AlaFile E-Notice

02-CV-2018-903102.00
Judge: JAY A YORK
To: HEDGE ROBERT JON
[email protected]

NOTICE OF ELECTRONIC FILING

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF MOBILE COUNTY, ALABAMA

ADAM P HARRINGTON V. BARRY GRAHAM OFFSHORE SERVICE LLC ET AL

02-CV-2018-903102.00

The following matter was FILED on 8/31/2021 4:49:09 PM

D002 EXXON MOBIL CORPORATION

RESPONSE TO MOTION FOR SANCTIONS
[Filer: KING MARK CHRISTIAN]

Notice Date: 8/31/2021 4:49:09 PM

JOJO SCHWARZAUER
CIRCUIT COURT CLERK
MOBILE COUNTY, ALABAMA
CIRCUIT CIVIL DIVISION
205 GOVERNMENT STREET
MOBILE, AL, 36644

251-574-8420
[email protected]
 DOCUMENT 261
ELECTRONICALLY FILED
8/31/2021 4:49 PM
02-CV-2018-903102.00
CIRCUIT COURT OF
MOBILE COUNTY, ALABAMA
JOJO SCHWARZAUER, CLERK
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF MOBILE COUNTY, ALABAMA

ADAM P. HARRINGTON, )
)
Plaintiff, )
CIVIL ACTION NO.
)
v. )
02-CV-2018-903102
)
EXXONMOBIL CORPORATION et al., )
)
Defendants )

EXXONMOBIL’S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS FOR SANCTIONS

Defendant ExxonMobil Corporation (“ExxonMobil”) responds to Plaintiff Adam

Harrington’s Motions for Sanctions. [Docs. 225, 250]. At bottom, this is a dispute about whether

documents that ExxonMobil voluntarily produced in response to a Rule 30(b)(5) and (6)

deposition notice should have been produced in response to a more generic request for

production that was filed at the beginning of the case. Regardless of whom the Court thinks has

the better side of that argument, one thing about which there should be no dispute is that the

disagreement does not warrant the imposition of any sanction, much less the death penalty the

plaintiff requests in his motion. As is more fully outlined below,

• ExxonMobil has not violated any order of the Court, which makes any sanction,
especially default, inappropriate.

• Plaintiff has the materials he has requested and may still use them in discovery, including
in the open deposition for ExxonMobil’s 30(b)(6) witness.

• ExxonMobil made the reasonable search required by the Rules for documents responsive
to the initial RFP, and there was was no reason for ExxonMobil to withhold the later
discovered documents if it had located them earlier.

• The materials do not affect most prior deposition witnesses.

• Many of the materials are irrelevant or duplicative of documents that have already been
produced.

For the reasons discussed below, the Court should dismiss Plaintiff’s motions.
 DOCUMENT 261

Factual and Procedural History

Plaintiff filed his amended complaint, alleging ExxonMobil and P&E Crewboats, Inc.

(“P&E”) were negligent, which led to Plaintiff’s injuring his knee when transferring by swing

rope from ExxonMobil’s offshore platform (“B-Deck”) to P&E’s boat,the M/V Miss Kristin. See

generally [Doc. 15] (Amended Complaint). Plaintiff’s injury happened while Plaintiff was

working for Skelton’s Fire Equipment, Inc. (“Skelton’s”), a contractor for ExxonMobil. See id. at

¶¶ 1, 8. In the nine paragraph amended complaint, plaintiff alleged under Maritime Law that both

defendants, including ExxonMobil, jointly controlled the vessel onto which the plaintiff had

fallen and that plaintiff’s injuries were the result of the negligence of both defendants. There was

no claim in that complaint that plaintiff’s training had been deficient or that ExxonMobil was or

should have been responsible for that training.

ExxonMobil and Skelton’s operated under an agreement for Skelton’s to provide fire

equipment and inspection services, and part of that agreement required Skelton’s to ensure its

employees were adequately trained for their work tasks. See, e.g., Hrinsin Depo. at 198:9–199:23

(Exhibit A). 1 ExxonMobil required its employees and contractors’ employees to perform annual

swing-rope-proficiency demonstrations. See Hrinsin Depo. at 119:20–121:8; Bedgood Depo. at

179:14–181:1 (Exhibit B); [Doc. 226 at 1]. Plaintiff’s employer, Skelton’s, provided a certificate

showing that Mr. Harrington had completed his swing rope demonstration. See Harrington Swing

Rope Transfer Techniques Card (Exhibit C).

