to determine cement volume and height

calculations, and analyses concerning the cause of the incident. Rec. doc. 4066 at 9.

HESI responds that BP has received information on HESI’s non-privileged post-incident

testing from Tommy Roth, Ronnie Faul and James Bement. BP will receive further information

from Sweatman. Badalamenti’s deposition will be duplicative, and therefore the request for his

deposition is denied.

IT IS ORDERED that BP’s motion to compel Halliburton Investigation Materials (Rec. doc.

3919) is GRANTED in PART and DENIED in PART as provided herein. Any appeal of this order

must be filed no later than Wednesday, October 5, 2011.

New Orleans, Louisiana, this 27th day of September, 2011.

SALLY SHUSHANUnited States Magistrate Judge


Exhibit 11


655 Fifteenth Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20005

Barbara M. Harding To Call Writer Directly:

(202) 879-5081 [email protected]

(202) 879-5000

www.kirkland.com

Facsimile: (202) 879-5200

Chicago Hong Kong London Los Angeles Munich New York Palo Alto San Francisco Shanghai

November 11, 2011

Via Electronic Mail

Jenny Martinez Godwin Ronquillo PC 1201 Elm Street, Suite 1700 Dallas, Texas 75270-2041

Re: In Re: Oil Spill by the Oil Rig “Deepwater Horizon” in the Gulf of Mexico, on April 20, 2010, MDL No. 2179

Dear Jenny:

Per our meet and confer earlier this week, we will file a motion concerning the loss or destruction of the post-incident cement slurry testing and Displace 3D modeling evidence. We do not have a written response explaining how or why the 3D modeling evidence is no longer available. I believe you stated that the computer is gone but it was somewhat unclear what happened. Would you please describe why the evidence is no longer available so that we can accurately represent the issue to the Court? We plan to file our motion on this issue next week and would appreciate a response by the end of the day on Monday.

Sincerely,

/s/ Barbara M. Harding__ Barbara M. Harding

BMH/djs


Exhibit 12


Judge Damrell took no part in the disposition of this matter.*

The Panel has been notified of more than 200 additional related actions. Those actions and1

any other related actions are potential tag-along actions. See Rules 7.4 and 7.5, R.P.J.P.M.L., 199F.R.D. 425, 435-36 (2001).

UNITED STATES JUDICIAL PANELon

MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION

IN RE: OIL SPILL BY THE OIL RIG “DEEPWATER HORIZON”IN THE GULF OF MEXICO, ON APRIL 20, 2010 MDL No. 2179

TRANSFER ORDER

Before the entire Panel : Before the Panel are four motions that collectively encompass 77*

actions: 31 actions in the Eastern District of Louisiana, 23 actions in the Southern District ofAlabama, ten actions in the Northern District of Florida, eight actions in the Southern District ofMississippi, two actions in the Western District of Louisiana, two actions in the Southern Districtof Texas, and one action in the Northern District of Alabama, as listed on Schedule A. 1

The background of this docket is well known. On April 20, 2010, an explosion and firedestroyed the Deepwater Horizon offshore drilling rig approximately 130 miles southeast of NewOrleans and approximately 50 miles from the Mississippi River delta. The explosion killed elevenof the 126 workers on the rig, which eventually sank in approximately 5,000 feet of water. Throughmid-July, crude oil gushed from the site in unprecedented amounts. Although the leaking well isnow capped, the spill’s effects are widespread, with oil reported to have come ashore in Louisiana,Mississippi, Alabama, Florida, and, most recently, Texas. Its full impact on the lives and livelihoodsof tens of thousands of Americans, especially those living in or near the Gulf of Mexico, is as yetundetermined.

I.

Plaintiffs in the Eastern District of Louisiana Cooper and Rodrigue actions have separatelymoved, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, to centralize these actions in the Eastern District of Louisiana,while plaintiff in the Eastern District of Louisiana Nova Affiliated action and common defendantBP Exploration & Production Inc. (BP) have separately moved for centralization in the SouthernDistrict of Texas.

Case MDL No. 2179 Document 227 Filed 08/10/10 Page 1 of 8Case 2:10-md-02179-CJB-SS Document 4799-13 Filed 12/05/11 Page 2 of 9

littleton

JPML Filed Stamp

- 2 -

The Panel also received amici curiae responses in support of selection of the Eastern District2

of Louisiana from the United States of America, the State of Louisiana, and the Board ofCommissioners of the Port of New Orleans.

See 28 U.S.C. 1407(b).3

Dozens of parties submitted responses to the four motions. Almost all responding partiessupport centralization. Responding defendants all favor centralization in the Southern District ofTexas, whereas the positions of responding plaintiffs are more varied with respect to an appropriatetransferee district. While many plaintiffs support centralization in the Eastern District of Louisiana,2

other plaintiffs argue in favor of selection of the Northern District of Alabama, the Southern Districtof Alabama, the Middle District of Florida, the Northern District of Florida, the Southern Districtof Florida, the Western District of Louisiana, the Southern District of Mississippi, the District ofSouth Carolina, or the Southern District of Texas. In addition, a small number of other plaintiffsvariously argue in favor of other approaches: that the Panel centralize the docket in the EasternDistrict of Louisiana, but assign it to Judge Shira Ann Scheindlin of the Southern District of NewYork, who would then sit in the Eastern District of Louisiana by designation; that the Panel divide3

the docket among three districts; or that the Panel appoint a judge from one of the Florida districtsto “ride circuit” among the various involved localities.

Some responding plaintiffs, while supporting centralization generally, argue against includingany of the relatively few personal injury/wrongful death actions in an MDL that might be comprisedlargely of putative class actions seeking recovery for property damage and other economic losses.Of the 77 constituent actions, two are wrongful death actions (Eastern District of Louisiana Roshtoand Jones) and one is a personal injury action (Eastern District of Louisiana Williams). Plaintiffsin Roshto and Williams submitted briefs supporting inclusion of the personal injury/wrongful deathactions in centralized proceedings, as did responding defendants, but plaintiff in Jones opposes suchinclusion.

A few responding parties oppose centralization altogether. They essentially argue that theinvolved actions are all subject to dismissal for failure to comply with the Oil Pollution Act’s (OPA)presentment requirement, see 33 U.S.C. § 2713; and that, in any event, because the OPA is a strictliability statute, the only issue in dispute (at least as to the BP defendants) is the amount of damagesto which each claimant is entitled, which, they argue, requires an inherently individualized inquiryand is thus inappropriate for MDL treatment. These parties argue that, at the very least, the Panelshould carve out the OPA claims from centralized proceedings.

The briefing and oral argument have contributed greatly to the Panel’s deliberations. This isa reminder that although the Panel tries to reach its decisions in a timely fashion, it does so only afteraffording the parties sufficient time to present their views, both through written submissions, and,in the case of motions seeking the creation of new MDLs, through oral argument. Even in the faceof catastrophic circumstances such as these, little is to be gained from hasty decision-making.


- 3 -

II.

The actions before the Panel indisputably share factual issues concerning the cause (orcauses) of the Deepwater Horizon explosion/fire and the role, if any, that each defendant played init. Centralization under Section 1407 will eliminate duplicative discovery, prevent inconsistentpretrial rulings, including rulings on class certification and other issues, and conserve the resourcesof the parties, their counsel, and the judiciary. Centralization may also facilitate closer coordinationwith Kenneth Feinberg’s administration of the BP compensation fund. In all these respects,centralization will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the more just andefficient conduct of these cases, taken as a whole.

We also conclude that it makes sense to include the personal injury/wrongful death actionsin the MDL. These actions do overlap factually with the other actions in this docket, and, indeed,plaintiffs in two of the three constituent personal injury/wrongful death actions specifically argue infavor of such inclusion, as do responding defendants. While these actions will require some amountof individualized discovery, in other respects they overlap with those that pursue only economicdamage claims. The transferee judge has broad discretion to employ any number of pretrialtechniques – such as establishing separate discovery and/or motion tracks – to address anydifferences among the cases and efficiently manage the various aspects of this litigation. See, e.g.,In re Lehman Brothers Holdings, Inc., Securities & Employee Retirement Income Security Act(ERISA) Litigation, 598 F.Supp.2d 1362, 1364 (J.P.M.L. 2009).

Similarly, we do not find any strong reasons for separate treatment of claims brought underthe OPA. In our judgment, carving out the OPA claims would only complicate matters, and denyingcentralization altogether is not a viable option. To the extent that non-compliance with the OPA’spresentment requirement becomes an issue, failure to include OPA claims in centralized proceedingswould raise the prospect of multiple inconsistent rulings on that issue. See In re: NationalArbitration Forum Antitrust Litigation, 682 F.Supp.2d 1343, 1345 (J.P.M.L. 2010).

Finally, the limitation proceeding brought by certain Transocean entities and currentlypending in the Southern District of Texas is a potential tag-along action in this docket, and will beincluded on a forthcoming conditional transfer order (CTO). Although our preliminary assessmentis that the action should be included in the centralized proceedings, we do not prejudge the matter.Once the CTO issues, the parties are free to object to the action’s transfer. See Rule 7.4,R.P.J.P.M.L., 199 F.R.D. at 435-36.

III.

The parties have advanced sound reasons for a large number of possible transferee districtsand judges. Upon careful consideration, however, we have settled upon the Eastern District ofLouisiana as the most appropriate district for this litigation. Without discounting the spill’s effectson other states, if there is a geographic and psychological “center of gravity” in this docket, then theEastern District of Louisiana is closest to it. Considering all of the applicable factors, we have askedJudge Carl J. Barbier to serve as transferee judge. He has had a distinguished career as an attorney


- 4 -

The Panel, of course, has no authority to determine whether a particular judge should recuse4

himself or herself from presiding over a particular MDL.

and now as a jurist. Moreover, during his twelve years on the bench, Judge Barbier has gainedconsiderable MDL experience, and has been already actively managing dozens of cases in thisdocket. We have every confidence that he is well prepared to handle a litigation of this magnitude.

Some parties have expressed concern that recusals among Eastern District of Louisianajudges unduly limit our choices, and that even Judge Barbier may be subject to recusal.Notwithstanding these concerns, the Panel is quite comfortable with its choice. Judge Barbier is anexceptional jurist, who would be a wise selection for this assignment even had those other judgesin the district been available. Moreover, the Fifth Circuit recently denied the petition of certaindefendants for a writ of mandamus directing Judge Barbier to recuse himself. 4

Other parties have made the related suggestion that certain suggested transferee districts(including the Eastern District of Louisiana and the Southern District of Texas) might not presenta level playing field for all parties and that we should search elsewhere for a “neutral” judge. Withall due respect, we disagree with the premise of this argument. When federal judges assume thebench, all take an oath to administer justice in a fair and impartial manner to all parties equally. See28 U.S.C. § 453. That oath applies just as much to a multidistrict litigation involving hundreds (orthousands) of actions and scores of parties as it does to a single civil action between one plaintiff andone defendant. Our experience is that transferee judges impartially carry out their duties and maketough decisions time and time again, and that they uniformly do so without engaging in any location-specific favoritism.

In selecting Judge Barbier, we also decline the suggestion that, given the litigation’s scopeand complexity, we should assign the docket to multiple transferee judges. Our experience teachesthat most, if not all, multidistrict proceedings do not require the oversight of more than one able andenergetic jurist, provided that he or she has the time and resources to handle the assignment.Moreover, Judge Barbier has at his disposal all the many assets of the Eastern District of Louisiana,which include magistrate judges and a clerk’s office accustomed to handling large MDLs. JudgeBarbier may also choose to employ special masters and other case administration tools to facilitatecertain aspects of the litigation. See Manual for Complex Litigation, Fourth §§ 11.52, 11.53 (2004).


- 5 -

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, the actions listed onSchedule A and pending outside the Eastern District of Louisiana are transferred to the EasternDistrict of Louisiana and, with the consent of that court, assigned to the Honorable Carl J. Barbierfor coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings with the actions pending in that district andlisted on Schedule A.

PANEL ON MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION

John G. Heyburn II Chairman

Robert L. Miller, Jr. Kathryn H. VratilDavid R. Hansen W. Royal Furgeson, Jr.Frank C. Damrell, Jr. Barbara S. Jones*


IN RE: OIL SPILL BY THE OIL RIG “DEEPWATER HORIZON”IN THE GULF OF MEXICO, ON APRIL 20, 2010 MDL No. 2179

SCHEDULE A

Northern District of Alabama

Ben Chenault, etc. v. Transocean, Ltd., et al., C.A. No. 2:10-1139

Southern District of Alabama

James F. Mason, Jr., etc. v. Transocean, Ltd., et al., C.A. No. 1:10-191Peter Burke v. BP Corporation of North of America, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 1:10-195Shannon Trahan v. BP, PLC, et al., C.A. No. 1:10-198 Jud Smith, et al. v. BP, PLC, et al., C.A. No. 1:10-200 Billy Wilkerson, et al. v. Transocean Holdings, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 1:10-201Fishtrap Charters, LLC, et al. v. Transocean Holdings, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 1:10-202 Fort Morgan Sales, Rentals & Development, Inc., et al. v. Transocean

Holdings, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 1:10-203 Bon Secour Fisheries, Inc., et al. v. BP, PLC, et al., C.A. No. 1:10-206 George C. Simpson v. Transocean, Ltd., et al., C.A. No. 1:10-210 Gulf Shores West Beach Investments, LLC v. Transocean Holdings, Inc., et al.,

C.A. No. 1:10-213 Billy's Seafood, Inc. v. Transocean Holdings, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 1:10-215 David Meyer, et al. v. BP America, et al., C.A. No. 1:10-216 Orange Beach Marina, Inc., et al. v. Transocean Holdings, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 1:10-217 Robert V. Pendarvis, et al. v. BP, PLC, et al., C.A. No. 1:10-218 Fran Hopkins, et al. v. Transocean, Ltd., et al., C.A. No. 1:10-221 Steven Lavigne, et al. v. British Petroleum, PLC, et al., C.A. No. 1:10-222Original Oyster House, Inc., et al. v. Transocean Holdings, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 1:10-223 Blue Water Yacht Sales & Services, Inc., et al. v. Transocean Holdings, Inc., et al.,

C.A. No. 1:10-224 Marine Horizons, Inc., et al. v. BP, PLC, et al., C.A. No. 1:10-227 George Jett v. BP, PLC, et al., C.A. No. 1:10-228 Captain Edward Lockridge v. BP, PLC, et al., C.A. No. 1:10-233 Terry Drawdy, et al. v. Transocean, Ltd., et al., C.A. No. 1:10-235 Sea Eagle Fisheries, Inc., et al. v. BP, PLC, et al., C.A. No. 1:10-238


- A2 -

MDL No. 2179 Schedule A (Continued)

Northern District of Florida

John T. Harris v. Transocean, Ltd., et al., C.A. No. 3:10-129Ocean Reef Realty, Inc. v. Transocean Holdings, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 3:10-132 Michael Salley v. Transocean Holdings, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 3:10-133 Nicholas Harris, et al. v. Transocean, Ltd., et al., C.A. No. 3:10-134 Charles Douglass, et al. v. Transocean Holdings, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 3:10-136 Joe Patti Seafood Co., et al. v. Transocean, Ltd., et al., C.A. No. 3:10-137 Dewey Destin, et al. v. BP, PLC, et al., C.A. No. 3:10-141 Stacey P. Walsh v. British Petroleum, PLC, et al., C.A. No. 3:10-143 George Weems Ward, et al. v. BP, PLC, et al., C.A. No. 4:10-157 Water Street Seafood, Inc., et al. v. BP Products North America Inc., et al.,

C.A. No. 4:10-162

Eastern District of Louisiana

Shane Roshto, et al. v. Transocean, Ltd., et al., C.A. No. 2:10-1156 Michelle Jones, etc. v. Transocean, Ltd., et al., C.A. No. 2:10-1196 Troy Wetzel, et al. v. Transocean, Ltd., et al., C.A. No. 2:10-1222 Acy J. Cooper, Jr., et al. v. BP, PLC, et al., C.A. No. 2:10-1229 Michael Williams v. Transocean, Ltd, et al., C.A. No. 2:10-1243

Darleen Jacobs Levy v. Transocean, Ltd., et al., C.A. No. 2:10-1245 James J. Friloux, et al. v. BP, PLC, et al., C.A. No. 2:10-1246 Ben Robin, et al. v. BP, PLC, et al., C.A. No. 2:10-1248 Michael Ivic, et al. v. BP, PLC, et al., C.A. No. 2:10-1249 Felix Alexie, Jr. v. BP, PLC, et al., C.A. No. 2:10-1250 Ray Vath, et al. v. BP, PLC, et al., C.A. No. 2:10-1273 Charles Robin, III, et al. v. BP, PLC, et al., C.A. No. 2:10-1295 Bill's Oyster House, LLC, et al. v. BP, PLC, et al., C.A. No. 2:10-1308 Nova Affiliated, S.A. v. BP, PLC, et al., C.A. No. 2:10-1313 Robin Seafood Co., Inc., et al. v. BP, PLC, et al., C.A. No. 2:10-1314 Bryan C. Carrone, et al. v. BP Products North America, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 2:10-1315 George Barisich, et al. v. BP, PLC, et al., C.A. No. 2:10-1316 Eugene B. Dugas, et al. v. BP, PLC, et al., C.A. No. 2:10-1322 George Barisich, et al. v. BP, PLC, et al., C.A. No. 2:10-1324 Brent J. Rodrigue, Sr., et al. v. BP, PLC, et al., C.A. No. 2:10-1325 T&D Fishery, LLC, et al. v. BP, PLC, et al., C.A. No. 2:10-1332 Fish Commander, LLC v. BP, PLC, et al., C.A. No. 2:10-1339 Cajun Offshore Charters, LLC v. BP, PLC, et al., C.A. No. 2:10-1341 Gulf Crown Seafood, Inc. v. BP, PLC, et al., C.A. No. 2:10-1344 Joseph Kunstler, et al. v. Transocean, Ltd., et al., C.A. No. 2:10-1345


- A3 -


Eastern District of Louisiana (Continued)

Isadore Crepple v. BP, PLC, et al., C.A. No. 2:10-1346 Eric Dumas, etc. v. BP, PLC, et al., C.A. No. 2:10-1348 William D. Gregoire, et al. v. Transocean, Ltd., et al., C.A. No. 2:10-1351 Robroy J. Terrebonne v. BP, PLC, et al., C.A. No. 2:10-1352 Curtis Silver, et al. v. BP, PLC, et al., C.A. No. 2:10-1387 Tom Garner v. BP, PLC, et al., C.A. No. 2:10-1482

Western District of Louisiana

Matthews Gaskins, Jr. v. BP, PLC, et al., C.A. No. 2:10-738 Ellis Schouest, III, et al. v. BP Products North America, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 6:10-727

Southern District of Mississippi

Paul Hopper, et al. v. Cameron International Corp., et al., C.A. No. 1:10-173 Cajun Maid, LLC, et al. v. BP, PLC, et al., C.A. No. 1:10-176 Hiep Trieu, et al. v. BP Exploration & Production, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 1:10-177Michael D. Sevel, et al. v. BP, PLC, et al., C.A. No. 1:10-179 Jessica Staley v. Cameron International Corp., et al., C.A. No. 1:10-181Ronnie Daniels v. Cameron International Corp., et al., C.A. No. 1:10-182 Stacey Van Duyn, et al. v. Cameron International Corp., et al., C.A. No. 1:10-183 Aleen Grieshaber, et al., v. BP Products North America, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 1:10-185

Southern District of Texas

Ben Nelson, et al. v. Transocean, Ltd., et al., C.A. No. 3:10-172 National Vietnamese American Fisherman Emergency Association, et al. v.

BP, PLC, et al., C.A. No. 4:10-1607


Exhibit 13


Case 2:10-cv-01346-CJB-KWR Document 72-1 Filed 06/02/10 Page 23 of 94Case 4:10-cv-01851 Document 39-2 Filed in TXSD on 06/23/10 Page 2 of 3Case 2:10-md-02179-CJB-SS Document 4799-14 Filed 12/05/11 Page 2 of 3

Case 2:10-cv-01346-CJB-KWR Document 72-1 Filed 06/02/10 Page 24 of 94Case 4:10-cv-01851 Document 39-2 Filed in TXSD on 06/23/10 Page 3 of 3Case 2:10-md-02179-CJB-SS Document 4799-14 Filed 12/05/11 Page 3 of 3

Exhibit 14


1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT


ACY J. COOPER, JR. AND RONNIE LOUIS CIVIL ACTIONANDERSON, ETC.

