United States District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania
SAMMY MOZINGO, et al.
OIL STATES ENERGY SERVICES, L.L.C.
NOW, this 8th day of November 2017, upon
considering Defendant's Motion to amend its Group 2 trial
witness list (ECF Doc. No. 384), and Plaintiffs' Response
(ECF Doc. No. 386), it is ORDERED
Defendant's Motion (ECF Doc. No. 384) is GRANTED
in part and DENIED in part and
Defendant may file an amended Group 2 trial witness list with
offers of proof consistent with this Order no later than
November 14, 2017.
group of employees sued their former employer, Oil States,
for failing to pay overtime under the Fair Labor Standards
Act for their work on fracking drill sites. Under
Fed.R.Civ.P. 1, we separated the employees into three trial
groups to avoid jury confusion. Discovery closed in June 2016 and
we denied summary judgment finding genuine disputes of
material fact. We tried the first trial group of four
employees last month and the jury returned a unanimous
verdict finding the employees entitled to overtime under the
Fair Labor Standards Act and awarding money
losing the first trial, Oil States moves to amend its witness
list for the second trial. Oil States argues it needs to
amend the witness list to counteract the employees'
"inappropriate behavior" during the first trial
which they will "likely" engage in the second and
third trials. Oil States seeks include three new
witnesses, Rhonda Totten, Lias "Jeff Steen, and a
Custodian of Fleetmatics' records, and re-designate two
already identified witnesses, Jill Curry and Terry Woodall,
from testifying by deposition to "may call" live
testimony. The employees object and seek further discovery if
we allow Oil States to add new witnesses.
Jill Curry and Terry Woodall may be called to
States seeks to re-designate Jill Curry and Terry Woodall
from testifying by deposition to its "may call"
list. Oil States does not give an offer of proof for
re-designating Ms. Curry and Mr. Woodall to testify live. The
employees do not object to Ms. Curry and Mr. Woodall
testifying live about Oil States' overtime compliance
efforts. They object to testimony outside this topic.
Assuming Ms. Curry and Mr. Woodall's direct testimony
will be the same topics as their designated deposition
testimony (overtime compliance), Oil States may amend its
witness list to include Ms. Curry and Mr. Woodall on its
"may call" list to testify live.
Rhonda Totten may testify limited to her relevant Rule 26
States seeks to add Rhonda Totten, an Oil States' Human
Resources Manager to its "may call" list. Oil
States identified her as a potential witness in a Rule 26
disclosure. Oil States does not make an offer of proof
for her trial testimony except it is designating her because,
in their closing argument in the Group 1 trial, the employees
suggested Oil States failed to call a Human Resources
employee to testify. The employees object to Ms. Totten's
testimony for failing to identify her in the pretrial
memorandum. But Oil States disclosed her before discovery as
a witness with "knowledge of human resources support for
the locations at issue and the circumstances leading up to
employee separations." The employees argue they did not
depose her because their separations were not at issue and
they are unaware of the substance of her testimony.
employees knew Ms. Totten could have material information
long before the close of discovery. Oil States may amend to
identify Ms. Totten as a trial witness limited to knowledge
of human resources support for the locations at issue.
Lias "Jeff Steen may not testify.
States seeks to add Lias "Jeff Steen to its "may
call" witness list. Mr. Steen is Oil States'
Executive Vice President of Legal and Human Resources but Oil
States does not make an offer of proof for his testimony
except it is designating him because in their closing
argument, the employees suggested Oil States failed to call a
Human Resources employee to testify. The employees object
because Oil States never disclosed Mr. Steen as a witness
with relevant knowledge and never produced documents from Mr.
Steen, nor have the employees deposed him. The employees
request written discovery and the ability to depose Mr. Steen
if we allow him to testify but also note his role as Oil
States' counsel will engender privilege issues.
Oil States' request to add Mr. Steen as a witness because
Oil States never disclosed him as a witness under
Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(a) with relevant knowledge until after we
tried the first case and the employees would be unduly
prejudiced by allowing discovery and depositions for an
entirely new witness.
Fleetmatics' records custodian may overcome a ...