On February 14, 2019, Plaintiff served ExxonMobil with interrogatories and requests for

production. See generally [Doc. 36] (Notice of Serving Discovery). ExxonMobil and its counsel

reviewed the discovery requests, collaborated, and sought to provide answers and responsive

1
ExxonMobil is attaching only the relevant excerpts of cited depositions as exhibits to this filing.

2
 DOCUMENT 261

documents to the requests, framed by the allegations of the lawsuit as it understood them. See

Aff. of R. Sewell at ¶¶ 6–8 (Exhibit D). ExxonMobil served its initial discovery responses on

March 18, 2019. See [Docs. 63–65]. In that initial production, ExxonMobil produced 119 pages

of documents and one video. See Aff. of R. Sewell at ¶ 9. Part of the production included a

printout of the portion of ExxonMobil’s Mobile Bay orientation for all who go offshore that

discusses swing ropes. See [Doc. 227].

ExxonMobil and P&E deposed Plaintiff on October 22, 2019. See Harrington Depo. at 1

(Exhibit E). In his deposition, Plaintiff admitted to receiving and being trained on portions of

Skelton’s safety manual addressing how to safely transfer by swing rope and that he had seen it

before his accident. Harrington Depo. at 21:23–23:10, 26:8–27:8 (Exhibit E); Exh. 1 to

Harrington Depo. (Exhibit F). Following Plaintiff’s deposition, Plaintiff’s counsel asked for

supplemental production of training materials and guidelines for contractors. See Email from R.

Fuquay to R. Sewell (Oct. 31, 2019) (Exhibit G). Again, ExxonMobil’s counsel conferred with

employees of ExxonMobil, obtained additional information, and produced an additional twenty-

seven pages of documents, including the Swing Rope Demonstration Requirements, [Doc. 226],

in November 2019. See Aff. of R. Sewell at ¶¶ 11–12. Plaintiff also deposed P&E’s boat

captain, Stacy Perillo, in November 2019. Perillo Depo at 1 (Exhibit H).

In January 2020, Plaintiff deposed Greg Hrinsin as ExxonMobil’s representative to testify

about two topics related to training. Hrinsin Depo. at 1; 30(b)(5) & (6) Notice of Depo. of Def.

ExxonMobil Corp. (Jan. 13, 2020) (“the First Rule 30(b) Notice”) (Exhibit I). Following the

deposition and per Plaintiff’s counsel’s request, ExxonMobil produced a swing-rope safety video

that was created and put in place after Plaintiff’s accident and a complete copy of Mobile Bay

3
 DOCUMENT 261

orientation slide show, including portions not dealing with swing ropes at all. See Aff. of R.

Sewell at ¶ 16.

Four months later, the parties deposed Avery Fick as the representative of Complete

Safety Work. Fick Depo. at 1 (Exhibit J). In her deposition, Ms. Fick testified about the swing

rope proficiency training they had provided to Harrington, and stated that Complete Safety

Works had received no written materials from ExxonMobil about that training. See Fick Depo.

at 37:9–17, 43:3–12.

A few weeks later, on June 15, 2020, the parties deposed Scott Skelton, the Vice

President of Skelton’s. Skelton Depo. at 1 (Exhibit K). In his deposition, Mr. Skelton testified

that Skelton’s employees are required to receive training before going offshore, and part of that

training would have included being provided portions of the training manual addressing

personnel transfers by swing rope. Skelton Depo. at 17:17–23, 20:18–23:1; Exhs. 3 & 4 to

Skelton Depo. (Exhibit L).