VERSUS NO. 10-1229

BP, plc, ET AL SECTION “N” (1)

O R D E R

Subject to further orders of the Court, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ request for a

Protective Order is hereby GRANTED in the following respects:

I. PRESERVATION ORDER

1. The Defendants, Transocean Offshore Deepwater Drilling, Inc., Deepwater Horizon,

BP Products North America, Inc., Halliburton Energy Services, Cameron International Corporation

d/b/a Cameron Systems Corporation and MI SWACO, through their officers, agents, employees, and

subcontractors, are ordered:

(a) To reasonably refrain and resist from any changing, alteration and/or destruction

of any documents pertaining to the April 20, 2010 explosion or subsequent efforts expended in

connection with such event, including all information stored, held or maintained in electronic format

or via the internet; and to take immediate action to prevent the automatic and/or systematic

programmed deletion or discarding of such documents.

Case 2:10-cv-01229-KDE-SS Document 13 Filed 05/05/10 Page 1 of 20Case 2:10-md-02179-CJB-SS Document 4799-15 Filed 12/05/11 Page 2 of 21

2

(b) To reasonably refrain and resist from any changing, alteration and/or destruction

of any and all tools, instrumentalities, and/or devices which may have been used by workers, in any

capacity, as well as any work authorizations or other documents indicating status of work at the time

of the event in question as well as any and all physical evidence of any kind in any way connected

with the accident and/or accident scene in question.

2. This order shall not be construed in any way to restrict the direction or activities of any

of the Defendants or any local, state or federal governmental entity or agency in their investigation,

recovery, well control, remedial or rescue efforts.

3. Except for good cause shown, each Defendant shall create and maintain and promptly

update a confidentiality/privilege log in a searchable electronic format that can be used with

commercially available database software (e.g., Microsoft Access) identifying the following

information for each document produced or made available in this litigation: the documents (a)

beginning and ending Bates numbers; (b) date; (c) title; (d) document type; (e) author(s); (f)

recipient(s); and (g) confidentiality status (e.g., Confidential, Highly Confidential, or Non--

Confidential, as defined hereinbelow). Each Defendant shall update the confidentiality/privilege log

on the first business day of each month. Each confidentiality/privilege log shall reflect all documents

produced or declared confidential by the Defendant by the fifteenth day of the prior month.

Documents designated “Confidential-Subject to Protective Order” or “Highly Confidential-Subject

to Protective Order” that inadvertently do not appear on the confidentiality/privilege log are

nonetheless “Confidential” or “Highly Confidential Information” under this Order.


3

4. Such confidentiality/privilege log shall be subject to prompt production at a future date

and time pursuant to further Order of the Court. Production of such confidentiality/privilege log

shall be made within seven (7) days of any such order, and the confidentiality/privilege log produced

shall be complete up through the fifteenth day of the month prior to that in which it is produced.

5. It is expressly understood by and between the parties that in identifying and designating

Confidential Information or Highly Confidential-Restricted Information in this litigation, the parties

shall be relying upon the terms and conditions of this Protective Order.

6. No provisions of this Protective Order shall restrict any party’s counsel from rendering

advice to its clients with respect to this Action and, in the course thereof, relying upon Confidential

or Highly Confidential Information, provided that in rendering such advice, counsel shall not disclose

any other party’s Confidential or Highly Confidential Information other than in a manner provided

for in this Protective Order.

7. By written agreement of the parties, or upon motion and order of the Court, the terms

of this Protective Order may be amended, modified, superseded or vacated. This Protective Order

shall continue in force until amended or superseded by express order of the Court, and shall survive

any final judgment or settlement in this Action.

II. PROTECTIVE ORDER

8. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, for purposes of this Order, the Designation of

Confidential or Highly Confidential-Restricted Information are defined and treated as follows:


4

(1) “Confidential Information” as used herein means any information that the

Producing Party believes in good faith constitutes, reflects, discloses, or contains information subject

to protection under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c) or other applicable law, whether it is a document (electronic

or otherwise), information contained in a document, information revealed during a deposition or

other testimony, information revealed in an interrogatory response, or information otherwise

revealed. In designating discovery materials as Confidential Information, the Producing Party shall

do so in good faith consistent with the provisions of this Protective Order and the rulings of the

Court, and shall not be overly broad in designating information as Confidential Information under

this Protective Order.

Specific documents and discovery responses produced by a Producing Party shall be

designated as Confidential Information by marking the pages of the document that contain

Confidential Information as follows: “CONFIDENTIAL — SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE

ORDER.”

(2) “Highly Confidential-Restricted Information” as used herein means any

information that the Producing Party believes in good faith constitutes, reflects, discloses, or contains

information subject to protection under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c) or other applicable law, and that contain

highly sensitive and competitive information, the disclosure of which to persons other than those

designated in this Protective Order would pose a substantial risk of serious harm, economic or

otherwise, to the Producing Party. In designating discovery materials as Highly

Confidential-Restricted Information, the Producing Party shall do so in good faith consistent with


5

the provisions of this Protective Order and the rulings of the Court, and shall not be overly broad in

designating information as Confidential Information under this Protective Order.

Specific documents and discovery responses produced by a Producing Party shall be

designated as Highly Confidential-Restricted Information by marking the pages of the document that

contain Confidential Information as follows: “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL — RESTRICTED —

SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER.”

(3) Where the Producing Party is a defendant, “Competitor” as used herein shall

mean any other defendant that provides the same or similar services as the Producing Party.

(4) Information, other than .tiff images, produced in electronic form (including but

not limited to electronic files, databases, programs, tapes, discs or other electronic information)

(“Electronic Material”) not physically marked as otherwise required under Paragraphs (1) and (2)

above, may be designated as Confidential or Highly Confidential-Restricted by marking the outside

of the storage medium on which the information is produced or by making the designation in writing.

The Receiving Party shall mark any hard copy print-outs and the storage medium of any permissible

copies of Electronic Material designated as Confidential or Highly Confidential-Restricted with the

appropriate “CONFIDENTIAL — SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER” or “HIGHLY

CONFIDENTIAL-RESTRICTED — SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER” legend.

(5) Information disclosed at a deposition taken in connection with this Action may

be designated by the Producing Party as Confidential Information or Highly Confidential-Restricted

Information by designating the portions of the transcript in a letter to be served on the court reporter

and all counsel within seven (7) business days of the date the court reporter makes the transcript


6

available for the Producing Party’s review. The letter shall direct the court reporter to indicate the

portions designated as Confidential Information or Highly Confidential-Restricted Information and

segregate them as appropriate. Designations of transcripts will apply to audio, video, or other

recordings of the testimony. The court reporter shall clearly mark any transcript released prior to the

expiration of the seven (7) day period as “Confidential-Subject to Further Confidentiality Review”

or “Highly Confidential-Restricted Information.” Such transcripts will be treated as Confidential

Information or Highly Confidential-Restricted Information and shall be fully subject to this

Protective Order, until the expiration of the seven (7) days after the transcript was made available

by the court reporter. If the Producing Party does not serve a designation letter within the seven (7)

day period, then the entire transcript will be deemed not to contain Confidential Information or

Highly Confidential-Restricted Information. The parties may agree to a reasonable extension of the

seven (7) day period for serving the designation letter.

(6) A party in this Action may designate as Confidential or Highly Confidential-

Restricted any document or information produced, or testimony given, by any other person or entity

that the party reasonably believes qualifies as such party’s Confidential or Highly Confidential

Information pursuant to this Protective Order. If any third party produces information that any party

in good faith believes constitutes its Confidential or Highly Confidential-Restricted Information, the

party claiming confidentiality shall designate the information as such within seven (7) days of its

receipt of such information. Any party receiving information from a third party shall treat such

information pursuant to this Protective Order during this seven (7) day period while all parties have

an opportunity to review the information and determine if it should be designated as Confidential or


7

Highly Confidential-Restricted Information. Any party designating third party information as

Confidential or Highly Confidential-Restricted shall have the same rights as a Producing Party under

this Order with respect to such information.

(7) Subject to Paragraph (11) below, the Receiving Party may disclose Confidential

Information only to the following people:

(a) Counsel for the Receiving Party, including any in-house counsel

employed by such party, and the attorneys, paralegals, stenographic,

and clerical staff employed by such counsel who are working on the

Action under the direction of such counsel and to whom it is

necessary that the Confidential Information be disclosed for purposes

of the Action;

(b) With respect to any Confidential Information produced by any

plaintiff or third party with respect to plaintiff, any employee of the

Defendants to whom it is necessary to disclose such information for

the purpose of assisting in, or consulting with respect to, the

preparation of this Action;

(c) Stenographic employees, court reporters, and videographers recording

or transcribing testimony in this Action;


8

(d) The Court, any Special Master appointed by the Court, and any

members of their staffs to whom it is necessary to disclose the

Confidential Information;

(e) Subject to Paragraph (5), any witness during a deposition;

(f) Counsel for claimants in other pending litigation alleging property

damage, personal injury, or any economic loss arising from the

alleged contamination: (i) already operating under a protective order

governing the use of confidential information, or (ii) agrees to be

bound by this Order and signs the certification described in Paragraph

(9) below;

(g) Any outside consultant or expert who has signed the certification

described in Paragraph (9) below; and

(h) Any representative of any of the Receiving Party’s insurance carriers

who has signed the certification described in Paragraph (9) below.

(8) The Receiving Party may disclose Highly Confidential-Restricted Information

only to the following people:

(a) Outside Counsel for Defendants in this Action, including attorneys,

paralegals, stenographic and clerical staff employed by such counsel

who are working on the Action under the direction of such counsel

and to whom it is necessary that the Highly Confidential-Restricted

Information be disclosed for purposes of the Action;


9

(b) In-house attorneys for Plaintiffs who are primarily responsible for the

litigation and prosecution of the Action. In-house attorneys for

Plaintiffs who are not responsible for the litigation and prosecution of

the Action, including any in-house attorneys with business

relationships with any Plaintiff or Defendants or with any other

day-to-day interactions with any Plaintiff or Defendants shall not

have access to Highly Confidential Documents outside of those

produced by the individual Plaintiff;

(c) In-house attorneys for Defendants who are primarily responsible for

the litigation and defense of the Action. In-house attorneys for

Defendants who are not responsible for the litigation and defense of

the Action, including any in-house attorneys with business

relationships with any Co-Defendant or with any other day-to-day

interactions with any Co-Defendant shall not have access to Highly

Confidential Documents outside of those produced by Defendants;

(d) The Court, provided that the Highly Confidential-Restricted

documents are filed under seal as set forth in Paragraph (20)(a) below;

(e) Stenographic employees, court reporters, and videographers recording

or transcribing testimony in this Action;

(f) Any outside consultant or expert that has signed the certification

described in Paragraph (9) below;


10

(g) Subject to Paragraph (10) below, any witness during a deposition.

Where a witness was a former employee, consultant, or agent of a

Producing Party, and a current employee, consultant, or agent of a

“Competitor” as defined in Paragraph (3), the parties shall meet and

confer on an appropriate deposition protocol that protects “Highly

Confidential” information;

(h) Counsel for claimants in other pending litigation alleging property

damage, personal injury, or any economic loss arising from the

alleged contamination, provided that the proposed recipient is: (i)

already operating under a protective order governing the use of

confidential information, or (ii) agrees to be bound by this Order and

signs the certification described in Paragraph (9) below; and

(i) Any representative of any of the Receiving Party’s insurance carriers

who has signed the certification described in Paragraph (9) below.

(9) Before disclosing any Confidential Information or Highly Confidential-Restricted

Information to any person as permitted by this Order (other than the Court and its staff), such person

shall be provided with a copy of this Protective Order, which he or she shall read. Upon reading this

Protective Order, such person shall sign a Certification, in the form annexed hereto as Exhibit A,

acknowledging that he or she has read this Protective Order and shall abide by its terms. A file of

all executed Certifications shall be maintained by outside counsel for the party obtaining them and

shall be made available, upon request, for inspection by the Court in camera. Persons who come into


11

contact with Confidential Information for clerical or administrative purposes, and who do not retain

copies or extracts thereof, are not required to execute Certifications.

(10) Before disclosing Confidential or Highly Confidential-Restricted Information

to any person who is, independent of this litigation, a current director, officer, employee of,

consultant to, or counsel for a “Competitor” as defined in Paragraph (3) above, the party wishing to

make such disclosure shall give at least ten (10) days advance notice in writing to the counsel for the

party who designated such information as confidential, providing the counsel who designated such

information as Confidential with information concerning the proposed recipient that does not identify

the proposed recipient but is sufficient to permit an informed decision to be made with respect to any

potential objection. If there is no consent to the disclosure within ten (10) days, the party wishing

to make the disclosure may submit the information to the Court for a determination of whether the

disclosure may be made. The objecting party will have opportunities to (1) request that the Court

direct the party wishing to make disclosure to produce additional information about the proposed

recipient and (2) submit such papers and argument as it may feel necessary to allow the Court to

make an informed decision. If a motion is filed objecting to the proposed disclosure, the designated

document or item shall not be disclosed unless and until ten days have elapsed after the appeal period

from a Court order denying the motion. Because only the party seeking to make the disclosure may

know who the proposed recipient is, it is the responsibility of the party seeking to make the

disclosure to determine prior to making any disclosure whether the proposed recipient is a person

described in this Paragraph.


12

(11) Disclosure of Confidential Information or Highly Confidential-Restricted

Information beyond the terms of this Protective Order may be made only if the Producing Party

designating the material as Confidential or Highly-Confidential-Restricted consents in writing to

such disclosure, or if the Court, after reasonable notice to all affected parties, orders such disclosure.

(12) The Receiving Party, and any other persons having knowledge of Confidential

Information or Highly Confidential-Restricted Information by virtue of their participation in this

action, or by virtue of obtaining documents produced or disclosed in this Action pursuant to this

Protective Order, shall use such Confidential Information or Highly Confidential-Restricted

Information only as permitted herein.

(13) This Protective Order does not address the offering of Confidential Information

or Highly Confidential-Restricted Information in evidence at trial or any court hearing, but nothing

contained in this Protective Order shall preclude any party from moving the Court at an appropriate

time for an order that the evidence be received in camera or under other conditions to prevent

unnecessary disclosure.

(14) Nothing contained in this Protective Order shall preclude any party from using

its own Confidential or Highly Confidential-Restricted Information in any manner it sees fit, without

prior consent of any party or the Court.


13

(15) Counsel shall take all reasonable and necessary steps to assure the security of

any Confidential or Highly Confidential-Restricted Information and limit access to those persons

authorized by this Order.

(16) Any party that is served with a subpoena, formal written request from any state

or federal government agency, or court order compelling the production of discovery materials

produced by another party, which discovery materials have been designated as Confidential or

Highly Confidential-Restricted Information, must immediately give written notice of such subpoena,

formal written request from any state or federal government agency, or court order to the original

Producing Party. Upon receiving copies of such requests, the original Producing Party shall bear the

burden of opposing, if it deems appropriate, the subpoena or other request on grounds of

confidentiality.

(17) If a Receiving Party learns of any unauthorized disclosure of Confidential or

Highly Confidential-Restricted Information, it shall immediately upon learning of such disclosure

(a) inform the Producing Party in writing of all pertinent facts relating to such disclosure, (b) make

all reasonable efforts to prevent disclosure by each unauthorized person who received such

information, and (c) make its best efforts to retrieve copies of the Confidential or Highly

Confidential-Restricted Information.

(18) Upon the conclusion of any attorney’s last case in this Action, including any

appeals related thereto, at the written request and option of the Producing Party, all discovery

materials produced by the Producing Party and any and all copies, summaries, notes, compilations

(electronic or otherwise), and memoranda related thereto, shall be returned within thirty (30) calendar


14

days to the Producing Party, provided, however, that counsel may retain their privileged

communications, work product, certifications pursuant to Paragraph (9), and all court-filed

documents even though they contain discovery materials produced by the Producing Party, but such

retained privileged communications and work product and court-filed documents shall remain subject

to the terms of this Protective Order. At the written request of the Producing Party, any person or

entity having custody or control of recordings, notes, memoranda, summaries or other written

materials, and all copies thereof, relating to or containing discovery materials produced by the

Producing Party shall deliver to the Producing Party an affidavit certifying that reasonable efforts

have been made to assure that all such discovery materials produced by the Producing Party and any

copies thereof, any and all records, notes, memoranda, summaries, or other written material regarding

the discovery materials produced by the Producing Party (except for privileged communications,

work product and court-filed documents as stated above) have been delivered to the Producing Party

in accordance with the terms of this Protective Order.

(19) Changes in Designation of Information shall be treated as follows:

(a) Inadvertent production of any document or information without a

designation of confidentiality will not be deemed to waive a later

claim to its Confidential or Highly Confidential-Restricted nature or

preclude the Producing Party from designating such document or

information as Confidential or Highly Confidential-Restricted at a

later date.


15

(b) Any Producing Party may designate as Confidential or Highly

Confidential-Restricted, or withdraw such a designation from, any

material that it has produced. Such redesignation shall be

accomplished by notifying counsel for each party in writing of such

redesignation. Upon receipt of any re-designation that designates

material as Confidential or Highly Confidential-Restricted, the

Receiving Party shall (a) treat such material in accordance with this

Order, (b) take reasonable steps to notify any persons known to have

possession of any such material of the re-designation under this

Protective Order, and (c) promptly endeavor to retrieve all copies of

such material from any persons known to have possession of such

material who are not authorized to receive it under this Order.

(c) Any party may object to the propriety of the designation (or

re-designation) of specific material as Confidential or Highly

Confidential-Restricted by serving a written objection upon the

Producing Party’s counsel. The Producing Party or its counsel shall

thereafter, within ten (10) calendar days, respond to such objection in

writing by either: (i) agreeing to remove the designation; or (ii) stating

the reasons for such designation. If the Objecting Party and the

Producing Party are subsequently unable to agree upon the terms and

conditions of disclosure for the material(s) in issue after meeting and


16

conferring, the Objecting Party may move the Court for an order

striking the designation within ten (10) days after written notice that

the parties meet and confer efforts have ended. Counsel may agree to

reasonable extensions or reductions of the ten (10) day period, if

necessary, and nothing herein shall prevent a party from requesting

expedited consideration by the Court. On such a motion, the

Producing Party shall have the burden of proving that good cause

exists for the designation at issue and that the material is entitled to

protection as Confidential or Highly Confidential-Restricted

Information under applicable law. The material(s) in issue shall

continue to be treated in the manner as designated by the Producing

Party until the Court orders otherwise. A Receiving Party does not

waive its right to challenge a Confidential or Highly

Confidential-Restricted Information designation by electing not to

raise a challenge promptly after the original designation is disclosed

and may challenge a designation at such time as the Receiving Party

deems appropriate.

(20) IT IS FURTHER ORDERED Service and Filing of Papers With Confidential

or Highly-Confidential-Restricted Information is as follows:


17

(a) The Parties will use the following procedure for submitting to the

Court papers consisting of, relating to, containing, incorporating,

reflecting, describing or attaching Confidential or Highly

Confidential-Restricted Information: any such material shall be filed

in a sealed envelope, labeled with the case name, case number, the

motion to which the documents relate, and a listing of the titles of the

documents in the envelope, and shall bear the legend: THIS

DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL OR HIGHLY

CONFIDENTIAL-RESTRICTED INFORMATION COVERED BY

A PROTECTIVE ORDER OF THE COURT AND IS SUBMITTED

UNDER SEAL PURSUANT TO THAT PROTECTIVE ORDER.

THE CONFIDENTIAL CONTENTS OF THIS DOCUMENT MAY

NOT BE DISCLOSED WITHOUT EXPRESS ORDER OF THE

COURT. Such material shall be kept under seal until further order of

the Court; however, such materials shall be available to the Court and

counsel of record, and to all persons entitled to receive such

information under the terms of this Order.

