Protective Order Sought For Patterson Executives In Oil Rig Deaths

Attorneys for the wife of one of five men that were killed in a Jan. 2018 explosion near Quinton has filed a response to a motion filed by attorneys for the Patterson 219 rig owners asking for a protective order to prevent depositions of two top company executives.

Wrongful death and negligence lawsuits against Paterson-UTI and other companies involved in the rig at the time of the explosion were filed by the families of the five men, Josh Ray, 35, of Fort Worth; Matt Smith, 29, of McAlester; Cody Risk, 26, of Wellington, Colorado; Parker Waldridge, 60, of Crescent; and Roger Cunningham, 55, of Seminole, that were killed in the explosion.

A sixth lawsuit was also filed by attorneys for Kevin Carrillo, a man who suffered serious injuries in the fire and explosion.

The six lawsuits against Patterson-UTI and other companies involved have been combined for discovery purposes only.

A request for a protective order was filed after notices of intent to take oral/videotaped depositions were sent to Patterson-UTI Energy Chief Executive Officer and President William Andrew Hendricks and Patterson-UTI Drilling Company President James Michael Holcomb by attorneys representing Dianna Waldridge, the wife of Parker Waldridge.

In December, attorneys for Patterson-UTI claim Patterson-UTI Energy CEO and President William Andrew Hendricks and Patterson-UTI Drilling Company’s President James Michael Holcomb are “apex” witnesses and do not possess unique personal knowledge related to claims being made in the lawsuits of the facts related to the incident.

Patterson’s attorneys also maintain that both men did not direct the investigation of the incident and only received regular updates from their attorneys involved in the investigation, court documents state.

The motion also states that depositions of Hendricks and Holcomb would “impose an undue burden” on both men and Patterson-UTI and subsidiaries as the two men would have to take away time from their responsibilities.

Attorneys for Patterson-UTI asks for the protective order to prohibit the depositions of Hendricks and Holcomb “and for such further relief as to which they may show themselves justly entitled,” the motion states.

In a response made by attorneys for Waldridge filed on Jan. 7, attorneys objected to Patterson’s claim that Hendricks and Holcomb are “too busy” or ‘too important” to answer questions about their companies’ involvement in the deadliest oilfield disaster in Oklahoma history.

“Under Oklahoma law, being a busy and important executive does not supplant the standards of discovery,” the motion states. “That is especially true in a case involving five families that just spent their first Christmas without their loved ones.”

Waldridge’s attorneys also wrote in their motion that the Oklahoma Supreme Court has explicitly declined to adopt “apex doctrine” which Patterson claims Hendricks and Holcomb have and that is why Patterson cites – almost exclusively – “non-controlling and non-persuasive federal court decisions.”

“Testimony will help a Pittsburg County jury understand how their decisions and relationship cascaded into the series of avoidable errors that led to five men losing their lives,” the response states. “Mr. Hendricks and Mr. Holcomb can not erase this relevant information by submitting vaguely worded affidavits denying direct involvement in the day-to-day operation of rig #219.”

However, attorneys for Waldridge did say they can compromise and offered to hold the depositions at Patterson-UTI’s offices in Houston instead of in Oklahoma City, but aside from the “easily remedied logistical issue, Patterson has not shown that it will suffer any prejudice if made to comply with the Oklahoma Discovery Code,” the response states.

On Jan. 10, attorneys representing the families of Cunningham and Waldridge filed motions to enter cause on a jury docket and for a scheduling order which asks the court to set their specific cases for jury trial at the next available trial setting and enter a scheduling order for the other cases as they are consolidated for purposes of discovery, court documents state.

Hearings for a ruling on the protective order or on the motion to place the cases on a jury docket have not been scheduled.

Source: Woodward News