In July and August 2020, during a COVID-19 related lull in discovery, ExxonMobil’s

counsel conferred with ExxonMobil employees concerning any documents that had not yet been

uncovered that might be relevant to the defense of the case. See Aff. of R. Sewell at ¶ 17. As a

result of those discussions, ExxonMobil’s counsel learned of the existence of and received from

ExxonMobil an “Offshore Personnel Transfer Risk Overview” from March 2016 (“the March

2016 Global Study”), an “Offshore Personnel Transfer Mobile Bay Analysis from June 2016

(“the June 2016 Mobile Bay Study”), a “Mobile Bay Offshore Personnel Transfer Study” from

May 2018 (“the May 2018 Mobile Bay Study”). 2 See id. These documents are helpful to

2
ExxonMobil discloses the fact that it provided outside counsel with these documents as a result of these
discussions. ExxonMobil contends that communications regarding these studies are subject to the attorney-client
privilege, and ExxonMobil does not waive otherwise that privilege.

4
 DOCUMENT 261

ExxonMobil’s defense, in that they show just how safe ExxonMobil viewed swing rope

transfers. ExxonMobil’s counsel also received photographs of B-Deck from ExxonMobil, and

ExxonMobil produced those photographs to the parties in August 2020. See id. at ¶ 18.

The parties did not depose another fact witness until May 27, 2021, which was P&E’s

owner, Chris Esfeller. Esfeller Depo. at 1 (Exhibit M). Mr. Esfeller testified the only training he

was aware that ExxonMobil provided was an orientation. See Esfeller Depo. at 120:14–121:15.

That presentation had already been produced by ExxonMobil.

On June 8, 2021, Plaintiff noticed the depositions of Ms. Munksgaard, Mr. Bedgood, and

ExxonMobil’s Rule 30(b)(6) representative on a host of topics not previously covered. See

Munksgaard Depo. Notice (Exhibit N); Bedgood Depo. Notice (Exhibit O); 30(b)(5) & (6)

Notice of Video Depo. of Def. ExxonMobil Corp. (June 8, 2021) (“the Second Rule 30(b)

Notice”) (Exhibit P).

Plaintiff deposed Ms. Munksgaard by via video conferencing on June 17, 2021.

Munksgaard Depo. at 1 (Exhibit Q). Ms. Munksgaard led the investigation of Plaintiff’s

accident. See Munksgaard Depo. at 28:19–21 (Exhibit Q). Ms. Munksgaard was not involved

with creating the May 2018 Mobile Study, and she only had loose familiarity of the study based

on her preparation for her deposition. See Munksgaard Depo. at 201:11–202:18.

On June 23, 2021, six days before the deposition of Mr. Bedgood, individually and as

ExxonMobil’s representative, ExxonMobil made a production of materials in response to the

Second Rule 30(b) Notice. See Aff. of. R. Sewell at ¶ 21. The production included fourteen

additional documents, including Plaintiff’s Exhibits 5–7 and 9, and encompassed 3,138 pages of

documents. See id. Of those pages, 3028 pages were weather data used as part of preparing the

May 2018 Mobile Bay Study, and the pertinent data is summarized within the attachment to the

5
 DOCUMENT 261

study. See id. On June 28, 2021, ExxonMobil’s counsel received additional materials from

ExxonMobil, and the materials included a portion of ExxonMobil’s Upstream Safety Manual

that addresses personnel transfers (“the Personnel Transfer Requirements document”). See id. at

¶ 22; [Doc. 233]. The Upstream Safety Manual, including the Personnel Transfer Requirements

document, were made available to Skelton’s as part of working for ExxonMobil. See Bedgood

Depo. at 74:15–21. ExxonMobil produced the Personnel Transfer Requirements document on the

same day. See Aff. of R. Sewell at ¶ 22.

On June 29, 2021, Plaintiff deposed Shaun Bedgood. Bedgood Depo. at 1. The

depositionlasted an entire day, but was not concluded and remains open. Plaintiff’s counsel

contended during the deposition that some of the recently produced items about which he was

questioning Mr. Bedgood should have been produced earlier. After the deposition, ExxonMobil

offered dates to complete the deposition, but Plaintiff has not confirmed any dates and instead

filed this motion. Bedgood Depo. at 345:23–346:9. Other discovery is proceeding, with the

parties having recently made efforts to schedule the deposition of another ExxonMobil former

employee. See Email from R. Hedge to J. Lieb & R. Sewell (Aug. 27, 2021) (Exhibit R).