(b) Within seven (7) business days of the submission of any material

under seal, the parties shall confer to determine if the Producing Party

objects to the filing of the subject Confidential or Highly Confidential

Information in unsealed form. To the extent of the parties agreement


18

concerning the treatment of the subject Confidential or Highly

Confidential Information, the filing party may file the subject

materials in unsealed form. To the extent the parties are unable to

reach agreement, either party may file a motion to address the

appropriate treatment of the subject materials. On such a motion, the

Supplying Party shall have the burden of proving the material is

Confidential or Highly Confidential Information. The material shall

remain sealed unless the Court orders otherwise.

(c) When submitting deposition testimony pursuant to the previous

Paragraph that has been designated as Confidential or Highly

Confidential-Restricted, the submitting party shall submit, to the

extent reasonably possible, only those pages of the deposition

transcript that are cited, referred to, or relied on by the submitting

party.

Considering the foregoing, IT IS ORDERED that the Motion for Protective Order and

Request for Status Conference (Rec. Doc. No. 3) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN

PART, as set forth herein. At this stage, the Court concludes that a status conference on this issue

is unnecessary.

New Orleans, Louisiana, this 5th day of May, 2010.

_________________________________________ KURT D. ENGELHARDT United States District Judge


19

EXHIBIT “A”



ACY J. COOPER, JR. AND RONNIE LOUIS CIVIL ACTIONANDERSON, ETC.

VERSUS NO. 10-1229

BP, plc, ET AL SECTION “N” (1)

CERTIFICATION

I hereby certify that I have read the Protective Order entered in the above-captioned action

and that I understand the terms thereof.

I agree to be bound by the Protective Order.

I further agree to submit to the jurisdiction of this Court for purposes of enforcing the

Protective Order, and I understand that the Court may impose sanctions on me for any violation of

the Protective Order.


20

I understand that these certifications are strictly confidential, that counsel for each party are

maintaining the certifications without giving copies to the other side, and that the parties expressly

agreed and the Court ordered that except in the event of a violation of this Order, the parties will

make no attempt to seek copies of the certifications or to determine the identities of persons signing

them. I further understand that if the Court finds that any disclosure is necessary to investigate a

violation of this Order, the disclosure will be limited to outside counsel only and outside counsel

shall not disclose any information to their clients that could tend to identify any certification

signatory unless and until there is specific evidence that a particular signatory may have violated the

Order, in which case limited disclosure may be made with respect to that signatory.

Date: _________________________

_________________________________________

(Signature)

Name: ___________________________________

(Typed or Printed)


Exhibit 15


Case 4:10-cv-01607 Document 38 Filed in TXSD on 06/18/10 Page 1 of 1Case 2:10-md-02179-CJB-SS Document 4799-16 Filed 12/05/11 Page 2 of 2

Exhibit 16


UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTEASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

: MDL NO. 2179IN RE: OIL SPILL by the OIL RIG :

“DEEPWATER HORIZON” in the : GULF OF MEXICO, on : APRIL 20, 2010 : SECTION: J

: :

: JUDGE BARBIER: MAG. JUDGE SHUSHAN

.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..

THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO ALL CASES

PRETRIAL ORDER #1Setting Initial Conference

It appearing that civil actions listed on Schedule A,

attached hereto, which were transferred to this Court by order of

the Judicial Panel on Multi District Litigation pursuant to its

order of August 10, 2010, merit special attention as complex

litigation, it is, therefore, ORDERED that:

1. INTRODUCTION — It is not yet known how many attorneys

will eventually join this litigation, but we can assume it will

be a large number. As attorneys involved in a multi-district

case, you will probably be laboring together for some time in the

future with work progressively becoming more complicated and

exacting. Some of you know each other and some are complete


-2-

strangers. Undoubtedly each has a different style and

personality. It is likely that during the course of this

litigation your working relationship will occasionally be

strained, communication derailed, and mutual trust questioned.

The just and efficient resolution of this litigation will depend

in large measure on the way you as attorneys comport yourselves

and overcome the temptations and trepidations inherent in a case

of this magnitude. The Manual for Complex Litigation recognizes

that judicial involvement in managing complex litigation does not

lessen the duties and responsibilities of the attorneys. To the

contrary, the added demands and burdens of this type of

litigation place a premium on professionalism and require counsel

to fulfill their obligations as advocates in a manner that will

foster and sustain good working relations among fellow counsel

and the Court. The Court expects, indeed insists, that

professionalism and courteous cooperation permeate this

proceeding from now until this litigation is concluded. The

court record should never be the repository of ill-chosen words

arising out of a sense of frustration over real or imagined

issues. Because of the high level of competence and experience

of attorneys who are generally involved in multi-district

litigation, this Court is confident that this objective will be

achieved without judicial intervention.


-3-

2. APPLICABILITY OF ORDER — Prior to the initial pretrial

conference and entry of a comprehensive order governing all

further proceedings in this case, the provisions of this Order

shall govern the practice and procedure in those actions that

were transferred to this Court by the Judicial Panel on Multi

District Litigation pursuant to its order of August 10, 2010

listed on Schedule A. This Order also applies to all related

cases filed in all sections of the Eastern District of Louisiana

and will also apply to any "tag-along actions" later filed in,

removed to, or transferred to this Court.

3. CONSOLIDATION — The civil actions listed on Schedule A

are consolidated for pretrial purposes. Any “tag-along actions”

later filed in, removed to or transferred to this Court, or

directly filed in the Eastern District of Louisiana, will

automatically be consolidated with this action without the

necessity of future motions or orders. This consolidation,

however, does not constitute a determination that the actions

should be consolidated for trial, nor does it have the effect of

making any entity a party to any action in which he, she or it

has not been named, served or added in accordance with the

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.


-4-

4. DATE OF INITIAL CONFERENCE AND AGENDA FOR CONFERENCE —

Matters relating to pretrial and discovery proceedings in these

cases will be addressed at an initial pretrial conference to be

held on Friday, September 17, 2010 at 9:30 a.m. in Judge Carl J.

Barbier’s courtroom, Room C-268, United States Courthouse, 500

Poydras Street, New Orleans, Louisiana. Counsel are expected to

familiarize themselves with the Manual for Complex Litigation,

Fourth (“MCL 4th”) and be prepared at the conference to suggest

procedures that will facilitate the expeditious, economical, and

just resolution of this litigation. The items listed in MCL 4th

Sections 22.6, 22.61, 22.62, and 22.63 shall, to the extent

applicable, constitute a tentative agenda for the conference.

Counsel shall confer and seek consensus to the extent possible

with respect to the items on the agenda, including a proposed

discovery plan, amendment of pleadings, and consideration of any

class action allegations and motions, and be prepared to select

trial dates. Parties shall also submit an initial proposed case

management order and, if necessary, shall submit suggestions for

any other agenda items. As part of this proposed case management

order, the parties shall suggest whether and how the consolidated

cases should be grouped into separate tracks for purposes of

pretrial discovery, motion practice, etc.

These documents shall be delivered to the Court three full

work days prior to the initial conference by fax to (504) 589-


-5-

4536, or in person to Judge Carl J. Barbier’s Chambers, Room C-

256, United States Courthouse, 500 Poydras Street, New Orleans,

Louisiana.

5. POSITION STATEMENT — Three full work days prior to the

initial conference, plaintiffs and defendants shall submit a

brief written statement indicating their preliminary

understanding of the facts involved in the litigation and the

critical factual and legal issues. These statements will not be

filed with the Clerk, will not be binding, will not waive claims

or defenses, and may not be offered in evidence against a party

in later proceedings. The parties' statements shall list all

pending motions, as well as all related cases pending in state or

federal court, together with their current status, including any

discovery taken to date, to the extent known. The parties shall

be limited to one such submission for all plaintiffs and one such

submission for all defendants.

6. APPEARANCE AT INITIAL CONFERENCE — Each party

represented by counsel shall appear at the initial pretrial

conference through their attorney who will have primary

responsibility for the party’s interest in this litigation.

Parties not represented by counsel may appear in person or

through an authorized and responsible agent. To minimize costs


-6-

and facilitate a manageable conference, parties with similar

interests may agree, to the extent practicable, to have an

attending attorney represent their interest at the conference. A

party, by designating an attorney to represent the party’s

interest at this initial conference, will not be precluded from

personally participating or selecting other representation during

the future course of this litigation, nor will attendance at the

conference waive objections to jurisdiction, venue, or service.

7. SERVICE — Prior to the initial pretrial conference,

service of all papers shall be made on each of the attorneys on

the Panel Attorney Service List attached hereto and designated as

Schedule B. Any attorney who wishes to have his/her name added

to or deleted from such Panel Attorney Service List may do so

upon request to the Clerk of this Court and notice to all other

persons on such service list. The parties shall present to the

Court at the initial conference a list of attorneys, their office

addresses, phone and fax numbers, and e-mail addresses.

8. EXTENSION AND STAY — Each defendant is granted an

extension of time for responding by motion or answer to the

complaint(s) until a date to be set by this Court. Pending the

initial conference and further orders of this Court, all

outstanding discovery proceedings are stayed, and no further


-7-

discovery shall be initiated. Moreover, all pending motions must

be renoticed for resolution on a motion day or days after the

Court's initial conference herein.

9. MASTER DOCKET FILE — Any pleading or document which is

to be filed in any of these actions shall be filed with the Clerk

of this Court and not in the transferor court. The Clerk of this

Court will maintain a master docket file under the style “In Re:

Oil Spill by the Oil Rig “Deepwater Horizon” in the Gulf of

Mexico, on April 20, 2010" and the identification “MDL No. 2179.”

When a pleading is intended to be applicable to all actions, this

shall be indicated by the words: "This Document Relates to All

Cases." When a pleading is intended to apply to less than all

cases, this Court's docket number for each individual case to

which the document number relates shall appear immediately after

the words "This Document Relates to." The following is a sample

of the pleading style:

In Re: Oil Spill by the Oil Rig MDL No. 2179 “Deepwater Horizon” in the

Gulf of Mexico, on April 20, 2010 SECTION: J

This Document Relates to: _____ Judge BarbierMag. Judge Shushan

10. FILING — All documents filed in this Court must be

filed electronically pursuant to Local Rule 5.7E and this Court’s

Administrative Procedures for Electronic Filing. Attorneys may


-8-

register at www.laed.uscourts.gov/cmecf/ecf.htm. An attorney

who, due to exceptional circumstances, is unable to comply with

the requirements of electronic filing, may apply to the Court for

an order granting an exemption. The application shall be in

writing, filed with the Clerk of Court, and shall state the

reason for the attorney’s inability to comply. Pro se litigants

who have not been authorized to file electronically shall

continue to file their pleadings with the Clerk of Court in the

traditional manner, on paper. The Clerk of Court is directed to

make all entries on the master docket sheet with a notation

listing the cases to which the document applies, except that a

document closing a case will also be entered on the individual

docket sheet. All documents shall be filed in the master file.

11. DOCKETING — When an action that properly belongs as a

part of In Re: Oil Spill by the Oil Rig “Deepwater Horizon” in

the Gulf of Mexico, on April 20, 2010 is hereinafter filed in the

Eastern District of Louisiana or transferred here from another

court, the Clerk of this Court shall:

a. File a copy of this Order in the separate file for

such action;

b. Make an appropriate entry on the master docket

sheet;

c. Forward to the attorneys for the plaintiff in the


-9-

newly filed or transferred case a copy of this

Order;

d. Upon the first appearance of any new defendant,

forward to the attorneys for the defendant in such

newly filed or transferred cases a copy of this

Order.

12. APPEARANCES IN LITIGATION — Counsel who appeared in a

transferor court prior to transfer need not enter an additional

appearance before this Court. Moreover, attorneys admitted to

practice and in good standing in any United States District Court

are admitted pro hac vice in this litigation, and the

requirements of Local Rules 83.2.6E and 83.2.7 are waived.

Association of local counsel is not required.

13. REMAND STIPULATIONS — In the event that a case is

remanded, the parties shall furnish to the Clerk of Court a

stipulation or designation of the contents of the record and

furnish all necessary copies of any pleadings filed so as to

enable the transferee clerk to comply with the order of remand.

14. PRESERVATION OF EVIDENCE — All parties and their

counsel are reminded of their duty to preserve evidence that may

be relevant to this action. The duty extends to documents, data,


-10-

and tangible things in possession, custody and control of the

parties to this action, and any employees, agents, contractors,

carriers, bailees, or other nonparties who possess materials

reasonably anticipated to be subject to discovery in this action.

“Documents, data, and tangible things” is to be interpreted

broadly to include writings, records, files, correspondence,

reports, memoranda, calendars, diaries, minutes, electronic

messages, voice mail, e-mail, telephone message records or logs,

computer and network activity logs, hard drives, backup data,

removable computer storage media such as tapes, discs and cards,

printouts, document image files, Web pages, databases,

spreadsheets, software, books, ledgers, journals, orders,

invoices, bills, vouchers, check statements, worksheets,

summaries, compilations, computations, charts, diagrams, graphic

presentations, drawings, films, charts, digital or chemical

process photographs, video, phonographic, tape or digital

recordings or transcripts thereof, drafts, jottings and notes,

studies or drafts of studies or other similar such material.

Information that serves to identify, locate, or link such

material, such as file inventories, file folders, indices, and

metadata, is also included in this definition. Preservation

includes the obligation not to alter any such thing as to its

form, content or manner of filing. Until the parties reach an

agreement on a preservation plan or the Court orders otherwise,


-11-

each party shall take reasonable steps to preserve all documents,

data and tangible things containing information potentially

relevant to the subject matter of this litigation. Each counsel

is under an obligation to the Court to exercise all reasonable

efforts to identify and notify parties and nonparties, including

employees of corporate or institutional parties of the contents

of this paragraph. Failure to comply may lead to dismissal of

claims, striking of defenses, imposition of adverse inferences or

other dire consequences.

Before any devices, tangible things, documents, and other

records which are reasonably calculated to lead to admissible

evidence are destroyed, altered, or erased, counsel shall confer

to resolve questions as to whether the information should be

preserved. If counsel are unable to agree, any party may apply

to this Court for clarification or relief from this Order upon

reasonable notice.

15. FILING OF DISCOVERY REQUESTS — In accordance with Rule

5(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, discovery requests

and responses are not to be filed with the Clerk nor sent to the

Judge's Chambers, except when specifically ordered by the Court

to the extent needed in connection with a motion.


-12-

16. LIAISON COUNSEL — Prior to the initial conference,

counsel for the plaintiffs and counsel for the defendants shall,

to the extent they have not already done so, confer and seek

consensus on the selection of a candidate for the position of

liaison counsel for each group who will be charged with

essentially administrative matters. For example, liaison counsel

shall be authorized to receive orders and notices from the Court

on behalf of all parties within their liaison group and shall be

responsible for the preparation and transmittal of copies of such

orders and notices to the parties in their liaison group and

perform other tasks determined by the Court. Liaison counsel

shall be required to maintain complete files with copies of all

documents served upon them and shall make such files available to

parties within their liaison group upon request. Liaison counsel

are also authorized to receive orders and notices from the

Judicial Panel on Multi District Litigation pursuant to Rule

5.2(e) of the Panel's Rules of Procedure or from the transferee

court on behalf of all parties within their liaison group and

shall be responsible for the preparation and transmittal of

copies of such orders and notices to the parties in their liaison

group. The expenses incurred in performing the services of

liaison counsel shall be shared equally by all members of the

liaison group in a manner agreeable to the parties or set by the

Court failing such agreement. Proposals for the designation of


-13-

liaison counsel shall be submitted to the Court no later than

three full work days prior to the initial conference.

Appointment of liaison counsel shall be made by the Court after

full consideration of the proposals. At the first conference,

liaison counsel and/or the parties should be prepared to discuss

any additional needs for an organizational structure or any

additional matters consistent with the efficient handling of this

matter.

Until this Court names liaison counsel for MDL 2179, those

individuals who served as liaison counsel in the consolidated

action, In Re: Deepwater Horizon, No. 10-CV-1156 (E.D. La. 2010),

(James Roy and Stephen Herman for Plaintiffs, and Don K. Haycraft

for Defendants) will continue to serve in that capacity.

17. PLAINTIFFS’ STEERING COMMITTEES — It is the Court’s

intent to appoint a Plaintiffs’ Steering Committee (“PSC”) to

conduct and coordinate the discovery stage of this litigation

with the defendant’s representatives or committee.

Applications/nominations for the PSC positions must be filed with

the Eastern District of Louisiana’s Clerk’s Office electronically

on or before Monday, September 27, 2010. A copy must also be

served upon counsel named in the attached list on the day of

filing. The main criteria for membership in the PSC will be: (a)

willingness and availability to commit to a time-consuming


-14-

project; (b) ability to work cooperatively with others; and (c)

professional experience in this type of litigation.

Applications/nominations should succinctly address each of the

above criteria as well as any other relevant matters. No

submissions longer than four (4) pages will be considered. The

Court will only consider attorneys who have filed a civil action

in this litigation.

Objections may be made to the appointment of a proposed

applicant/nominee. Nevertheless, the Court will entertain only

written objections to any application/nomination. These must be

filed electronically with the Clerk on or before Monday, October

4, 2010. The objections, if there be any, must be short, yet

thorough, and must be supported by necessary documentation. As

with the application/nomination, any objection must be served on

all counsel appearing on the attached list on the day of filing.

The PSC will have the following responsibilities:

Discovery

1. Initiate, coordinate, and conduct all pretrial

discovery on behalf of plaintiffs in all actions which

are consolidated with the instant multi-district

litigation.

2. Develop and propose to the Court schedules for the

commencement, execution, and completion of all

discovery on behalf of all plaintiffs.


-15-

3. Cause to be issued in the name of all plaintiffs the

necessary discovery requests, motions, and subpoenas

pertaining to any witnesses and documents needed to

properly prepare for the pretrial discovery of relevant

issues found in the pleadings of this litigation.

Similar requests, notices, and subpoenas may be caused

to be issued by the PSC upon written request by the

individual attorney in order to assist him/her in the

preparation of the pretrial stages of his/her client’s

particular claims.

4. Conduct all discovery in a coordinated and consolidated

manner on behalf and for the benefit of all plaintiffs.

Hearings and Meetings

1. Call meetings of counsel for plaintiffs for any

appropriate purpose, including coordinating responses

to questions of other parties or of the Court.

Initiate proposals, suggestions, schedules, or joint

briefs, and any other appropriate matters pertaining to

pretrial proceedings.

2. Examine witnesses and introduce evidence at hearings on

behalf of plaintiffs.

3. Act as spokesperson for all plaintiffs at pretrial

proceedings and in response to any inquiries by the

Court, subject of course to the right of any


-16-

plaintiff’s counsel to present non-repetitive

individual or different positions.

Miscellaneous

1. Submit and argue any verbal or written motions

presented to the Court or Magistrate on behalf of the

PSC as well as oppose when necessary any motions

submitted by the defendants or other parties which

involve matters within the sphere of the

responsibilities of the PSC.

2. Negotiate and enter into stipulations with Defendants

regarding this litigation. All stipulations entered

into by the PSC, except for strictly administrative

details such as scheduling, must be submitted for Court

approval and will not be binding until the Court has

ratified the stipulation. Any attorney not in

agreement with a non-administrative stipulation shall

file with the Court a written objection thereto within

ten (10) days after he/she knows or should have

reasonably become aware of the stipulation. Failure to

object within the term allowed shall be deemed a waiver

and the stipulation will automatically be binding on

that party.

3. Explore, develop, and pursue all settlement options

pertaining to any claim or portion thereof of any case


-17-

filed in this litigation.

4. Maintain adequate files of all pretrial matters,

including establishing and maintaining a document or

exhibit depository, in either real or virtual format,

and having those documents available, under reasonable

terms and conditions for examinations by all MDL

Plaintiffs or their attorneys.

5. Prepare periodic status reports summarizing the PSC’s

work and progress. These reports shall be submitted to

the Plaintiff’s Liaison Counsel who will promptly

distribute copies to the other plaintiffs’ attorneys.

6. Perform any task necessary and proper for the PSC to

accomplish its responsibilities as defined by the

Court’s orders, including organizing subcommittees

compromised of plaintiffs’ attorneys not on the PSC and

assigning them tasks consistent with the duties of the

PSC. Membership on these subcommittees shall be

subject to the approval of the Court. Compensation for

work performed by these subcommittees and the approved

cost will be paid by common benefit funds.

7. Perform such other functions as may be expressly

authorized by further orders of the Court.

8. Reimbursement for costs and/or fees for services will

be set at a time and in a manner established by the


-18-

Court after due notice to all counsel and after a

hearing.