Following the deposition, ExxonMobil’s counsel reached out to Plaintiff by email

requesting to set up a time for a telephone call to discuss plaintiff’s expressed unhappiness with

ExxonMobil’s document production. Email from C. King to R. Hedge (July 2, 2021) (excerpt)

at 3 (Exhibit S). Plaintiff responded with a demand that ExxonMobil permit Plaintiff to re-

depose all previous fact witnesses at ExxonMobil’s expense. Id. at 2–3. ExxonMobil replied by

asking Plaintiff to identify which portions of the recent production Plaintiff believed should have

been produced in response to prior requests. Id. at 1. Plaintiff did not respond to that request.

6
 DOCUMENT 261

On July 28, 2021, ExxonMobil located and produced additional documents in response

to Plaintiff’s request for supplementation based on materials produced on June 23 and 28. See

[Doc. 250 at 1]. The production included a video of an “ExxonMobil Production Offshore

Personnel Transfer Overview” training module (“the Training Module”) (Pl.’s Exh. 11); job-

safety analyses that were part of the Training Module, including one discussing swing ropes

(“the Swing Rope JSA”) (Pl.’s Exh. 10 [Doc. 252]; and a complete image of a Go/No-Go

Decision Matrix referenced in the 2016 Studies (“the Go/No-Go Matrix”), which had been

produced with some language at the botton cut off due to formatting. (Pl.’s Exh. 23 [Doc. 253]).

ExxonMobil produced these materials to try to put discovery issues behind it, although none

would be relevant in any way to a case here involving a contractor in Mobile Bay, as it does not

appear ExxxonMobile ever used this module in the United States. See Aff. of S. Bedgood at ¶ 7

(Exhibit T).

Argument

I. Rule 37 Does Not Authorize Default Under These Circumstances.

Although ExxonMobil does not believe that its voluntary discovery responses have been

unreasonable, Alabama law would not support the requested sanction, regardless. Under Rule 37,

for the Court to order any sanction (especially default), the Court would first have to find

ExxonMobil either failed to obey a court order or failed to serve a written response to Plaintiff’s

Rule 34 requests for production. Neither event has occurred.

Rule 37(b)(2) and (d) discuss the possibility of the Court entering default as a discovery

sanction. However, that language has certain conditions. “If a party . . . fails . . . (3) to serve a

written response to a request for production or inspection submitted under Rule 34, after proper

service of the request, the court in which the action is pending on motion may make such orders

7
 DOCUMENT 261

in regard to the failure as are just . . . .” Ala. R. Civ. P. 37(d) (emphasis added). “If a party . . .

fails to obey an order to provide or permit discovery . . . the court in which the action is pending

may make such orders in regard to the failure as are just . . . .” Ala. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2) (emphasis

added); see also Dutton v. Dutton, 446 So. 2d 615, 618–19 (Ala. Civ. App. 1983) (motion to

compel required before court can impose sanctions under Rule 37(b)). ExxonMobil has located

no reported decision where an Alabama court has upheld a default as a sanction absent one of

these two enumerated occurrences.

In this case, ExxonMobil served written responses Plaintiff’s requests for production. See

[Doc. 65]; see also [Doc. 225 at 7–8] (Plaintiff’s motion’s referencing ExxonMobil’s written

discovery responses). Also, the Court has not issued any orders compelling discovery in this

case. Considering ExxonMobil served written responses to Plaintiff’s discovery and has not

disobeyed any Court order regarding discovery, Rule 37 does not authorize default—or any

sanctions. Accordingly, the Court should deny Plaintiff’s motions. 3

II. ExxonMobil Did Not Willfully Fail to Comply with Discovery Obligations.

A. Prior court decisions do not support entry of default.

ExxonMobil does not believe it has abused the discovery process or that any sanction is

appropriate under the circumstances. Specfically important, though, Alabama case law makes

clear that default is appropriate only in truly egregious situations, generally involving violation

of a court order or spoliation.

[T]he trial court in a discovery-abuse case must impose a sanction proportionate to

and compensatory of the particular discovery abuse committed. Outright dismissal
of the action is appropriate where the refusal to allow discovery is willful. A lesser

3
Additionally, Plaintiff failed to meet his conference requirement before filing his motions. See Ala. R. Civ.
P. 37(a)(2). Plaintiff’s counsel did propose that ExxonMobil permit Plaintiff to re-depose fact witnesses at
ExxonMobil’s expense. However, ExxonMobil requested to have a phone call with Plaintiff to discuss the
discovery dispute and for Plaintiff to identify his specific complaints about ExxonMobil’s production. Plaintiff
never responded to ExxonMobil’s request prior to filing his motions.

8
 DOCUMENT 261

sanction is appropriate where the conduct is not willful or the party accused of not
complying with discovery was acting in good faith.

Ex parte Sears, Roebuck & Co., 882 So. 2d 326, 328 (Ala. 2003) (quoting Ex parte Seaman

Timber Co., 850 So. 2d 246, 258 (Ala. 2002)). “A default judgment, like a dismissal, would be a

‘severe sanction.’” Ex parte Coale, 757 So. 2d 393, 395 (Ala. 1999). “[D]ismissal orders must be

carefully scrutinized, and the [party]’s conduct must mandate dismissal.” Weatherly v. Baptist

Med. Ctr., 392 So. 2d 832, 837 (Ala. 1981) (emphasis added). Mere negligence does not justify

dismissal or default. See id. “‘The court, however, should not go beyond the necessities of the

situation to foreclose the merits of controversies as punishment for general misbehavior.’” Id.

at 836 (quoting Dorsey v. Acad. Moving & Storage, Inc., 423 F.2d 858, 860 (5th Cir. 1970)).

The cases Plaintiff cites in his motion do not suggest anything different than the standards

above. Iverson v. Xpert Tune, Inc. involved spoliation of a fuel pump that was the subject of the

litigation and that the defendant requested to inspect, and the Alabama Supreme Court upheld

dismissal because the plaintiff failed to preserve the subject fuel pump. See generally 553 So. 2d

82 (Ala. 1989) (affirming dismissal after trial court found the plaintiff’s explanation not

credible). Ex parte Seaman Timber Co. involved a party’s failure to comply the trial court’s

discovery orders regarding the production of a party witness for a deposition and compelling the

production of documents. See generally 850 So. 2d 246 (Ala. 2002) (the plaintiff obstructed the

defendant’s effort to depose plaintiff-witness until witness was not mentally competent and then

passed away). The present facts are distinguishable for two important reasons. First, no

spoliation has occurred. Plaintiff has the documents at issue and will have the opportunity to use

them in this litigation, to the extent they may be relevant or admissible. Second, ExxonMobil has

not failed to comply with any order from the Court because the Court has not entered any

9
 DOCUMENT 261

discovery orders. Thus, Plaintiff’s cases do not support the Court imposing sanctions,

specifically not the sanction Plaintiff requests.

In fact, ExxonMobil’s research has not located a single Alabama appellate decision

upholding a default or dismissal absent a party disobeying a discovery order or failing to attend

its own deposition. See, e.g., Manci v. Ball, Koons & Watson, 995 So. 2d 161, 164, 167–68 (Ala.

2008) (upholding default where defendant failed to comply with multiple court orders

compelling production of documents); Napier v. McDougal, 601 So. 2d 446, 448 (Ala. 1992)

(same); Blair v. Cooper, 437 So. 2d 1249, 1252 (Ala. 1983) (dismissal for willful failure to

attend own deposition).

As discussed more below, the heart of Plaintiff’s complaint is a disagreement over

whether the documents over which he complains were responsive to earlier discovery requests.

Such a disagreement does not justify any sanction, let alone a default, because ExxonMobil did

not act willfully or do anything wrong. An example case is Phillips v. Winsett, 717 So. 2d 818

(Ala. Civ. App. 1998). In that case, the plaintiff served interrogatories inquiring about the limits

of the defendant’s insurance policy. Id. at 819. When the defendant did not timely respond to the

discovery requests, the plaintiff moved for, and the court granted, an order compelling the

defendant to respond. Id. The defendant did not believe the policy limits were discoverable and

objected to answering. Id. The plaintiff moved to compel the answer, and the defendant opposed

and objected to the motion. Id. The trial court granted the plaintiff’s motion and ordered the

defendant to produce legible copies of its policy and allowed the plaintiff to submit affidavits

regarding expenses associated with the discovery motion. See id. The defendant moved the court

to reconsider, and the court denied the motion. Id. After the defendant still failed to produce the

insurance policy, the plaintiff moved for default, and the defendant opposed the default. Id. The

10
 DOCUMENT 261

trial court denied the motion for default but granted the plaintiff attorney fees associated with the

discovery. Id. The Alabama Court of Civil Appeals upheld the trial court’s order of attorney’s

fees. Id. at 821.