18. DEFENDANTS’ STEERING COMMITTEES — This Court will

consider the recommendations of the defendants for membership on

the defendants steering committee. Defendants Steering Committee

will have the duties and responsibilities described in Paragraph

17 of this order as it pertains to this respective group.

19. MDL 2179 WEBSITE — A website particular to MDL 2179

will be created and will be accessible by going to this Court’s

website located at www.laed.uscourts.gov and clicking on the link

for MDL Cases. The website will contain forms, court orders,

minute entries, a calendar of upcoming events, and other relevant

information. Once the website is created, the court will issue

an order containing the direct link to the website.

20. COMMUNICATION WITH THE COURT — Unless otherwise ordered

by this Court, all substantive communications with the Court

shall be in writing, with copies to opposing counsel.

Nevertheless, the Court recognizes that cooperation by and among

plaintiffs' counsel and by and among defendants’ counsel is

essential for the orderly and expeditious resolution of this

litigation. The communication of information among and between


-19-

plaintiffs' counsel and among and between defendants’ counsel

shall not be deemed a waiver of the attorney-client privilege or

the protection afforded attorney's work product, and cooperative

efforts contemplated above shall in no way be used against any

plaintiff by any defendant or against any defendant by any

plaintiff. Nothing contained in this provision shall be

construed to limit the rights of any party or counsel to assert

the attorney-client privilege or attorney work product doctrine.

New Orleans, Louisiana, this day of , 2010.

CARL J. BARBIERUNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

10th August


IN RE: OIL SPILL BY THE OIL RIG “DEEPWATER HORIZON”

IN THE GULF OF MEXICO, ON APRIL 20, 2010 MDL No. 2179

SCHEDULE A

Northern District of Alabama

Ben Chenault, etc. v. Transocean, Ltd., et al., C.A. No. 2:10-1139

Southern District of Alabama

James F. Mason, Jr., etc. v. Transocean, Ltd., et al., C.A. No. 1:10-191

Peter Burke v. BP Corporation of North of America, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 1:10-195

Shannon Trahan v. BP, PLC, et al., C.A. No. 1:10-198

Jud Smith, et al. v. BP, PLC, et al., C.A. No. 1:10-200

Billy Wilkerson, et al. v. Transocean Holdings, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 1:10-201

Fishtrap Charters, LLC, et al. v. Transocean Holdings, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 1:10-202

Fort Morgan Sales, Rentals & Development, Inc., et al. v. Transocean

Holdings, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 1:10-203

Bon Secour Fisheries, Inc., et al. v. BP, PLC, et al., C.A. No. 1:10-206

George C. Simpson v. Transocean, Ltd., et al., C.A. No. 1:10-210

Gulf Shores West Beach Investments, LLC v. Transocean Holdings, Inc., et al.,

C.A. No. 1:10-213

Billy's Seafood, Inc. v. Transocean Holdings, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 1:10-215

David Meyer, et al. v. BP America, et al., C.A. No. 1:10-216

Orange Beach Marina, Inc., et al. v. Transocean Holdings, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 1:10-217

Robert V. Pendarvis, et al. v. BP, PLC, et al., C.A. No. 1:10-218

Fran Hopkins, et al. v. Transocean, Ltd., et al., C.A. No. 1:10-221

Steven Lavigne, et al. v. British Petroleum, PLC, et al., C.A. No. 1:10-222

Original Oyster House, Inc., et al. v. Transocean Holdings, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 1:10-223

Blue Water Yacht Sales & Services, Inc., et al. v. Transocean Holdings, Inc., et al.,

C.A. No. 1:10-224

Marine Horizons, Inc., et al. v. BP, PLC, et al., C.A. No. 1:10-227

George Jett v. BP, PLC, et al., C.A. No. 1:10-228

Captain Edward Lockridge v. BP, PLC, et al., C.A. No. 1:10-233

Terry Drawdy, et al. v. Transocean, Ltd., et al., C.A. No. 1:10-235

Sea Eagle Fisheries, Inc., et al. v. BP, PLC, et al., C.A. No. 1:10-238

Case 2:10-md-02179-CJB-SS Document 2-1 Filed 08/10/10 Page 1 of 3Case 2:10-md-02179-CJB-SS Document 4799-17 Filed 12/05/11 Page 21 of 32

- A2 -


Northern District of Florida

John T. Harris v. Transocean, Ltd., et al., C.A. No. 3:10-129

Ocean Reef Realty, Inc. v. Transocean Holdings, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 3:10-132

Michael Salley v. Transocean Holdings, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 3:10-133

Nicholas Harris, et al. v. Transocean, Ltd., et al., C.A. No. 3:10-134

Charles Douglass, et al. v. Transocean Holdings, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 3:10-136

Joe Patti Seafood Co., et al. v. Transocean, Ltd., et al., C.A. No. 3:10-137

Dewey Destin, et al. v. BP, PLC, et al., C.A. No. 3:10-141

Stacey P. Walsh v. British Petroleum, PLC, et al., C.A. No. 3:10-143

George Weems Ward, et al. v. BP, PLC, et al., C.A. No. 4:10-157

Water Street Seafood, Inc., et al. v. BP Products North America Inc., et al.,

C.A. No. 4:10-162

Eastern District of Louisiana

Shane Roshto, et al. v. Transocean, Ltd., et al., C.A. No. 2:10-1156

Michelle Jones, etc. v. Transocean, Ltd., et al., C.A. No. 2:10-1196

Troy Wetzel, et al. v. Transocean, Ltd., et al., C.A. No. 2:10-1222

Acy J. Cooper, Jr., et al. v. BP, PLC, et al., C.A. No. 2:10-1229

Michael Williams v. Transocean, Ltd, et al., C.A. No. 2:10-1243

Darleen Jacobs Levy v. Transocean, Ltd., et al., C.A. No. 2:10-1245

James J. Friloux, et al. v. BP, PLC, et al., C.A. No. 2:10-1246

Ben Robin, et al. v. BP, PLC, et al., C.A. No. 2:10-1248

Michael Ivic, et al. v. BP, PLC, et al., C.A. No. 2:10-1249

Felix Alexie, Jr. v. BP, PLC, et al., C.A. No. 2:10-1250

Ray Vath, et al. v. BP, PLC, et al., C.A. No. 2:10-1273

Charles Robin, III, et al. v. BP, PLC, et al., C.A. No. 2:10-1295

Bill's Oyster House, LLC, et al. v. BP, PLC, et al., C.A. No. 2:10-1308

Nova Affiliated, S.A. v. BP, PLC, et al., C.A. No. 2:10-1313

Robin Seafood Co., Inc., et al. v. BP, PLC, et al., C.A. No. 2:10-1314

Bryan C. Carrone, et al. v. BP Products North America, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 2:10-1315

George Barisich, et al. v. BP, PLC, et al., C.A. No. 2:10-1316

Eugene B. Dugas, et al. v. BP, PLC, et al., C.A. No. 2:10-1322

George Barisich, et al. v. BP, PLC, et al., C.A. No. 2:10-1324

Brent J. Rodrigue, Sr., et al. v. BP, PLC, et al., C.A. No. 2:10-1325

T&D Fishery, LLC, et al. v. BP, PLC, et al., C.A. No. 2:10-1332

Fish Commander, LLC v. BP, PLC, et al., C.A. No. 2:10-1339

Cajun Offshore Charters, LLC v. BP, PLC, et al., C.A. No. 2:10-1341

Gulf Crown Seafood, Inc. v. BP, PLC, et al., C.A. No. 2:10-1344

Joseph Kunstler, et al. v. Transocean, Ltd., et al., C.A. No. 2:10-1345


- A3 -


Eastern District of Louisiana (Continued)

Isadore Crepple v. BP, PLC, et al., C.A. No. 2:10-1346

Eric Dumas, etc. v. BP, PLC, et al., C.A. No. 2:10-1348

William D. Gregoire, et al. v. Transocean, Ltd., et al., C.A. No. 2:10-1351

Robroy J. Terrebonne v. BP, PLC, et al., C.A. No. 2:10-1352

Curtis Silver, et al. v. BP, PLC, et al., C.A. No. 2:10-1387

Tom Garner v. BP, PLC, et al., C.A. No. 2:10-1482

Western District of Louisiana

Matthews Gaskins, Jr. v. BP, PLC, et al., C.A. No. 2:10-738

Ellis Schouest, III, et al. v. BP Products North America, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 6:10-727

Southern District of Mississippi

Paul Hopper, et al. v. Cameron International Corp., et al., C.A. No. 1:10-173

Cajun Maid, LLC, et al. v. BP, PLC, et al., C.A. No. 1:10-176

Hiep Trieu, et al. v. BP Exploration & Production, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 1:10-177

Michael D. Sevel, et al. v. BP, PLC, et al., C.A. No. 1:10-179

Jessica Staley v. Cameron International Corp., et al., C.A. No. 1:10-181

Ronnie Daniels v. Cameron International Corp., et al., C.A. No. 1:10-182

Stacey Van Duyn, et al. v. Cameron International Corp., et al., C.A. No. 1:10-183

Aleen Grieshaber, et al., v. BP Products North America, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 1:10-185

Southern District of Texas

Ben Nelson, et al. v. Transocean, Ltd., et al., C.A. No. 3:10-172

National Vietnamese American Fisherman Emergency Association, et al. v.

BP, PLC, et al., C.A. No. 4:10-1607


Printed on 08/10/2010

Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation - Panel Service Listfor

MDL 2179 - IN RE: Oil Spill by the Oil Rig "Deepwater Horizon" in the Gulf of Mexico,

*** Report Key and Title Page ***

Party Representation Key* Signifies that an appearance was made on behalf of the party by the representing attorney.# Specified party was dismissed in some, but not all, of the actions in which it was named as a party.

This Report is Based on the Following Data FiltersDocket: 2179 - Oil Spill by the Oil Rig "Deepwater Horizon" in the Gulf of Mexico - 4/20/10For Open Cases

All counsel and parties no longer active in this litigation have been suppressed.

Please Note: This report is in alphabetical order by the last name of the attorney. A party may not berepresented by more then one attorney. See Panel rule 5.2(c).

SCHEDULE B


Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation - Panel Service List

ATTORNEY - FIRM REPRESENTED PARTY(S)

2179 - IN RE: Oil Spill by the Oil Rig "Deepwater Horizon" in the Gulf of Mexico, on April 20, 2010Docket:Status: Transferred on 08/10/2010Transferee District: Judge: Barbier, Carl J.LAE Printed on 08/10/2010

Arsenault, Richard J.NEBLETT BEARD & ARSENAULT2220 Bonaventure CourtPost Office Box 1190Alexandria, LA 71309-1190

Dudenherer's Fishing Charters, Inc.*; Titeline Charter Service, LLC*=>Phone: (318) 487-9874 Fax: (318) 561-2591 Email: [email protected]

Barnett, Ryan M.WHIBBS & STONE PA801 West Romana StreetPensacola, FL 32502

Bryant, III, Edward R.; Douglass, Annette; Loupe, John Chandler; Loupe, Mary P.=>Phone: (850) 434-5395 Fax: (850) 469-0043 Email: [email protected]

Barr, Brian H.LEVIN PAPANTONIO THOMAS ET AL316 South Baylen StreetSuite 600Pensacola, FL 32502

Bay Breeze Aquatics & Dive Center, LLC; Joe Patti Seafood Co.; Mega-Bite Inshore Charters;Nichols, Benjamin Marvin; Phan Tran; Premier Island Management Group LLC; Reel EazyCharters, LLC; Rooks Marina, Inc.; Southern Seafood of Pace, Inc.

=>Phone: (850) 435-7000 Fax: (850) 436-6187 Email: [email protected]

Beck, David J.BECK REDDEN & SECREST LLP1221 McKinney StreetSuite 4500Houston, TX 77010

Cameron International Corp.*=>Phone: (713) 951-3700 Fax: (713) 951-3720 Email: [email protected]

Berman, Steve W.HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP1918 Eighth AvenueSuite 3300Seattle, WA 98101

Brian Howard's Charter Fishing LLC*; Walker, Jr., Laurence Emory*=>Phone: (206) 623-7292 Fax: (206) 623-0594 Email: [email protected]

Bracken, Geoffrey H.GARDERE WYNNE SEWELL LLP1000 LouisianaSuite 3400Houston, TX 77002

M-I, L.L.C.*=>Phone: (713) 276-5739 Fax: (713) 276-6739 Email: [email protected]

Bradford, Bobby J.AYLSTOCK WITKIN KREIS & OVERHOLTZ PLLC803 North Palafox StreetPensacola, FL 35201

Chiodo, Kristi; Harris, John T.; Harris, Nicholas=>Phone: (850) 916-7450 Fax: (850) 916-7449

Braud, S. Jacob BALLAY BRAUD & COLON PLC8114 Highway 23Belle Chasse, LA 70037

Taliancich, Sr., Bartol John*=>Phone: (504) 394-9841 Fax: (504) 394-9945 Email: [email protected]

Brown, Eric B.P.O. Box 2765Houston, TX 77252-2765

Transocean, Ltd.; Transocean, Ltd. (Transocean Entity)=>

Note: Please refer to the report title page for complete report scope and key.


(Panel Attorney Service List for MDL 2,179 Continued) Page 2


Buzbee, Anthony G.BUZBEE LAW FIRMJP Morgan Chase Tower600 TravisSuite 7300Houston, TX 77002

Baron, Ned*; Davis, Matthew*; Davis, Stephen*; Haire, Christopher*; Hearn, Robert*; Martinez,Dennis DeWayne*; Moss, Eugene DeWayne*; Nelson (dba Jeri's Seafood, Inc.), Ben*; Nelson (dbaJeri's Seafood, Inc.), Jeri*; Pigg, Samuel Wade*; Sandell, Micah Joseph*; Tipps, Roy*


Cabraser, Elizabeth J.LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN LLP275 Battery Street29th FloorSan Francisco, CA 94111-3339

Barnett, Robert*; Bates, Harley D.*; Burger (dba H2O Outfitters), Eddie*; Cajun Maid, LLC*; GulfShores Sea Products, Inc.*; Integrity Fisheries, Inc.*; Kirkland, Morgan*; Ladner, Keath*; LeDiscount Seafood, Inc.*; Le, Namthi*; Phasadovong, Souksavanh*; Rodriguez, Sr., Charles V.*;Sea Eagle Fisheries, Inc.*; Tom Wade, Inc. dba Nautical Yacht*


Chiepalich, C. S.P.O. Box 6505Mobile, AL 36660

Jett, George=>Phone: (205) 478-1666 Email: [email protected]

Clark, Lange LAW OFFICE OF LANGE CLARK PC301 19th Street NorthSuite 550Birmingham, AL 35203

Carbullido, Jesse*; Gams, Robert Stephen*; Marine Horizons, Inc.*=>Phone: (205) 939-3933 Fax: (205) 939-1414 Email: [email protected]

Coleman, Alice W.BRENT COON & ASSOCIATES6360 I-55, NorthSuite 340Jackson, MS 39211

Grieshaber, Aleen; Grieshaber, James=>Phone: (601) 957-6177 Fax: (601) 957-6507 Email: [email protected]

Coumanis, Christ N.COUMANIS & YORK PC2101 Main StreetDaphne, AL 36526

Drawdy Crab Co., Inc.*; Drawdy, Jessica*; Drawdy, Terry*; Handsome Crab, Inc.*; T&J's LastMinute Seafood Express, Inc.*; United Seafood, Inc. dba D&M Crabs*


Crump, Martin D.DAVIS & CRUMP1712 15th StreetSuite 300Gulfport, MS 39501

Barker, Daniel*=>Phone: (228) 863-6000 Fax: (228) 864-0907 Email: [email protected]

Cutter, C. Brooks KERSHAW CUTTER & RATINOFF LLP401 Watt AvenueSacramento, CA 95864

Contegni, Jr. (dba Chips Shrimp, Inc.), Charles J.*=>Phone: (916) 448-9800 Fax: (916) 669-4499 Email: [email protected]

Dampier, M. Stephen LAW OFFICES OF M STEPHEN DAMPIER PC55 North Section StreetFarirhope, AL 36532

Ferguson, Constance*; Ferguson, James*=>Phone: (251) 929-0800 Fax: (251) 929-0900 Email: [email protected]

Deshazo, Michael KINNEY & ELLINGHAUSEN Bayouside Drive Seafood, LLC*; Blanchard, Eric*; Cajun Crab, LLC*






1250 Poydras StreetSuite 2450New Orleans, LA 70113

Dreher, Jr., William W.DREHER LAW FIRM PAP.O. Box 9682224 - 24th AvenueGulfport, MN 39502

Baker, Cliff*; Bosarge, Robert*; Hormanski, A.D.*; Jacobs, Lester*; Necaise, J.C.*; Papania,Leonard*; Rowell, Jimmie*; Sevel, Michael D.*; Ship Island Excursions, Inc.*; Townsend,Johnny*; Ware USA, LLC*; Wolcott, Robert*


Dunne, Carey R.DAVIS POLK & WARDWELL LLP450 Lexington AvenueNew York, NY 10017

Hyundai Heavy Industries Co., Ltd.*=>Phone: (212) 450-4000 Fax: (212) 450-3800 Email: [email protected]

Friedman, Jeffrey E.FRIEDMAN LEAK DAZZIO ZULANAS & BOWLING PC3800 Corporate Woods DriveBirmingham, AL 35242

Barnes III, Harry M.*; Ben-Rip-J, Inc.*; LP Properties, LLC*; McLeod, Ben*; Necessity SportFishing, LLC*; Smith, Jud*; Smith, Sherri*


Garrison, Jr, W. Lewis HENINGER GARRISON DAVIS LLC2224 1st Avenue NorthP.O. Box 11310Birmingham, AL 35203

B&B Properties, Inc.*; Caldwell, William*; Fran's On Fifty Nine*; Hopkins, Fran*; ImagineEnterprises I, LLC*; Imagine Enterprises, LLC*; Isbell, Melissa*; Overton Joseph*; Overtstreet, Jr.,John*; Robertson, Joni*; Salter, Stephen*; Smeraglia, Claude*; Spina, Johnnie*; Spina, Thomas*


Gibbs, Darryl M.CHHABRA & GIBBS PA120 North Congress StreetSuite 200The Plaza BuildingJackson, MS 39201

Brame, Margaret Ann*; Daniels, Ronnie*; Duyn, Stacey Van*; Knight, Charles*; Staley, Jessica*=>Phone: (601) 948-8005 Fax: (601) 948-8010 Email: [email protected]

Godfrey, Richard C.KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP300 North LaSalle StreetChicago, IL 60654

BP Corp. North America, Inc.; British Petroleum, PLC=>Phone: (312) 862-2064 Fax: (312) 861-2200 Email: [email protected]

Godwin, Donald E.GODWIN RONQUILLO PCRenaissance Tower1201 Elm StreetSuite 1700Dallas, TX 75270

Halliburton Co.*; Halliburton Energy Services, Inc.*=>Phone: (214) 939-4400 Fax: (214) 760-7332 Email: [email protected]

Greenwald, Robin L.WEITZ & LUXENBERG PC700 BroadwayNew York, NY 10003

Abshire, Brad*; Allen, Scotty*; Arratt, Jeffrey*; Arrington, Sr., Kenneth*; Baily, Willis*; Baker,Tyree*; Ball, Clarence*; Ball, Darryl S.*; Ball, Jr., William*; Ball, William H.*; Bell, Danny*; Bell,Jerry*; Bell, Joseph*; Bessard, Sr., Chris*; Besteda, Alex*; Betancourt, Enrique A.*; Blevins,Thomas*; Blue, Leroy*; Bonner, Tyrone*; Bosarge, Michael A.*; Mitchell, James Kirk*; TonyLynn, LLC


Hawkins, John F.HAWKINS STRACENER & GIBSON PLLC Hopper (Ind./dba Hopper Seafood & Grand Bature Seafood), Paul*






P.O. Box 24627Jackson, MS 39225-4627

Herman, Russ M.HERMAN HERMAN KATZ & COTLAR LLP820 O'Keefe AvenueNew Orleans, LA 70113

321 Arabella, LLC. dba Franky and Johnny's Restaurant*; 3401 N. Hullen, LLC. dba Tello'sBistro*; A Bar & Grill with a Bite, Inc. dba Crazy Lobster New Orleans LA*; Hambone, Inc. dbaZeke's Restaurant*; Harborwalk II, LLC. dba Poppy's Dancin' Iguana*; LACRIOLLO, Inc. dbaPoppy's Time Out Sports Bar & Grill*; New Orleans Fish House, LLC*; Orlando Village RestaurantLLC dba Poppy's Crazy Lobster Destin*; P.A. Menard, Inc.*; Tumolo Enterprises, Inc. dba Poppy'sSeafood Factory*; We Too Inc. dba Eleven 79 Restaurant*


Holland, Eric D.HOLLAND GROVES SCHNELLER & STOLZE LLC300 North Tucker BoulevardSuite 801St. Louis, MO 63101

Lavigne, Paul*; Lavigne, Steven*=>Phone: (314) 241-8111 Fax: (314) 241-5554 Email: [email protected]

Hornsby, Jr., Ernest C.MORRIS HAYNES INGRAM & HORNSBY3500 Colonnade ParkwaySuite 100Birmingham, AL 35243

Simpson, George C.=>Phone: (256) 329-2000 Fax: (256) 329-2015 Email: [email protected]

Howard, Phillip Timothy HOWARD & ASSOCIATES PA8511 Bull Headley RoadSuite 405Tallahassee, FL 32312

Crawford, Constance; Galloway, Jeff; Ward, George Weems=>Phone: (850) 298-4455 Fax: (850) 216-2537 Email: [email protected]

Huey, Michael G.HUEY LAW FIRM LLC1059 Dauphin StreetMobile, AL 36604

Gonzales, Dr. John; Trahan, Shannon=>

Irvine, III, George R.STONE GRANADE & CROSBY PC7133 Stone DriveDaphne, AL 36526

Billy's Seafood, Inc.; Elkins (Ind./Trustee-Terry L. & Janice M.), Janice M.; Elkins(Ind./Trustee-Terry L. & Janice M.), Terry L.; Goldsworthy, Richard; Goldsworthy, Susan Elkins;Gulf Shores West Beach Investments, LLC; Pendarvis, Gracie; Pendarvis, Robert V.