The takeaway from Phillips is that even in the face of noncompliance with a court order

default is not mandated, and other sanctions may be appropriate. Default is not the “go-to”

sanction, even when a party violates a court order. It stands to reason, then, that the Court should

not impose any sanctions when the Court has not entered an order that a party could violate and

the basis of the dispute is a difference of interpretation of discovery requests.

A discussion of three other cases—Ex parte Coale, Ex parte Sears, Roebuck & Co., and

Johnson v. Citizens Bank, Inc.—may be helpful to the Court. Each of these cases undercuts

Plaintiff’s arguments.

In Ex parte Coale, the plaintiff sought customer lists, including addresses, from

defendant-insurer Liberty National, and Liberty National produced the lists piece-meal and

pursuant to multiple court orders. See 757 So. 2d 393, 394 (Ala. 1999). The plaintiff complained

that addresses within the customer list were out of date and then moved for default, claiming

Liberty National had not complied with its discovery obligations as the court ordered. See id.

at 394–95. The trial court denied the motion for default, and the plaintiff sought mandamus

relief. See id. In its opinion denying the plaintiff’s petition for mandamus against the trial court,

the Alabama Supreme Court stated:

In his brief to this Court, Coale states that Liberty National did not comply with his
discovery requests despite the trial court’s ordering it to do so. The only time he
gets more specific than this is when he says that Liberty National supplied outdated
information and, therefore, has not “adequately responded.” Liberty National
contends, and the trial court apparently agrees, that Coale has the information he
sought. Coale’s argument is accusatory and conclusory, but nonspecific, and, in
light of Liberty National’s contentions and the trial court’s rulings, we see no
evidence suggesting that Coale does not have the information he needs.

11
 DOCUMENT 261

Id. at 395.

In Ex parte Sears, Roebuck & Co., the plaintiff sued for a workplace injury. 882 So. 2d

at 326. The plaintiff served discovery requests, the defendant (Sears) responded and objected to

the production of certain documents, and the plaintiff moved to compel production. Id. at 327.

The trial court granted the motion to compel, the plaintiff moved to enforce the order, and the

defendant moved for a protective order. Id. The trial court denied the motion for protective order

and ordered the defendant, multiple times, to produce the documents. Id. Ultimately, the trial

court sanctioned the defendant by striking the defendant’s “‘pleadings at they relate to the fraud

claim . . . .’” Id. In the midst of this discovery dispute were other filings and proceedings relating

to the defendants’ motion for summary judgment and appellate review. See id. The defendant

sought mandamus relief to vacate the striking of the defendant’s fraud pleadings. Id. at 327–28.

The defendant did not dispute that it had not complied with the trial court’s order, thus the

Alabama Supreme Court’s only decision was whether the trial court’s sanction was appropriate.

See id. at 328. The Alabama Supreme Court repeated Ex parte Seaman Timber Co.’s position

that lesser sanctions are appropriate when the offending conduct was not willful or the party was

acting in good faith. See id. (quoting Ex parte Seaman Timber Co., 850 So. 2d at 258).

Ultimately, the Alabama Supreme Court ruled that striking all of the pleadings—the general

denial and the affirmative defenses—would essentially be a default or concession of all the

plaintiff’s fraud pleadings, leaving damages as the only issue, and this result was too harsh “in

light of the fact that [the plaintiff] has suffered no legally cognizable prejudice . . . .” See id. The

trial court’s order was unclear that trial court intended to impose such a harsh sanction, thus the

Alabama Supreme Court denied the petition for writ of mandamus but instructed the trial court to

clarify its order. See id.