Jackson, III, Sidney W.JACKSON FOSTER & RICHARDSON LLCP.O. Box 2225Mobile, AL 36652

Mason, Jr. (Ind./Behalf-K&J, Inc.), James F.=>

Jones, III, Gladstone N.JONES SWANSON HUDDELL & GARRISON LLCPan-American Life Center601 Poydras StreetSuite 2655New Orleans, LA 70130

Phillips, John F.*=>Phone: (504) 523-2500 Fax: (504) 523-2508 Email: [email protected]

Jones, Rhon E.BEASLEY ALLEN CROW METHVIN PORTIS & MILES PC Bon Secour Boats, Inc.*; Bon Secour Fisheries, Inc.*; Cotton Bayou Marina, Inc. dba Tacky Jacks

Restaurant*; Deupree Outdoor Guide Services, Inc.*; Relax On The Beach, Inc.*; Sandcastle






218 Commerce StreetMontgomery, AL 36104 Escapes, L.L.C.*; Sunrise Rentals Enterprises*

Kennedy, Richard R.309 Polk StreetP.O. Box 3243Lafayette, LA 70502-3243

Rhodes, Karl W.*=>Phone: (337) 232-1934 Fax: (337) 232-9720 Email: [email protected]

Laborde, III, Cliffe E.LABORDE & NEUNEROne Petroleum Center1001 W. Pinhook RoadSuite 200Lafayette, LA 70503

Tidewater Marine, LLC*=>Phone: (337) 237-7000 Fax: (337) 233-9450 Email: [email protected]

Lane, Joseph D.COCHRAN CHERRY GIVENS & SMITH163 West Main StreetDothan, AL 36301

Barber, Peter J.*=>Phone: (334) 793-1555 Fax: (334) 793-8280 Email: [email protected]

Langan, J. Andrew KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP300 North LaSalle StreetChicago, IL 60654

BP America Inc.*; BP Exploration & Production, Inc.*; BP Products North America Inc.*; BP,PLC; BP, PLC aka BP


Lovelace, DeWitt M.LOVELACE LAW FIRM PA12870 U.S. Highway 98 WestSuite 200Miramar Beach, FL 32550

Le (dba Bluewater Seafood), Hao Van*=>Phone: (850) 837-6020 Fax: (850) 837-4093 Email: [email protected]

Lucado, M. Shane LUCADO LAW FIRM1 Perimeter Park SouthSuite 125 SouthBirmingham, AL 35243

Chenault (Ind./For CMCO, LLC), Ben*; Creech, Dacien Thane*; Douglass, Charles*; KilgoreRealty, LLC*


Mason, Angela Joy COCHRAN FIRM163 W. Main StreetDothan, AL 36302

Bratt (Ind./dba Chaise N'Rays), Gary; Bridges (Ind./dba H.R. Bridges Seafood), Randolf; Collier,Sr. (Ind./dba P.J. Seafood), Richard M.; Hodas (Ind./dba Island Times Mountain Time), Carrie;Hodas (Ind./dba Island Times Mountain Time), Kier; Meyer, David; Miller (Ind./dba The IslandRainbow & The Trading Post) Dennis Benjamin; Ponder (Ind./dba Deer River Seafood, LLC), JohnSamuel

=>Phone: (205) 793-1555

McDole, Keith C.JONES DAY2727 North Harwood StreetDallas, TX 75201-1515

Transocean Holdings, Inc.; Transocean, Ltd.; Transocean, Ltd. (Transocean Entity)=>Phone: (214) 220-3939 Fax: (214) 969-5100

McKee, Robert J.KRUPNICK CAMPBELL MALONE BUSER SLAMA ET AL

12 Southeast 7th Street

Griffitts Investments LP*=>Phone: (954) 763-8181 Fax: (954) 763-8292 Email: [email protected]





Suite 801Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301

Meunier, Gerald E.GAINSBURGH BENJAMIN DAVID MEUNIER &WARSHAUER LLC 2800 Energy Centre1100 Poydras StreetNew Orleans, LA 70163-2800

Bass, Frederick*; Eckert, Darryl*; Elmer, Charles C.*; Hayes, Michael*; Neumeyer, Jr., Rodney*;Nunez, Lena T.*


Miller, Kerry J.FRILOT LLC1100 Poydras StreetSuite 3700New Orleans, LA 70163

Transocean Deepwater, Inc.*; Transocean Offshore Deepwater Drilling, Inc.*=>Phone: (504) 599-8194 Fax: (504) 599-8145 Email: [email protected]

Mitsui & Co., U.S.A., Inc, 200 Park AvenueNew York, NY 10166

Mitsui & Co. U.S.A., Inc.=>

Morrow, Patrick C.MORROW MORROW RYAN & BASSETTPost Office Drawer 1787Opelousas, LA 70570

James, Jr., Joseph George*; Schouest, III, Ellis*=>Phone: (337) 948-4483 Fax: (337) 942-5234 Email: [email protected]

Moskowitz, Adam M.KOZYAK TROPIN & THROCKMORTON PA2525 Ponce de Leon Boulevard9th FloorMiami, FL 33134

Destin, Dewey*; Edgewater Beach Owner's Association, Inc.*; Key West Tiki Charters, Inc.*=>Phone: (305) 372-1800 Fax: (305) 372-3508 Email: [email protected]

Murray, Stephen B.MURRAY LAW FIRM650 Poydras SreetSuite 2150New Orleans, LA 70130

Dinet, Nicholas J.*=>Phone: (504) 525-8100 Fax: (504) 584-5249 Email: [email protected]

Neger, Peter C.BINGHAM MCCUTCHEN LLP399 Park AvenueNew York, NY 10075

Anadarko E&P Co., L.P.*; Anadarko Petroleum Corp.*=>Phone: (212) 705-7226 Fax: (212) 702-3616 Email: [email protected]

Nicholas, Steven L.CUNNINGHAM BOUNDS LLC1601 Dauphin StreetMobile, AL 36604

Action Outdoors, LLC*; Alabama Gulf Coast Investments, LLC*; Blue Water Yacht Sales &Services, Inc.*; Country, Inc.*; Deep Sea Foods, Inc.*; Fishtrap Charters, LLC*; Fort Morgan Sales,Rentals & Development, Inc.*; Gumbo Properties, LLC*; Happy Harbor, LLC*; Ingram, Jon B.*;Jubilee Seafood, Inc.*; Long, John Forrest*; Malay, Inc.*; Margaritaville, LLC*; Ocean ReefRealty, Inc.*; Orange Beach Marina, Inc.*; Original Oyster House II, Inc.*; Original Oyster House,Inc.*; Oyster Bay Marina, LLC*; Pass Chateau Properties, LLC dba Dauphin Island Marina*;Premium Properties, Inc.*; Prickett Properties, LLC*; Romar Marina Club, LLC*; Salley (dba SureShot Charters), Micheal*; Southern Coastal Restaurants, LLC*; Sportsman Fish House, LLC*;Superb Food, Inc.*; T&E Seafood, Inc.*; TNT, LLC*; Wilkerson, Billy*; Wilkerson, Tessa*






Norris, John E.DAVIS & NORRIS LLPThe Bradshaw House2154 Highland Avenue SouthBirmingham, AL 35205

Burke, Peter*; Junghann, Brenda S.*; Junghann, Jorg M.*; Lykins, Ryan*=>Phone: (205) 930-9900 Fax: (205) 930-9989 Email: [email protected]

Poynter, Scott E.EMERSON POYNTER LLP500 President Clinton AvenueSuite 305Little Rock, AR 72201

Charter Boat Seascape Inc.*; Charter Boat Sunrise Inc.*; Destin Fishing Fleet Inc.*; First LightEnterprises Inc.*; L&H Enterprises, Inc. dba Tackle This Shoot That*; Paul, Gary*


Price, Donald W.DUE PRICE GUIDRY PIEDRAHITA & ANDREWS8201 Jefferson HighwayBaton Rouge, LA 70809

Duet, Deanna G.*; Duet, Raymond*=>Phone: (225) 929-7481 Fax: (225) 924-4519 Email: [email protected]

Quin, II, William M.MCCRANEY MONTAGNET & QUIN PLLC602 Steed RoadSuite 200Ridgeland, MS 39157

Montagnet, Monica C.*=>Phone: (601) 707-5725 Fax: (601) 510-2939 Email: [email protected]

Rash, David C.ALTERS LAW FIRM PA4141 Northeast 2nd AvenueSuite 201Miami, FL 33137

Blue Parrott OceanFront Cafe, Inc.*; Captain Salty, Inc.*; G.A. Fish, Inc.*; Grant, John S.*; GregAbrams Seafood, Inc.*; Lima (aka Captain Shelley Seafood), Steve*; Motor Vessel Captain Carl,Inc.*; Motor Vessel Fishermans Pride, Inc.*; Motor Vessel Lady Evelyn, Inc.*; Motor Vessel ThreeBrothers, Inc.*; Raffield Fisheries Inc.*; SGI Rentals Inc.*; Tarpon Dock Seafood Market*; WaterStreet Seafood, Inc.*; WJ2 LLC*


Rifkin, Mark C.WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP270 Madison AvenueNew York, NY 10016

Brondum Jr., Richard C.*; Bundy, Jr., Bill R.*; Johnson, Cynthia*; Richard (dba Richard's SeafoodPatio), Calvin J.*


Sexton, II, K. Edward GENTLE TURNER & SEXTON2 North 20th StreetSuite 1200Birmingham, AL 35203

Lockridge, Captain Edward=>Phone: (205) 716-3000 Email: [email protected]

Strange, Brian R.STRANGE & CARPENTER12100 Wilshire BoulevardSuite 1900Los Angeles, CA 90025

Gaskins, Jr., Matthews*=>Phone: (310) 207-5055 Fax: (310) 826-3210 Email: [email protected]

Tran, Minh Tam TAMMY TRAN ATTORNEYS AT LAW LP2915 Fannin StreetHouston, TX 77002

National Vietnamese American Fisherman Emergency Association*; Nguyen, Nam; Tran, Hung=>Phone: (713) 655-0737 Fax: (713) 655-0823 Email: [email protected]





Verras, Spiro J.BILIRAKIS LAW GROUP LLC4538 Bartelt RoadHoliday, FL 34690

Calhoun, Jeffery*; Coratella, Vincent*; East Shore Land Development, LLC dba Blue Wave MotelSuites Of Clearwater Beach, Florida*; Galaris, James*; Gionis, Athanasios*; Gionis, Evdokia*;Gold Fingers Jewelers & Gift Shop, Inc.*; J.J.S. Properties, Inc. dba Post Corner Pizza Restaurant*;Moreira, Carlos*; Narcosis, Inc.*; Venette, Desire*

=>Phone: (727) 937-3226 Fax: (727) 934-5069 Email: sverras@bilirakislaw. com

Wiygul, Robert B.WALTZER & ASSOCIATES1011 Iberville DriveOcean Springs, MS 39564

Dinh, Khuyen; Huynh, Tai; Nguyen, Son; Pan Isles, Inc.; Trieu, Hiep=>Phone: (228) 872-1125 Fax: (228) 872-1128 Email: [email protected]

Zatzkis, Lanny R.ZATZKIS MCCARTHY & ASSOCIATES LLC650 Poydras StreetSuite 2750New Orleans, LA 70130

Black, Kevin*; Canty, IV, John B.*; Conzonere, Chad*; Crain, Michael Troy*; Crawford, Brad*;Crawford, William J.*; Efferson, Alvery L.*; Efferson, Charles*; Evans, Jr., Robert*; Ferrier,Michael*; Gagliano, Wayne*; Jackson, Kevin M.*; Knecht, Jr., Dennis*; Knecht, Jr., Frederick H.*;Kreger, Jr., Ronald A.*; Kreger, Robert*; Kreger, Ryan A.*; Kreger, Sr., Ronald A.*; Kreger, Sr.,Roy*; Lyncker, Williams H.*; Moragas, Shannon D.*; Pomes, Christopher*; Raimer, Allen J.*;Roberts, John C.*; Sander, Jr., Gerald J.*; Schmalz, Charles*; Segrave, Jr., David A.*; Segrave,Michael A.*; Segrave, Sr., David A.*




Exhibit 19



1



2


BY THE OIL RIG )





6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17 *****************

VOLUME 1

18 *****************

19

20

Deposition of Benjamin James Richard,

21 taken at the Pan-American Building, 601 Poydras

Street, 11th Floor, New Orleans, Louisiana,

22 70130, on the 14th day of October, 2011.

23

24

25



197

1 Q. 9.3.1.

2 A. (Reviewing document.)

3 Q. Nowhere does it say it's either/or.

4 Either do an unset or a set. It says evaluate it

5 this way and then check this other way.

6 MR. BOWMAN: Objection, form.

7 MR. GUIDRY: The same objection.

8 MR. PETOSA: Objection, form.

9 A. It says it can be evaluated that way, it

10 doesn't mean it's the only way it could be done.

11 Q. (By Mr. Chen) Where does it say it can be

12 evaluated that way?

13 A. Evaluate the foam slurry.

14 Q. Where is the word "can"?

15 A. There's no word "can."

16 Q. Okay. Now, earlier you said Halliburton

17 Laboratory does track laboratory stock -- the lot

18 numbers for laboratory stock of retarders,

19 correct?

20 A. Yes, sir.

21 Q. And that's so that you know what -- what

22 lot of the retarder you're supposed to use when

23 you do your -- your -- your -- your -- your rig

24 test, the test with the rig samples?

25 A. (Nodding.) Well, the rig samples have



198

1 their own lot number.

2 Q. Yeah. I'm sorry. That's a poorly

3 phrased question.

4 So if you look at -- if you go back to

5 Tab 4 in the other binder -- in the other binder.

6 A. Oh.

7 Q. And -- and that sheet is fine. That,

8 that you're looking at, is fine.

9 A. Okay.

10 Q. And, again, this is Exhibit 984. Now,

11 this indicates that the test that you performed

12 on April 17th, 2 -- or I guess it would be April

13 18th, but the test, the Weigh-Up Sheet is April

14 17th. It indicates that the lot number of the

15 SCR-100L that you're using is 6264, correct?

16 A. Yes, sir.

17 Q. And why -- why do you want to use the

18 correct lot number when you're doing this test?

19 A. Because that -- we have samples of

20 different lot numbers in the lab, and when the

21 Engineer submits it, it's supposed to be the lot

22 number of 100L that they're using on the rig, so

23 we match the lot number the rig has to the lot

24 number the lab has, and that's how we run that

25 test.



199

1 Q. What volume of cement retarder did you

2 keep in the lab for each lot that's sent out

3 to -- to the rigs?

4 A. Like if we get a new sample of a lot

5 number we don't have?

6 Q. Right.

7 A. We keep two big gallons, and -- or two

8 bigger container gallons, and multiple smaller

9 samples.

10 Q. And would you expect that retarder from

11 the same lot number, that liquid retarder from

12 the same lot number, to be the same as what's on

13 the rig, because it's from the same lot?

14 A. That's supposed to be the purpose behind

15 using the lot numbers, so --

16 Q. Okay. Now, if you could take a look at

17 this document that I'm going to mark as Exhibit

18 5593.

19 (Exhibit No. 5593 marked.)

20 Q. (By Mr. Chen) (Tendering.)


22 Q. (By Mr. Chen) Let's just take them one by

23 one. Do you recognize the first one as a Cement

24 Lab Weigh-Up Sheet dated May 20th, 2010?

25 A. Yes, sir.


Exhibit 21


HALLIBURTON ENERGY SERVICES, INC.’S MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM PRESERVATION OF EVIDENCE OBLIGATIONS OF PRETRIAL ORDER NO. 1 Page 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT OF COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

__________________________________ IN RE: OIL SPILL BY THE OIL § MDL No. 2179 RIG “DEEPWATER HORIZON” § IN THE GULF OF MEXICO, § SECTION: J ON APRIL 20, 2010 §

§ JUDGE BARBIER __________________________________ § MAG. JUDGE SHUSHAN THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO ALL CASES

HALLIBURTON ENERGY SERVICES, INC.’S MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM PRESERVATION OF EVIDENCE

OBLIGATIONS OF PRETRIAL ORDER NO. 1

Defendant Halliburton Energy Services, Inc. (“HESI”) files this Memorandum in Support

of Motion For Relief from Preservation of Evidence Obligations of Pretrial Order No. 1,1 and

respectfully represents to the Court as follows:

1In addition to Paragraph 14 of this Court’s Pretrial Order No. 1, HESI is also subject to evidence preservation orders/requests as follow: Preservation Order in Cooper et al. v. BP et al., In the Eastern District of Louisiana, Cause No. 10-1229 (transferred to this Court on August 21, 2010); Preservation Order in National Vietnamese American Fishermen Emergency Association et al. v. BP et al., Cause No. 10-1607, In the Southern District of Texas (transferred to this Court on August 12, 2010); Preservation Order in Stone, et al. v. Transocean Offshore Deepwater Drilling, Inc., et al., Cause No. 10-1851, In the Southern District of Texas (transferred to this Court on September 22, 2010); Preservation Request Letters from the Department of Justice and from the State Attorneys General for the States of Louisiana, Texas, Mississippi, Alabama, Florida, Virginia, North Carolina, New Jersey, Delaware, Rhode Island, Maryland, Maine, Massachusetts, South Carolina, Georgia, Connecticut, New Hampshire, and New York. HESI requests that proper steps be taken to insure that any turnover of the material referenced herein does not violate any of these orders/requests.



1. On August 12, 2010, the Joint Investigation,2 charged with conducting an

investigation into the Mobile Offshore Drilling Unit (MODU) Deepwater Horizon incident,3

served HESI with a subpoena pursuant to its authority under 43 U.S.C. § 1348(f) and 46 U.S.C. §

6304. A true and correct copy of the subpoena is attached hereto as Exhibit 1. The subpoena

commands HESI to produce and permit inspection, testing, and/or sampling of various

“materials/samples” used by HESI in the cementing process, specifically those listed in HESI’s

response to a subpoena issued by the United States Chemical Safety & Hazard Investigation

Board, and those listed in HESI’s Deepwater Horizon Post Job Reports. See Exhibit 1, pp. 1-2.

The subpoena also commands the production of:

any available solidified cement materials used in the well or tests reported in the Halliburton Post Job Reports, . . . representative samples of any additional materials that may have been added to the cements listed in Halliburton’s Post Job Reports, . . and representative samples of any other cement or cement components that were used [in the well].

Id.

2. Section 1348 of OCSLA4 sets forth provisions regarding the enforcement of

safety and environmental regulations. 43 U.S.C. § 1348. Section 1348 requires the enforcement

of safety and environmental regulations by the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of the

Department of Homeland Security, the department under which the USCG operates. Id. Section

1348(d)(2) requires the BOEMRE and the USCG to investigate and to produce a public report on

each major fire, each major oil spillage, and any death or serious injury occurring as a result of

2The Joint Investigation is conducted by the United States Coast Guard (USCG) and the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement (BOEMRE). For ease of reference, the Joint Investigation will be referred to herein as the JIT (Joint Investigation Team). 3As the Court is aware, the JIT sits as an independent investigatory body authorized by Congress pursuant to enabling statutes and regulations. See, 46 U.S.C. §§ 6301, et seq.; 43 U.S.C. § 1348; 14 U.S.C. § 141; 33 C.F.R. § 140, Subpart C; and 30 C.F.R. §§ 250.186-.191. 4See generally, 43 U.S.C. §§ 1331-1356(a).



operations conducted pursuant to OCSLA. 43 U.S.C. § 1348(d)(1)-(2). Additionally, OCSLA

gives the BOEMRE and the USCG the power to issue subpoenas that summon witnesses and

require production of evidence while conducting its investigation. 43 U.S.C. § 1348(f).

3. The JIT has also commanded production pursuant to 46 U.S.C. § 6301, et seq.,

which grants the USCG authority to investigate a “marine casualty or accident.” See 46 U.S.C. §

6301, et seq. This statute mandates the investigation of “marine casualties” to determine, as

closely as possible:

(1) the cause of the casualty, including the cause of any death;

(2) whether an act of misconduct, incompetence, negligence, unskillfulness, or willful violation of law committed by any individual licensed, certificated, or documented under. . . 46 USCS §§ 7101 et seq. has contributed to the cause of the casualty, or to a death involved in the casualty, so that appropriate remedial action under. . . 46 USCS §§ 7701 et seq. may be taken;

(3) whether an act of misconduct, incompetence, negligence, unskillfulness, or willful violation of law committed by any person, including an officer, employee, or member of the Coast Guard, contributed to the cause of the casualty, or to a death involved in the casualty;

(4) whether there is evidence that an act subjecting the offender to a civil penalty under the laws of the United States has been committed, so that appropriate action may be undertaken to collect the penalty;

(5) whether there is evidence that a criminal act under the laws of the United States has been committed, so that the matter may be referred to appropriate authorities for prosecution; and

(6) whether there is need for new laws or regulations, or amendment or repeal of existing laws or regulations, to prevent the recurrence of the casualty.

See 46 U.S.C. § 6301 (1)–(6). In investigating marine casualties, 46 U.S.C. § 6304 grants the

USCG authority to issue subpoenas that command the attendance and testimony of witnesses,

including parties-in-interest, and the production of any evidence. 46 U.S.C. § 6304(a). The

subpoena authority granted by § 6304 is coextensive with the civil jurisdiction of a district court

of the United States for the district in which the investigation is conducted. Id.



4. HESI has also been served with a subpoena duces tecum issued by the

Department of the Interior, Office of Inspector General (DOI-OIG). A true and correct copy of

the DOI-OIG subpoena duces tecum is attached hereto as Exhibit 2. The DOI-OIG subpoena

commands HESI to produce “all cement or cement samples or fragments from the Block 252

Lease or the Deepwater Horizon, including that referenced during the testimony of Jesse

Gagliano before the Marine Board the week of August 23, 2010, as well as all analysis, testing

data, and results related to such cement.” Id.

5. The Inspector General Act of 1978 (IG Act) established Inspectors General in

various federal agencies, including the Department of the Interior. 5 U.S.C. App. 3. Inspectors

General have broad authority to, inter alia, “provide policy direction for and to conduct,

supervise, and coordinate audits and investigations relating to the programs and operations of

such establishment.” 5 U.S.C. App. 3, § 4. In carrying out the provisions of the IG Act,

Inspectors General are authorized to:

[r]equire by subpoena the production of all information, documents, reports, answers, records, accounts, papers, and other data in any medium (including electronically stored information, as well as any tangible thing) and documentary evidence necessary in the performance of the functions assigned by this Act, which subpoena, in the case of contumacy or refusal to obey, shall be enforceable by order of any appropriate United States district court . . .

5 U.S.C. App. 3 § 6(a)(4).

6. HESI has possession, custody, and/or control of the following components of the

material used by HESI in the Deepwater Horizon cementing jobs (collectively, the “Cementing

Components”) and is willing to produce them to the United States: 1) the physical components

from the Deepwater Horizon job listed on the document titled “Attachment “C” to Halliburton’s

Energy Service, Inc.’s Response to U. S. Chemical Safety & Hazard Investigation Board’s



Subpoena Hal-1SUBDOC8,” which was attached to the JIT’s subpoena (Exhibit 1 hereto) as

Attachment A; 2) 1 quart of ZoneSeal – 2000 from the same lot used on the Deepwater Horizon

project on April 19, 2010; and 3) 2 gallons and one quart of the SCR-100 from the same lot used

on the Deepwater Horizon on April 19, 2010. HESI can also make available each of the liquid

and dry additives of the type used on the Deepwater Horizon, but does not have possession of

any quantity of those additives from the same batch or lot as was used on the Deepwater Horizon

project, except as listed in 1), 2) and 3) above. HESI has agreed to make these additional

materials available to the JIT in an amount and at a time to be later determined by HESI and the

JIT.

7. HESI is agreeable to turning over all of the Cementing Components in response to

the JIT’s subpoena (Exhibit 1) and the JIT is willing to take custody of the Cementing

Components. The JIT intends to solicit input from all interested parties regarding the

development of a protocol for testing the Cementing Components.

8. Upon information and belief, the Cementing Components deteriorate over time.

Accordingly, the JIT has represented it would like to take possession of the Cementing

Components as soon as reasonably practicable.

9. The JIT will maintain chain of custody in accordance with its physical evidence

collection protocol, a true and correct copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit 3. This is the

same protocol that was provided to the Court and Plaintiffs’ and Defendants’ Interim Liaison

Counsel in connection with the recovery of the BOP.

10. The DOI-OIG has represented that HESI’s compliance with the subpoena issued

by the JIT (Exhibit 1), will satisfy the subpoena issued by DOI-OIG (Exhibit 2).



THEREFORE, HESI moves the Court to enter an order permitting it to release the

Cementing Components to the JIT and otherwise relieving HESI from any contrary obligations

as may be set forth in the Court’s Pretrial Order No. 1, as amended. A proposed order is

attached.

Dated October 7, 2010

Respectfully Submitted, GODWIN RONQUILLO PC

By: /s/ Donald E. Godwin

Donald E. Godwin [email protected] Bruce W. Bowman, Jr. [email protected] Jenny L. Martinez [email protected] 1201 Elm Street, Suite 1700 Dallas, Texas 75270-2041 Telephone: 214.939.4400 Facsimile: 214.760.7332 and R. Alan York [email protected] 1331 Lamar, Suite 1665 Houston, Texas 77010 Telephone: 713.595.8300 Facsimile: 713.425.7594

ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT HALLIBURTON ENERGY SERVICES, INC.




I hereby certify that on October 7, 2010 a copy of the foregoing Halliburton Energy

Services, Inc.’s Memorandum in Support of Motion for Relief from Preservation of Evidence

Obligations of Pretrial Order No. 1 was filed electronically with the Clerk of the Court using the

CM/ECF system, and that an electronic version of this document was forwarded by e-mail to all

liaison counsel.

/s/ Donald E. Godwin

D 1585900 v1-24010/0002 PLEADINGS


Exhibit 24


BP D t H i I ti tiBP Deepwater Horizon Investigation: Preliminary Insights

John GisclairTommy RothINSITE Support Service Coordinator

September 26, 2010Vice President, Cementing Product Service Line


Introductory Note

On certain slides, we have reproduced slides from BP’s PowerPoint presentation entitled, “DeepwaterHorizon Investigation,” made public on September 8, 2010 (BP.com/BPinternalinvestigation). We haveadded boxes around certain points in those slides addressed in the portion of our slides entitled,“Halliburton Insights.” By addressing only certain of the points in them, we expressly do not agree withother of the points in the BP slides. We reserve the right to update our position with additional ordifferent insights as further information becomes available

2© 2010 Halliburton. All Rights Reserved.

different insights as further information becomes available.


Halliburton InsightsUsing rig cement, additives, and rig water, a stable foam cement system was designed, tested, d li d d lit d

OptiCem™ modeling showed significant channeling across the reservoir sections

f th ll ith l idelivered and quality assured on location.

of the well with only six centralizers installed, instead of twenty one.

BP Design Casing was landed immediately above lost circulation zoneBottom of casing was landed only 55 feet beneath the lowest hydrocarbon zone (1.7 barrels annular capacity)W th f d d bl l fl t ll id d th l h i l b iWeatherford double valve float collar provided the only mechanical barrier to casing flow; float shoe was not utilizedFloat collar location prevented bond log integrity testing of 83% of the identified hydrocarbon reservoir sections

BP O ti l

Conversion of float collar required 9 attempts and it did not perform as expectedCentralizers delivered to location were not installedBest practice of bottoms-up circulation was not followedA successful negative test did not occur yet well operations continued


Operational Decisions

A successful negative test did not occur, yet well operations continuedRelied on shoe track as a barrier despite one or more failed negative testsNotwithstanding multiple red flags, BP did not adjust their decision tree


BP Deepwater Horizon InvestigationHorizon Investigation

September 08, 2010

Halliburton Insights BP specified top of cement, thereby defining for Halliburton the volume of cement to deliverdeliver.Stable foam cement slurries are low-fluid loss cements.Using rig cement, additives, and rig water, on April 12th, Halliburton tested a stable foam cement slurry using good engineering practices in accordance with ANSI/API standards


and procedures.The foam cement slurry was executed as designed and quality assured on the rig by a Halliburton engineer (see slide 8).


Pre-job/Design Quality Assurance

Cement Slurry was designed using standards and procedures located in:

ANSI/API Recommended Practice10B-2 Testing of well cements10B-3 Testing of deepwater well g pcement formulations 10B-4 Preparation and testing of foam cement slurries at atmospheric pressurepressure

Halliburton’s “Global Laboratory Best Practices-Volume 4, Cementing” updated March 2010.

Part No. 516.99015, SAP 101001858Halliburton has successfully used foam cement in over 1000 jobs, including 279 jobs at 15 000 ft or deeper and 79 jobs at 18 000


at 15,000 ft. or deeper and 79 jobs at 18,000 ft or deeper.


Pre-Job Cement Laboratory TestingLaboratory Testing Feb 10 April 06 April 12 Lab Hours

Thickening Time 35

Compressive Strength 147Compressive Strength 147

Foam Compressive Strength 99

Free Water (included in foam stability test)

Fluid Loss1

Rheology 14

FYSA Rheology 2

Transition Time2

Foam Stability 99

Mud Balance Density 1

Slurry Mixability 1

Spacer – Mud Compatibility 5Spacer Mud Compatibility 5

Spacer wettability – conductivity 2

Spacer wettability – glass rod 2

Total 407


1 Fluid Loss testing typically is not performed with foam cement slurry2 Foam cement slurry is a compressible system and prevents gas influx by maintaining hydrostatic pressure during cement curing


Foam Stability Test

16.7 ppg base slurry was mixed per API standards, using rig cement blend and rig water

D-Air 3000™ was included in the rig blend that was testedD-Air 3000 was included in the rig blend that was testedD-Air 3000™ is used to removed entrained air during initial mixing of slurry to ensure accurate surface slurry density

16.7 ppg base slurry was conditioned for 3 hours16.7 ppg base slurry was foamed to 14.5 ppg using API’s 5-blade foam blender

The base slurry foamed in 8 secondsThe 5-blade foam blender best represents the energy impartedThe 5-blade foam blender best represents the energy imparted from the Halliburton field foam generator

The foam slurry was transferred to a stability test cell and cured for 48 hoursFoam slurry passed all API 10B-4 9.3.4 requirements

The density of the cured foam slurry, using the Archimedes principle, was identical at top and bottom

Indicates no free water I di t ttli


Indicates no settling


Job Execution QC/QA

Quality ControlNitrogen injection rate was controlled by cement rate with a microprocessor controlcement rate with a microprocessor control.The on-site Halliburton engineer monitored real time job data to ensure cement, nitrogen, and ZoneSealant™ ratios were delivered per design.

Quality AssuranceAll rate and volume parameters were recorded and stored Design vs actual performance Nitrogenand stored. Design vs. actual performance was analyzed and documented in the post-job review.Pre-job vs. post-job inventories were analyzed t d t i t t i l d M t i l

Nitrogen Rate

Foaming Agent

to determine net materials used. Material balance findings were documented in post-job review. Quality assurance confirmed the job was run Foam cement mixed and placed in

Macondo 9-7/8” X 7” production casing


as designed and tested. Macondo 9-7/8 X 7 production casing was per design.

Reference: 9.875” x 7” Foam Production Casing Post Job Report – April 20, 2010


OptiCem™ modeling indicated significant

h li ldchanneling would occur across the reservoir with

only six centralizers installedinstalled

Modeled with 7 Centralizers Modeled with 21 CentralizersOptiCem™ was also run withOptiCem was also run with 10 CentralizersChanneling was still predicted OptiCem was run with 21 t li

TOC16,353

TOC

21 centralizers No channeling was indicatedCasing was loaded on rig with 6 centralizers TOC

17,25915 additional Weatherford centralizers were flown to the rig as specified by BP, but BP chose not to use them


Reference: 9.875 X 7 Prod Casing Design Report - 21 Cent.pdf; & 9.875 X 7 Prod Casing Design Report - 6 Cent.pdf; April 15, 2010

chose not to use them



September 08, 2010

Halliburton Insights Using rig cement, additives, and rig water, a stable foam cement slurry was designed and tested using good engineering practices in accordance with API standards and procedurestested using good engineering practices in accordance with API standards and procedures using proprietary chemistry and API 5-blade foam generator.In contrast, the CSI lab used substitute cement, additives, and water, which could not replicate the same conditions as the location-sourced material utilized in Halliburton pre-job tests The CSI lab also used a foam slurry preparation method that did not replicate the


tests. The CSI lab also used a foam slurry preparation method that did not replicate the foaming apparatus on the rig.Halliburton provided cementing services according to BP’s well design and direction.



September 08, 2010

Halliburton Insights The shoe track contains contaminated cement ahead of the top plug and prevents it from being pumped into the annulus Shoe track cement can only be consideredit from being pumped into the annulus. Shoe track cement can only be considered a barrier after a successful negative test.Conversion of the Weatherford float collar, the single mechanical barrier in the casing, required excessive pressure.

f f f


The integrity of the float collar and casing beneath the float collar was not confirmed.


BP’s Shoe Track Design18051’

18104’

18073’Drilling was suspended at a total depth of 18,360 ft. with penetration of the loss circulation zone L t h d b i l t d t 18 249 ft

18115’

Lowest hydrocarbon zone is located at 18,249 ft. Annular volume is 1.7 barrels above the bottom of the casing B d BP’ ll d i th W th f d fl t

18175’

Based on BP’s well design, the Weatherford float collar was placed at 18,115 ft. Bond log tools typically require minimum 40 ft below lowest zone of interest

18202’

18249’

below lowest zone of interestIndustry practice is to use a float collar and float shoe as a redundant casing barrier, which was not utilized in this design

18360’

18304’

g



Halliburton Insights

The Weatherford float collar as the single mechanical barrier in the casingThe Weatherford float collar was the single mechanical barrier in the casing.The float collar is a check valve to prevent flow of fluid into the casing, and provides a landing place for wiper plugs to affirm cement is in place.

The integrity of the Weatherford float collar was never establishedThe integrity of the Weatherford float collar was never established.Conversion of the float collar required excessive psi (3000 psi). Conversion should have occurred between 400 and 700 psi. Nine separate attempts were made in an effort to convert the float collarNine separate attempts were made in an effort to convert the float collar.

This well’s float collar placement prevented a cement bond log from being run across over 83% of hydrocarbon bearing formations to test cement integrity.



Halliburton Insights – Well MonitoringEffective rig monitoring relies on an accurate rig activity log to interpret the data responses. If multiple rig activities affect the same data (e.g., transferring mud and taking returns to the same pit), it becomes difficult to evaluate in real time how severely each activity affects the data

Rig activities that precluded well monitoring

how severely each activity affects the data.

Rig activities that precluded well monitoringFlow diverted overboard, which bypassed pit level and gas sensors Crane and ballast operations influenced flow out sensor readingsMud displacement using unmonitored source pit (sea water chest)Tank draining added flow to return line and pits (trip tank, sand trap)Fluid was being transferred between pits

Rig activities unknown to mud loggersWhen the rig stopped transferring mud to the supply boatReturns switched from active to auxiliary pitsT f f fl id b t it


Transfers of fluid between pits


Apr. 20 – 20:50 to 21:20 (8:50 pm to 9:20 pm)



Halliburton Insights – Well MonitoringTwo flawed calculations by BP showed an 80 bbl loss during the cement displacement and a 39 bbl gain during the riser displacement. Gain and loss volumes can only be identified using pit volumes. BP’s calculations used the difference between flow in and flow out which is not an accurate method due to

Calculated 80 bbl loss during cement displacement (4/19 21:45 to 4/20 00:30)

difference between flow in and flow out, which is not an accurate method due to the flow out sensor mechanics.

Analysis of pit volume data does not show an 80 bbl lossNo loss was confirmed by the rig crewNo mention of loss in BP investigation reportBP admitted no loss

Calculated 39 bbl gain during mud displacement (4/20 20:58 to 21:10)Analysis of pit volume data does not show a 39 bbl gainThe same improper calculation method was usedRig activities (e.g., sand trap draining) were not consideredInactive pits should not have been included in the analysis


Inactive pits should not have been included in the analysis


Exhibit 26


CEMENTING

Displace 3D™ Simulator

Halliburton’s Displace 3D™ advanced computational fluiddynamics (CFD) simulator models multiple aspects of muddisplacement during cementing. Displace 3D simulator wasdesigned to simulate a fully 3D wellbore environment. The 3Dsimulator helps operators and engineers make better decisionsto avoid cement job failure, improve well integrity, and controlrig time costs associated with remedial work-overs.

The Challenge – Successful Cementingand Adequate Drilling Fluid Removal

During the completion of oil and gas wells, cementingoperations are employed to provide zonal isolation—ameans to prevent wellbore fluids from communicatingbetween zones or contaminating sensitive zones such asfreshwater aquifers. An effective cement sheath should beable to withstand a variety of external factors, includinghigh-pressure/high-temperature (HPHT) environments andthe continuous impact of subsequent drilling or completionoperations. If the cement sheath is compromised, it canlimit downhole communications, impair production, oreven cause the complete loss of a well or platform.Directional wells, in particular, depend on a durableprimary cement system.

To avoid costly setbacks, operators and engineers shouldattempt to achieve adequate drilling fluid removal, or “muddisplacement.” If the cementing team does not removedrilling fluid properly from the wellbore before pumpingcement slurry, it may result in the intermixing of wellborefluids and may compromise the integrity and placement ofthe cement sheath. According to the July 2001 issue of theOil & Gas Journal, many causes of cement failure aredirectly related to the quality of cement slurry placement.

The Solution – Displace 3D Simulator

Displace 3D simulator can enable operators and engineers toeffectively overcome these cementing challenges by allowingthem to monitor the mud, spacer, and cement interfacesover a period of time. Its 3D Visualizer dynamically modelsthe displacement of wellbore fluids in three dimensionalspace, which allows operators to predict causes of cementslurry contamination and mud channeling. The real value isthat the user can practice with the simulator before evergoing to the rig site.

HALLIBURTON

HA

L242

10

The Displace 3D simulator’s curvilinear coordinate systemcan conform its boundaries to irregular boreholes, eccentricannuli, and localized washout sections. Its “best fit”rheological optimizer is able to characterize complex fluidsand interfacial mixtures within a wellbore environment,and the fully 3D “Visualization Tool-Kit” has interactivemovie playback controls including zoom, pan, rotate,and slice.

Displace 3D simulator has a number of additional features, including:

• Non-Newtonian fluid yield stress modeling using theproprietary Generalized Herschel Bulkley (GHB) model,which can safely and accurately reduce to all otherrheological models standard to the industry

• Casing rotation

• Casing reciprocation (up and down movement)

• Calculation of miscible intermixing zone thicknesses andviscosities between fluids and their impact on ECD

• Calculation of mud channel length and position (ifone exists)

• The ability to run on both a remote local computer or via a client/server network when connected to the Internet

The Displace 3D simulator’s interactive 3D Visualizer with dynamic colorcontours allows the user to screen various scenarios and create the best jobdesign the first time. With Displace 3D simulator’s proprietary'Curvilinear' technique, the user can accurately estimate fluid volumesand can also predict locations where the annulus may lack good cement.


www.halliburton.com

Sales of Halliburton products and services will be in accord solely with the terms and conditionscontained in the contract between Halliburton andthe customer that is applicable to the sale.

H06210 04/08© 2008 HalliburtonAll Rights ReservedPrinted in U.S.A.

• Online job storage and sharing across Halliburton’s Intranet

In short, there are multiple ways an operator can make useof Displace 3D simulator. An engineer can easily screen avariety of factors, and then proceed to the drill site with onlythe best design.

Displace 3D Simulator Service Value

Life does not occur in two-dimensions, which is whyDisplace 3D simulator is a timely addition to the oil and gasindustry. Its ability to predict the amount of requiredmaterial volume and equipment alone is enough topotentially reduce the cost of an operation. Add that to thelong-term benefits of better mud removal and overallcement placement, and Displace 3D simulator may helpimprove well life longevity.

Displace 3D simulator has a number of potentialapplications, including offshore rigs, long horizontals, tightannuli, large volume jobs, high excess holes, and sustainedcasing pressure avoidance. In addition, operators can utilizeDisplace 3D simulator as a demonstrational or educationaltool for products and practices. The potential is endless, asthis level of visualization technology is new to the industry.

Halliburton is known for raising the standard for oil and gaswell completion practices. Displace 3D simulator is the onlysimulator on the market that measures cement locations in afully three dimensional wellbore environment. Along with thealready impressive repertoire of Halliburton cementingproducts and technologies, Displace 3D simulator cansynergistically offer dramatic benefits in an evolving industry.

For more information on Halliburton’s Displace 3D simulator, contactyour local Cementing representative.

HALLIBURTON

HA

L242

11

Operators and engineers often monitor how the mud, spacer, and cementinterfaces evolve over time during a cement job. Fluid intermingling mayinhibit the ability of a fluid to perform its intended purpose. Displace 3Dsimulator’s fluid interface modeling allows operators to predict causes ofcement contamination and mud channeling before they happen on a realwell. Displace 3D simulator also allows the user to calculate the mudchannel length, mixing interface lengths, and the true top of cement location.


Exhibit 27



1



2


BY THE OIL RIG )





6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17 *****************

VOLUME 1

18 *****************

19

20

Deposition of Quang Dang Nguyen, taken at

21 the Pan-American Building, 601 Poydras Street,

11th Floor, New Orleans, Louisiana, 70130, on the

22 10th day of October, 2011.

23

24

25



161

1 A. Put it on top?

2 Q. No, right at the bottom, not over the top

3 of the -- yeah, not over top of the number.

4 Thank you.

5



162

1



163

1

7 Q. Okay. So the spacer is designed to go

8 ahead of the cement, correct?

9 A. Yes.

10 Q. And the spacer is what is the primary

11 component of the cement job that cleans the mud

12 from the hole before the cement enters it; is

13 that right?

14 MR. GUIDRY: Objection, form.

15 A. Yes.

16 THE COURT REPORTER: Who was that?

17 MR. GUIDRY: (Indicating.)

18

23 Q. Okay. And did you -- did you do that for

24 the spacer?

25 MS. ANDRE: (Sneezing.)



164

1 MR. THORNHILL: Bless you.

2 A. If the E-mail -- if I get this E-mail, I

3 don't -- which I don't recall at this time doing

4 this, but if I get this E-mail with specific

5 instruction from Mr. Gagliano --

6 Q. (By Ms. Harding) M-h'm.

7 A. -- I would do that.

8 Q. Okay. And if you did it, would there be

9 documents to reflect each of those test results?

10 A. Yes.

11 Q. Okay. And are those the kind of test

12 results that Halliburton would typically provide

13 to BP or not? Would they be test results that

14 you would just look at internally to make sure

15 everything was okay?


17 A. We get the result, we make sure it's

18 okay, and then also I would send it to BP, but I

19 don't know what Jesse and BP did, you know. I

20 was not like a -- I mean, not the same level as

21 Jesse, so --

22 Q. (By Ms. Harding) Okay. So did you

23 provide these compatibility tests that you ran to

24 Jesse?

25 A. I believe if I -- this -- and then set up



337

1 MS. HARDING: Object to the form.

2 A. Yes. We talk about it.

3 Q. (By Mr. Guidry) Do you believe BP was

4 aware that the Pre-Job Reports for the foam

5 cement slurry that was going to be pumped into

6 Macondo Well on April 19th, showed significant

7 stability problems?


9 A. At that time, I -- I don't recall. I

10 don't remember.

11 Q. (By Mr. Guidry) Do you now believe that

12 BP was aware that the Pre-Job Reports of the foam

13 cement slurry that was going to be pumped in the

14 Macondo Well on April 19th, showed significant

15 stability problems?


17 MS. HARDING: Object to form.

18 A. Can you repeat that?

19 Q. (By Mr. Guidry) Do you believe BP was

20 aware that the foam cement slurry that was going

21 to be pumped in Macondo Well, based on the

22 Reports that BP had in hand at that time, showed

23 significant stability problems?





338

1 A. I don't know.

2 Q. (By Mr. Guidry) Earlier, you stated that

3 you believed the temperature we would get --

4 Jesse would get from BP, and you said 262. Were

5 you -- were you talking about the bottomhole

6 static temperature?

7 A. Yes.

8 Q. What made you think that Jesse was

9 getting that temperature from BP?

10 A. He worked directly with BP Engineer on

11 the daily basic.

12 Q. And is that typically something that you

13 would get from the Operator?


15 A. I would do the same.

16 Q. (By Mr. Guidry) Earlier, you testified

17 that the spacer is used to help clean the mud

18 from the hole. If the spacer is too small, does

19 it still have that ability to clean the mud from

20 the hole?

21 A. What do you mean by "small," a small

22 amount of volume?

23 Q. Yes, sir.

24 A. Yes. It too small it might affect the

25 cleaning ability.



339

1 Q. Is a spacer also supposed to help prevent

2 the mud from contaminating the cement?

3 A. Yes.

4 Q. Okay. And as you stated earlier, if oil

5 mixes with foam cement, it will cause

6 contamination because the foam cement is

7 water-based, correct?


9 A. I would believe it -- yes, if --

10 oil-based mud is intact -- in contact with

11 cement, it would give it a contamination issue.

12 Q. (By Mr. Guidry) And if the volume of

13 spacer is too small, then the probability of that

14 contamination happening with the oil-based mud

15 rises, correct?


17 A. I would believe so.

18 Q. (By Mr. Guidry) Do you agree that if you

19 use base oil as a spacer, there's a very good

20 probability it will contaminate the cement,

21 leading to instability?



24 A. I don't think base oil is there for

25 spacer purpose. I don't think base oil was there



340

1 for --

2 Q. (By Mr. Guidry) What do you think the

3 base oil was there for?

4 A. To reduce hydrostatic pressure.

5 Q. So you don't believe the base oil was

6 used as a spacer? Is that what you're --

7 A. I don't --

8 Q. -- saying?

9 A. -- believe so.

10 Q. Were you a -- are you aware that Erick

11 Cunningham recommended using base oil instead of

12 a lightened water-base spacer?

13 A. I don't remember that.

14 Q. I'm going to show you an exhibit. This

15 is an E-mail between Mark Hafle and Brian Morel.

16 MR. GUIDRY: It's BP-HZN-

17 2179MDL00011184 through 85, which we will mark as

18 Exhibit 5825.



21 Q. (By Mr. Guidry) Have you seen this E-mail

22 before?

23 A. (Reviewing document.)

24 Q. It's the first E-mail, I'm -- I'm

25 point -- getting your -- pointing your attention


Exhibit 28



1


EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA2


BY THE OIL RIG )4 "DEEPWATER HORIZON" IN ) SECTION "J"

THE GULF OF MEXICO, ON )5 APRIL 20, 2010 ) JUDGE BARBIER

) MAG. JUDGE SHUSHAN6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17 *****************

VOLUME 118 *****************19

20

Deposition of Ronald Earl Sweatman, taken21 at the Pan-American Building, 601 Poydras Street,

11th Floor, New Orleans, Louisiana, 70130, on the22 10th day of November, 2011.23

24

25



209

1 That's why I'm struggling with it, an answer to

2 that. And there's not a simple answer for -- for

3 something like that.

4 Q. (By Ms. Harding) What are the properties

5 of foam cement that would make you question

6 whether or not Halliburton should continue to

7 recommend foam cement, if channeling is

8 predicted?


10 A. If channeling is predicted? Well, h'm.

11 I'm thinking.

12 I -- I don't -- I cannot -- at this

13 moment, for some reason, I'm either having a

14 mental block or whatever to -- to give you a good

15 answer for that.

16 Q. (By Ms. Harding) Okay. Does Halliburton

17 have any Recommended Practices or guidance on

18 whether or not to continue to recommend foam

19 cement if channeling is predicted?


21 A. I don't recall anything like that, no.

22 Q. (By Ms. Harding) Okay. Did you ever have

23 any conversations with anyone at Halliburton

24 about whether or not Mr. Gagliano should have

25 continued to recommend foam cement when OptiCem



210

1 predicted channeling?


3 A. No, ma'am.

4 Q. (By Ms. Harding) You did not?

5 A. No.

6 Q. Okay. Did you have any conversations

7 with anyone at Halliburton at any time about

8 whether Halliburton conducted 3D modeling using

9 the post-inci -- using the data from the cement

10 job to determine whether or not there was

11 actually channeling in the Macondo cement job?


13 A. In other words, data input into that

14 software from Macondo --


16 A. -- as to whether or not you would have

17 channeling?

18 Q. Whether channeling actually resulted from

19 the cement job.

20 A. Oh, no, ma'am.

21 Q. Okay. Have you -- has Halliburton made

22 you aware of any 3D modeling that anyone at

23 Halliburton did that demonstrated that the spacer

24 that Halliburton used on the Macondo job was

25 sufficient to sweep the hole of the channel?



211

1 MR. HILL: She's talking about other

2 than lawyers.


4 A. Okay. I'm -- I'm -- okay. Let me say

5 that, in answer to that, I've never seen any

6 displace 3D software modeling before or after

7 Macondo --

8 Q. (By Ms. Harding) Okay. Did --

9 A. -- with that Macondo data.

10 Q. Okay. Did you ever recommend that that

11 kind of modeling take place?

12 A. No, ma'am.

13 Q. Okay. Have you ever had any

14 conversations with anyone but a lawyer about

15 the -- about that type of modeling, whether it

16 would be practical, whether it would be feasible?

17 A. Not in the case of Macondo, no.

18 Q. Okay. Have you done that type of

19 modeling in other situations?

20 A. Yes, ma'am.

21 Q. Okay. On -- where -- where?

22 A. I attended a Train the Trainer course

23 where I was introduced to a -- a new software

24 that had that built into it.

25 Q. Okay. And when did that take place,



212

1 approximately?

2 A. Ah, h'm, h'm, yeah. I'd have to check.

3 I -- I just can't give you -- I think it was last

4 year, January or February, but --

5 Q. Of 2010?

6 A. I think.

7 Q. Okay.

8 A. I -- I -- you know, that's so fuzzy right

9 up -- right here, I just --

10 Q. I understand.

11 A. Yeah, I'd have to check.

12 Q. What is the -- what are the advantages of

13 the 3D modeling?


15 A. Well, the way I was taught to -- to -- to

16 understand it was that for the first time, we

17 could look at an image, a holographic-type image,

18 that would show us what we had only had 2D

19 before.

20 Q. (By Ms. Harding) (Nodding.)

21 A. And that gave a lot of visual support to

22 the recommendation, you know, to use a -- a

23 certain amount of materials.

24 Q. Okay. And would that be, that type of

25 3D -- did you learn how to do that type of


Exhibit 29



1



2


BY THE OIL RIG )





6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17 *****************

VOLUME 1

18 *****************

19

20

Deposition of Roger Wayne Dugas, taken at

21 the Pan-American Building, 601 Poydras Street,

11th Floor, New Orleans, Louisiana, 70130, on the

22 20th day of October, 2011.

23

24

25



292

1 What is that? Is that a new Halliburton

2 technology?

3 A. I'm assuming that Tommy is referring to

4 our Displace 3D software.

5 Q. Right. Is that a new -- that's a new

6 technology that's a -- that you're selling now?

7 A. Not selling. It's not new. I mean, it's

8 -- it's been in existence. How long, I don't

9 know, but I mean, we're not talking years here,

10 but it's not -- new to me, last week.

11 Q. Okay. That's fair enough. You're --

12 okay. So as of July 2010, was it a software that

13 Halliburton was now marketing to clients, do you

14 think, as of last Summer?

15 A. Marketing is -- is -- I say "No," if you

16 say "marketing."

17 Q. Okay. Selling?

18 A. No. We're not selling it. It was

19 software used just like OptiCem.

20 Q. Okay. So software that Halliburton used

21 to -- to -- to model a job?

22 A. Right.

23 Q. Okay. And did you -- did you use it on

24 all jobs, or just on some jobs?

25 A. I don't know how often the Techni -- the



293

1 Technical staff used it.

2 Q. Okay. Is it software that you utilized

3 when you were an Account Representative? Was it

4 available to you, as an Account Representative?

5 A. No.

6 Q. Okay. And was it software that any

7 Account Representative is capable of -- of

8 running and using, or is it -- really, is it

9 something that you're more -- that's kind of

10 a -- more sophisticated Technical people use?

11 A. I'm trying to think about my last answer.

12 Displace 3D was available whenever I was an

13 Account Rep. I did not use it very often.

14 As a matter of fact, I never used it.

15 If, in the event that I needed it, the Engineers

16 would run it for me.

17 Q. Okay. So it was not something that you

18 utilized. Did it require special training or

19 special knowledge in order to run it?

20 A. Yeah, at the time, the TAs ran it --

21 Q. Okay.

22 A. -- the Senior Engineers.

23 Q. The Senior Engineers? Okay. When it

24 says: "Spacer volume was sufficient to sweep

25 entire annulus volume." What does that mean to



294

1 you, as a former Account Representative?


3 A. Can I read this entire thing before I

4 make any assumptions, from the top?

5 Q. (By Ms. Harding) Sure.

6 A. Okay. (Reviewing document.) Okay.

7 Q. So, just to go back, there's a --

8 Mr. Badamen -- Badalamenti is saying to

9 Mr. Turton and Mr. Roth: One of the things that

10 we need to address is the following question that

11 we could be asked, essentially, "Halliburton your

12 computer simulator indicated channeling, which

13 led to mud and cement intermixing. However, you

14 still recommended foam cement."

15 And then Mr. Roth responds: "Anthony

16 good point. Spacer volume was sufficient to

17 sweep entire annulus volume. As such, spacer was

18 sufficient to sweep channel. Subsequent testing

19 with 3D confirms statement that spacer was

20 sufficient."

21 So what did -- from your former role as

22 an Account Representative, and somebody who

23 worked with displacement models and displacement,

24 and understands its significance, what did --

25 what does it mean when he says "Spacer volume was



295

1 sufficient to sweep entire annulus volume"?


3 A. The spacer volume that was modeled in the

4 3D --


6 A. -- was of suf -- sufficient volume enough

7 in which to clean out any channeling opt --

8 possibilities, which undoubtedly someone down

9 here that Anthony was talking about is --

10 Q. Had raised?

11 A. -- is quoting, so to speak.

12 Q. Right. So somebody had raised the

13 possibility of channeling, and Mr. Roth is

14 responding: That's a good point. We have to

15 address that, because if there had been -- well,

16 we'll get away from that. We'll come back to

17 that.

18 But he's saying that's not an issue

19 because we tested it and the "Spacer volume was

20 sufficient to sweep the entire annulus volume,"

21 right?


23 A. That -- that -- that would be my

24 interpretation of the E-mail.

25 Q. (By Ms. Harding) And that's -- when he



296

1 says: "As such, spacer was sufficient to sweep

2 channel," that's just saying the same thing?

3 A. Yeah. That would be my interpretation.

4 Q. Okay? And have you seen any of this --

5 of the 3D modeling referenced in this E-mail,

6 4352, in connection with any work that you did

7 after the incident?

8 A. No.

9 Q. Okay. Have you done any work on the

10 investigation after the incident?

11 A. No.

12 Q. Okay. Are you aware of whether

13 Halliburton conducted any -- conducted any

14 investigation of the cementing operation at

15 Macondo, other than any kind of lawyer-directed

16 investigation?

17 A. I don't know.

18 Q. You don't know. Were you involved in any

19 decisions as to whether or not to perform such an

20 investigation?

21 A. No.

22 Q. Okay. Are you aware of the HSE

23 requirements to do an investigation after there's

24 an incident?

25 A. I don't know the requirements, no.



297

1 Q. It's not part of your responsibility?

2 A. No.

3 Q. Okay. If you could turn back, all the

4 way back to Tab No. 2, if you look at the

5 organizational chart behind Tab No. 2, I'm going

6 to mark this as --

7 THE COURT REPORTER: It's previously

8 marked.

9 MS. HARDING: It is previously

10 marked?

11 THE COURT REPORTER: M-h'm. Look at

12 other page. Is it?

13 MS. HARDING: I don't see it

14 anywhere. No.

15 THE COURT REPORTER: Yes, I just saw

16 something.

17 MS. HARDING: That's -- that's not

18 part of his notebook. It was just mine.

19 THE COURT REPORTER: I'm sorry.

20 MS. HARDING: That's okay.

21 MR. MITCHELL: 5929.

22 MS. HARDING: Twenty -- I'm sorry?

23 5929? We're going to mark this as 5929.


25 Q. (By Ms. Harding) Do you recognize this


Exhibit 30




In re: Oil Spill by the Oil Rig * MDL No. 2179

“Deepwater Horizon” in the *

Gulf of Mexico, on April 20, 2010 * SECTION: J

*

This Document Relates To: All Cases * JUDGE BARBIER

* MAGISTRATE JUDGE SHUSHAN

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

THE BP PARTIES’ FIRST REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION

OF DOCUMENTS TO HALLIBURTON

Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26 and 34, BP Exploration & Production

Inc. and BP America Production Company (the “BP Parties”) propound the following Requests

for Production of Documents to Defendant Halliburton Energy Services, Inc. (“Halliburton”) to

be responded to within 30 days of service. The BP Parties request that all documents and

electronically stored information responsive to the following First Request for Production of

Documents be produced at the offices of Kirkland & Ellis LLP, 300 North LaSalle Street,

Chicago, Illinois, 60654.

DEFINITIONS

1. “You,” “your,” and “yours” shall mean Halliburton, including without limitation

all of Halliburton’s present or former employees, agents or representatives, or anyone acting or

purporting to act for or on Halliburton’s behalf for any purpose whatsoever, and includes any and

all affiliates, subsidiaries, contractors and divisions, such as Sperry Drilling, and includes the

present employees, agents and representatives of those affiliates, subsidiaries, contractors and

divisions.

36693847

Mar 25 2011 4:17PM


2

2. “Person” shall mean an individual as well as any entity including any

proprietorship, partnership, corporation, firm, committee, or any other organization.

3. “Communication” means any transmission of information by one or more persons

to one or more persons by any means including, without limitation, telephone conversations,

letters, telegrams, teletypes, telexes, telecopies, e-mail (including both business and personal

email), text messages, computer linkups, written memoranda, and face-to-face conversations;

“communication” also includes all documents and ESI containing, summarizing, or

memorializing any communication.

4. “Document” or “documents” includes “communications” as defined above, and

has the full meaning ascribed to it by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 34(a), including

electronically stored information (“ESI”), and includes the original and any identical or non-

identical copy, regardless of origin or location, of any writing or record of any type or

description, including but not limited to all writings; records; contracts; agreements;

communications (intra or inter-company); correspondence; memoranda; letters; facsimiles;

electronic mail (e-mail); minutes, recordings, transcripts, and summaries of meetings, or

recordings of meetings, speeches, presentations, conversations, or telephone calls (whether

recorded in writing, mechanically, or electronically); handwritten and typewritten notes of any

kind; statements; reports; voice recordings; desk calendars; diaries; logs; drafts; studies;

analyses; schedules; forecasts; surveys; invoices; receipts; computer data; computer printouts;

financial statements; balance sheets; profit and loss statements; statements of earnings;

statements of net worth; credit reports; statements of operations; audit reports; financial

summaries; statements of lists of assets; work papers; pictures; photographs; drawings; computer

cards; tapes; discs; printouts and records of all types; instruction manuals; policy manuals and


3

statements; books; pamphlets; cancelled checks; check stubs; and every other device or medium

by which information or intelligence of any type is transmitted, recorded, or preserved, or from

which intelligence or information can be perceived.

5. “Identify,” when used with respect to: (a) an individual, shall mean to provide the

individual’s full name, job title and employer during the period referred to, and current or last-

known address and telephone number and business address and telephone number; (b) any entity

other than an individual, shall mean to provide the entity’s full name and current or last-known

address (designating which); and (c) a document, shall mean to provide the date, title, subject

matter, author(s), recipient(s), and Bates number(s).

6. “Including” or “includes” means “including but not limited to” or “including

without limitation.”

7. “Relating to” or “related to,” when referring to any given subject matter, means

any document that constitutes, comprises, involves, contains, embodies, reflects, identifies,

states, mentions, alludes to, refers directly or indirectly to, or is in any way relevant to the

particular subject matter identified.

8. The words “and” and “or” should be construed conjunctively or disjunctively as

necessary to make the request inclusive rather than exclusive.

9. “Any” should be construed, when possible, to mean “any and all.”

10. “Each” should be construed to include the word “every,” and “every” should be

construed to include the word “each.”

11. The singular includes the plural, and the plural includes the singular.

12. “MC252 well” and “Macondo well” refer to the exploratory well that was being

drilled by the Deepwater Horizon in the Macondo prospect of Mississippi Canyon 252 in the


4

outer continental shelf of the Gulf of Mexico, approximately 130 miles southeast of New

Orleans, Louisiana.

13. “Halliburton” means Halliburton Energy Services, Inc. and all of its affiliates,

subsidiaries, contractors and divisions, such as Sperry Drilling, and includes the present

employees, agents and representatives of those affiliates, subsidiaries, contractors and divisions.

14. “BP” means BP p.l.c and all of its affiliates and subsidiaries.

15. “Kick,” whether or not capitalized, means the intrusion of hydrocarbons into a

wellbore.

16. “Blowout,” whether or not capitalized, means an uncontrolled release of

hydrocarbons from a well.

17. “OptiCem” means Halliburton’s proprietary software used to model cement slurry

operations and as that term was used by Halliburton in communications with BP.

INSTRUCTIONS

1. All documents are to be produced in accord with Pre-Trial Order No. 16.

2. Produce all documents in the order in which they appear in your files. Documents

that, in their original condition, are stapled, clipped, or otherwise fastened together shall be

produced in this same condition.

3. Produce all documents within your possession, custody, or control including all

documents in the possession, custody or control of your affiliates, partners, employees, agents,

attorneys, accountants, advisors, consultants, or other persons directly or indirectly connected

with you or subject to your control.


5

4. If any responsive document has been lost, destroyed, removed from, or is no

longer in your possession, custody, or control for any reason, please identify the document, its

last known location, and the circumstances surrounding its loss, destruction or removal.

5. If you contend that any responsive document is protected from disclosure

pursuant to any privilege or work-product doctrine, then you must comply with the requirements

of Pre-Trial Order No. 14 and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(5).

6. Each request is to be construed independently and not by or with reference to any

other paragraph for purposes of limiting the scope of any particular request.

7. If you claim that the language of any request is vague or ambiguous, then you

must identify the language you believe is ambiguous and describe the different interpretations

that you believe may apply to such language. Regardless of any vagueness or ambiguity you

claim, you are to answer the request for production and produce the requested documents to the

best of your ability.

8. If no documents responsive to a particular request exist, or if such documents

exist but are not in your possession, custody, or control, then your response to that request shall

so state.

9. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(e), these requests are continuing

and you must revise or supplement your responses and production whenever new or additional

responsive information becomes known.


6

REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION

1. Please produce all documents discussing, reflecting or relating to the Macondo

well and any services performed by Halliburton at the Macondo well.

2. Please produce all documents discussing, reflecting or relating to

communications, both internal and with any party, concerning the Macondo well and any

services provided by Halliburton at the Macondo well.

3. Please produce all documents discussing, reflecting or relating to standards,

practices, protocols, guidelines and recommendations for well drilling operations, including

cement design, cement testing, cementing operations, coring, drilling, fluid services, formation

evaluation, mud logging, real time services, reservoir testing/analysis, subsea, software relating

to drilling, well completions and wireline.

4. Please produce all training materials discussing, reflecting or relating to cement

design, cement testing, cementing operations, mud logging, real time services, and software

relating to drilling, including documents relating to the training and certification of any

Halliburton employee that performed or supervised cement testing or modeling for the Macondo

well.

5. Please produce all documents discussing, reflecting or relating to the education,

training and certifications for any Halliburton employee that performed services at or for the

Macondo well, including cement design, cement testing, cement operations and mud logging.

6. Please produce all documents discussing, reflecting or relating to performance

reviews or assessments, including evaluations and disciplinary actions, of the Halliburton

employees that planned, performed or supervised Halliburton services provided at the Macondo

well, including cementing and mud logging services.


7

7. Please produce all documents discussing, reflecting or relating to any audits that

Halliburton conducted on its services, facilities and personnel that were used to service the

Macondo well, including audits on its cementing and mud logging services, facilities, cementing

or mud logging equipment, cementing or mud logging procedures, and personnel competency.

8. Please produce all documents discussing, reflecting or relating to any

communication, whether within Halliburton or between Halliburton and any other party, that the

temporary abandonment plans, including the cementing portion of the plans, were unsafe.

9. Please produce all documents discussing, reflecting or relating to the evaluations

of risks of channeling and/or potential gas migration at the Macondo well under the various

engineering designs and/or models considered.

10. Please produce all documents discussing, reflecting or relating to meeting(s) with

rig members or other employees or persons regarding the drilling, cementing, completion, or

temporary abandonment of the Macondo Well, including all presentations or materials

distributed at such meeting(s).

11. Please produce all documentation of bonuses or incentives provided to any

Halliburton employees, or other persons for the completion of the Macondo well.

12. Please produce all documents discussing, reflecting or relating to all contracts,

agreements, job orders, work orders, and/or engagement letters between Halliburton and BP

relating to the Macondo well.

13. Please produce all documents discussing, reflecting or relating to Halliburton

cement plans, cement design reports, OptiCem or other modeling, post-job reports, and any other

plans, reports or modeling prepared for the Macondo well, including drafts.


8

14. Please produce an executable copy of, a source code copy of and manuals for

each version of the OptiCem program used by Jesse Gagliano to run models for the Macondo

well.

15. Please produce all data files for the Macondo well, including “.adi” data files, real

time OptiCem data stored or processed on the Macondo well on April 19 and 20, 2010, and all

data for the Macondo well stored on Halliburton employee computers, including Nathaniel

Chaisson’s laptop computer used on the Deepwater Horizon on April 19 and 20, 2010.

16. Please produce all documents discussing, reflecting or relating to the design and

composition of the cement slurry for the Macondo well.

17. Please produce all documents discussing, reflecting or relating to audits or

assessments of Halliburton’s cementing and mud logging facilities and services, including audits

or assessments on competency, training, and performance.

18. Please produce all documents discussing, reflecting or relating to the properties of

the components of the cement slurry used at the Macondo well, including the effect of each

additive on foam stability.

19. Please produce all documents discussing, reflecting or relating to the advantages

and disadvantages of using foamed cement in a deepwater well.

20. Please produce all documents discussing, reflecting or relating to cement testing,

modeling or laboratory test results for the cement slurry for the Macondo well, including pre-

incident and post-incident testing, and including all material in the Viking database relating to

the Macondo well.


investigations or reviews that Halliburton conducted on its cementing operations and facilities,


9

including any investigations or reviews that identified issues with foam cement stability or foam

cement stability testing methods.

22. Please produce all documents discussing, reflecting or relating to electronic

notifications of lab testing status for any lab tests conducted by Halliburton for the Macondo

well, including electronic notifications of lab testing status of any foam stability tests and

documents showing such notifications were received by Halliburton employees.

23. Please produce all documents discussing, reflecting or relating to Halliburton

communications regarding the stability of the foamed and unfoamed slurry for the Macondo

well, including communications with BP, Transocean and any others concerning the cement

slurry.

24. Please produce all documents discussing, reflecting or relating to the “lab

technician error in weighing up the sample of the cement mix” identified in Halliburton’s

January 11, 2010 press release.

25. Please produce all documents discussing, reflecting, or relating to conditioning

the cement slurry before running foamed cement slurry tests, including all documents supporting

Halliburton’s contention that the cement slurry should be conditioned before running foamed

slurry tests.

26. Please produce a full copy of all reference materials available at the cement

laboratory at Broussard, including “Global Laboratory Best Practices” and “Cementing

Technology Manual.”

27. Please produce all documents discussing, reflecting or relating to Halliburton’s

planning and execution of the cement job for the production interval of the Macondo well,

including the notes of any person involved in the cementing of the Macondo well.


10


cement job plan, including the basis for Halliburton’s plan and the amount of cement slurry

pumped for the production interval of the Macondo well.

29. Please produce all documents discussing, reflecting or relating to the

displacement efficiency of the spacer fluid used in the Macondo well, including simulations.

30. Please produce all documents discussing, reflecting or relating to the timing of

when the darts for the wiper plugs were deployed during the cementing procedure for the

Macondo well, including the plumbing of the cement unit and the dimensions and volume of the

plumbing line between the cement unit and the dart unit.


communication, within Halliburton or to any party, that the cement job on April 19 and 20, 2010

was or was not successful.

32. Please produce all documents discussing, reflecting or relating to the post-job

report, including any edits and drafts, documents reflecting how the post-job report was

prepared, data or results reported in the post-job report, procedures on preparing post-job reports,

procedures for approving post-job reports, and procedures for transmitting post-job reports.

33. Please produce all documents discussing, reflecting or relating to any concerns or

analysis about the Halliburton cementing services provided at the Macondo well.

34. Please produce all documents discussing, reflecting or relating to the operational

decisions at the Macondo well, including the decisions on casing design, centralizers, float

collar, circulation, pump rate, cement volume, rat hole, positive pressure test and cement bond

log.


11


communication by Halliburton to BP regarding the operational decisions at the Macondo well,

including the decisions on casing design, centralizers, float collar, circulation, pump rate, cement

volume, rat hole, positive pressure test and cement bond log.

36. Please produce all documents discussing, reflecting or relating to the Halliburton

mud logging services provided at the Macondo well.

37. Please produce all documents discussing, reflecting or relating to mud logging

engineering practices, including transfer of well data to BP, ongoing engineering research,

accuracy and reliability of current monitoring systems and adherence to standard engineering

practices for well site services.

38. Please produce all documents discussing, reflecting or relating to any equipment

that the mud loggers used to assist them in monitoring the Macondo well, including gauges,

meters and alarms, and whether such systems were available or unavailable on the Deepwater

Horizon, and if available whether they were properly functioning or disabled.

39. Please produce all documents discussing, reflecting or relating to the function,

maintenance or calibration of Halliburton’s mud logging equipment available on the Deepwater

Horizon, including the maintenance and calibration records, written maintenance procedures and

schedules, and the maintenance schedules set by the equipment manufacture.

40. Please produce all documents discussing, reflecting or relating to audits or

assessments of Halliburton’s mud logging services, including audits or assessments on

competency, training, and performance.

41. Please produce all documents discussing, reflecting or relating to an accounting

for mud losses during operations at the Macondo well on April 19 and 20, 2010.


12


ability to monitor the in and out mud flows at the Macondo well on April 19 and 20, 2010.

43. Please produce any notes, logs, or diaries created by the mud loggers on the

Deepwater Horizon.

44. Please produce all documents discussing, reflecting or relating to any and all

alarms that were available for use, or were used, for mud logging services on the Macondo well,

including any Halliburton and/or Sperry Sun standards, practices or guidelines concerning the

use of alarms or whether alarms should be disabled or disregarded, any documents or data that

show whether and how the alarms were used by the mud loggers on April 20, 2010, and any

studies or analyses regarding the use, condition or efficacy of any of the mud logging alarms on

the Macondo well on April 20, 2010.

45. Please produce all documents discussing, reflecting or relating to the

interpretation of the flow-in and flow-out data taken during negative pressure test procedures.

46. For each foam cement job done by Halliburton on any deepwater well in the Gulf

of Mexico during the preceding ten years where Halliburton provided mud logging services and

a kick or blowout occurred, or where Halliburton mud logging services were criticized, please

produce all documents discussing, reflecting or relating to incident reports, investigation

materials, lessons learned, evaluations, and training materials.

47. Please produce all documents discussing, reflecting or relating to the December

23, 2009 incident at the Bardolino field, including incident reports, investigation materials,

lessons learned, evaluations, and training materials.


13

48. Please produce all documents that discuss, refer or relate to why Halliburton’s

mud loggers did not detect that the Macondo well was flowing on April 20, 2010 prior to the

well blowing out.

49. Please produce all documents that support Halliburton’s report to BP that “full

returns” were observed throughout the cement job.

50. Please produce all documents discussing, reflecting or relating to any pre- or post-

incident concerns or analysis about Halliburton mud logging services provided at the Macondo

well.

51. Please produce all data (including, but not limited to, electronic, computer or real

time data) for the Macondo well, including the following data:

a. All well data, including seismic, geological or geophysical data (including

resistivity data), data relating to downhole conditions, or reservoir conditions;

b. All operational data, including any data relating to drilling or operating

parameters, kicks, well flow, or well control;

c. All cementing data, including any flow, pressure, temperature or density data

during the cementing operations;

d. All pressure testing data, including data generated during any positive or

negative pressure tests;

e. All Macondo well data in the possession, custody or control of Halliburton;

f. All Macondo well data in the possession, custody or control of Sperry Sun;

and


14

g. All data that was uploaded to Insite.

52. Please produce all documents discussing, reflecting or relating to data for the

Macondo well (including real-time rig data), including communications within Halliburton and

between Halliburton and any other persons.

53. Please produce all Halliburton standards, practices, protocols, guidelines and

recommendations relating to the proper or improper monitoring and interpretation of well data,

including real-time rig data.


investigation of the Deepwater Horizon incident.

55. Please produce all documents discussing, reflecting or relating to meetings with

any entity concerning the Macondo well, including Congress, the MBI, the Presidential

Commission, and the National Academy of Engineering, including presentation materials, draft

presentations, speaking points, preparation materials, and supporting documents.

56. Please produce all documentation (including notes, logs, and diaries) created by

Halliburton employees discussing, reflecting or relating to any aspect of Halliburton’s work at

the Macondo well, including cement testing, cement slurry design, or cement job performance.

57. Please produce all documents discussing, reflecting or relating to documentation

created by Halliburton employees discussing, reflecting or relating to the Macondo well or any

aspect of Halliburton’s work at the Macondo well.

58. Please produce all documents discussing, reflecting or relating to the storage or

preservation of any cementing materials from the Macondo well, including dry cement blend,

dry or wet additives, rig water, spacer, and base oil.


15

59. Please produce all documents discussing, reflecting or relating to flow path of the

hydrocarbons up the Macondo well, including documents supporting Halliburton’s contention

that any hydrocarbon or gas flow was up the annulus around the casing (as opposed to through

the casing).

60. Please produce all documents discussing, reflecting or relating to the hydrocarbon

flow data on April 19 and 20, 2010 from the Macondo well, including any analysis of the flow

data, reports, and presentation materials.

61. Please produce all documents discussing, reflecting or relating to any post-April

20, 2010 laboratory testing on the cement slurry for the Macondo well, including the purpose of

the testing at the Duncan facility, results of the testing, reports and communications.

62. Please produce all documents discussing, reflecting or relating to the post-incident

cement tests performed by Tim Quirk and any communications regarding the tests or test results,

including the tests performed at the direction of Ronnie Faul.

63. Please produce all documents discussing, reflecting or relating to each instance in

the last five years when Halliburton executed a cement job in the Gulf of Mexico despite

conditions that were not optimal, including when OptiCem models showed that there was a

possibility of gas flow, channeling or failure, or when the operator did not adopt all of

Halliburton’s suggestions, including suggestions on the number of centralizers and circulation.

64. Please produce all documents discussing, reflecting or relating to each Halliburton

cement job in the Gulf of Mexico in the preceding five years where Halliburton concluded, or

any person made a claim, that the cement failed to achieve zonal isolation for any reason,

including channeling, nitrogen breakout, contamination, or poor design, including documents

concerning or discussing the identity of the well, the composition of the cement used, the pre-


16

and post-job testing, the reports prepared for the job, any claim or conclusion that the cement

failed, the known or suspected reason why the cement failed, and how the issue was resolved.

65. Please produce all documents discussing, reflecting or relating to any issues or

concerns expressed about Halliburton’s use of foamed cement slurry in other deepwater wells

within the last ten years.

66. For each prior foam cement job executed by Halliburton on any deepwater well in

the Gulf of Mexico during the preceding ten years where a defoamer was included in the slurry

composition, please produce all cement plans, simulations, laboratory test results and post-job

reports.

67. For each foam cement job executed by Halliburton on any deepwater well in the

Gulf of Mexico during the preceding ten years where the calculated GFP value was greater than

8, please produce all cement plans, simulations, laboratory tests reports and post-job reports.

68. For each foam cement job executed by Halliburton in the Gulf of Mexico where

the cement job actually failed or was alleged to have failed, including any job where a remedial

cement job was needed, please produce all cement plans, simulations, laboratory tests reports and

post-job reports.

69. For each foam cement job executed by Halliburton in the Gulf of Mexico where a

kick or blowout occurred following the cement job, please produce all cement plans, simulations,

laboratory tests reports and post-job reports.

70. Please produce all documents and exhibits that Halliburton intends to rely upon in

any deposition, briefing, hearing or at trial.

71. Please produce all published articles and other documents authored, in part or in

total, by any fact or expert witness that Halliburton intends to rely upon at any hearing or trial.


17

72. Please produce all documents discussing, reflecting or relating to the recorded

testimony, including interviews, of any fact or expert witness that Halliburton intends to rely

upon at any hearing or trial.

73. Please produce all documents discussing, reflecting or relating to the prior sworn

testimony of each Halliburton employee that performed any work relating to the Macondo well.

74. Please produce all documents discussing, reflecting or relating to Fred Sabins’s

employment with Halliburton and any work that Mr. Sabins performed for or with Halliburton

since he left Halliburton.

Dated: March 25, 2011 Respectfully submitted,

/s/ J. Andrew Langan, P.C.

Richard C. Godfrey, P.C.

J. Andrew Langan, P.C.

KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP

300 North LaSalle Street

Chicago, Illinois 60654

Telephone: (312) 862-2000

Facsimile: (312) 862-2200

and

Don K. Haycraft (Bar #14361)

R. Keith Jarrett (Bar #16984)

LISKOW & LEWIS

701 Poydras Street, Suite 5000

New Orleans, Louisiana 70139-5099

Telephone: (504) 581-7979

Facsimile: (504) 556-4108

and

Robert C. “Mike” Brock

Covington & Burling LLP

1201 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20004-2401

Telephone: (202) 662-5985

Attorneys for BP Exploration & Production

Inc. and BP America Production Company


18


I hereby certify that the above and foregoing has been served on All Counsel by

electronically uploading the same to Lexis Nexis File & Serve in accordance with Pretrial

Order No. 12, which will send a notice in accordance with the procedures established in

MDL 2179, on this 25th day of March, 2011.

/s/ J. Andrew Langan, P.C.