12
 DOCUMENT 261

The Alabama Court of Civil Appeals, in Johnson v. Citizens Bank, Inc., 778 So. 2d 828,

830–31 (Ala. Civ. App. 2000), overturned a trial court’s dismissal of a suit as a discovery

sanction. In that case, the plaintiff sued the bank and its employee for negligence and fraudulent

misrepresentation. Id. at 828. During the suit, the defendants served plaintiff with discovery

requests, and the plaintiff’s attorney was injured in an automobile accident. Id. Two months later,

the defendants sent a follow-up letter to the plaintiff’s lawyer requesting responses, and about

two weeks later the defendants filed a motion to compel responses. See id. at 829. The trial court

granted the motion and gave the plaintiff ten days to comply. Id. When the plaintiff did not

comply, the defendants moved for sanctions, but the plaintiff’s lawyer did not receive notice of

the motion. Id. The trial court held a hearing on the motion for sanctions and dismissed the

plaintiff’s case with prejudice. Id. A week later, the plaintiff’s lawyer served the requested

discovery, including unsigned interrogatory answers because the plaintiff regularly worked out

of town. See id. The next day, the plaintiff’s lawyer received the order dismissing the plaintiff’s

case. Id. The plaintiff later produced signed interrogatories without any changes. Id. The plaintiff

moved the trial court to reconsider the dismissal, and the trial court denied the motion. Id. The

Alabama Court of Civil Appeals reversed and noted several factors supporting the finding that

the plaintiff’s lawyer had not acted willfully. See id. at 830–31. First, this was not a case where

the plaintiff was refusing to respond or had destroyed evidence. See id. at 830 (discussing

Iverson and Napier). Second, the time that had passed between the time of the request and the

time of the response was four months, which paled in comparison to the five-year delay in Ex

parte Coale (especially with the lack of willfulness). See id. Additionally, the plaintiff’s lawyer

served unverified interrogatory responses prior to learning of the plaintiff’s motion for sanctions

or of the trial court’s dismissal of the case. See id. at 830–31.

13
 DOCUMENT 261

Following these cases as guideposts, this Court also should not impose the harsh sanction

of default. Other than conclusory claims to need to re-depose witnesses or having to otherwise

prepare to prosecute his case, Plaintiff has failed to articulate exactly what prejudice he has

suffered as a result of the timing of when he received the documents. Additionally, Plaintiff has

received the documents he claims fall into the ambit of his requests, thus he has the information

he needs. See Ex Parte Coale, 757 So. 2d at 395. Plaintiff has the information and may be able to

use it in future depositions, specifically the continuation of Mr. Bedgood’s deposition—both

individually and on behalf of ExxonMobil. Additionally, ExxonMobil produced the documents,

depending on which document referred to, either when it was realized they existed and were

responsive or in response to the Second Rule 30(b) Notice. Finally, many of the documents apply

only to ExxonMobil employees (not to contractors like Plaintiff), some are duplicative of other

information, and some have not been implemented within the United States. Accordingly, the

case law makes clear that default under these circumstances is disfavored—and can be reversible

error—and the Court should deny Plaintiff’s motion for default as a sanction.

B. A review of the cited documents will show that default is inappropriate.

Not only is default inappropriate, as discussed above, no sanction is appropriate because,

as discussed below, ExxonMobil did not engage in any misconduct during the discovery process.

Plaintiff’s motion discusses his position on the responsiveness of ExxonMobil’s materials to

various discovery requests. ExxonMobil respectfully disagrees with Plaintiff’s contentions and

below discusses why any sanction is inappropriate. As the Court is aware, a party is entitled to

discovery of non-privileged matters that are relevant and proportional to the needs of the case.

See Ala. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). Relevant evidence is that which is related to the subject matter of

the case and may reasonably lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. See Drewes v. Bank of

14
 DOCUMENT 261

Wadley, 350 So. 2d 402, 403–04 (Ala. 1977) (finding plaintiff not entiltled to bank records

because they would not have admissible and no indication they would have led to admissible

evidence). With these legal principles, the Court will see that Plaintiff’s motions are not well

founded.

1. March 2016 Offshore Personnel Transfer Risk Study (Exhibit 5) and June 2016
Offshore Personnel Transfer Mobile Bay Analysis (Exhibit 6)

On June 23, 2021, ExxonMobil produced the March 2016 Global Study and the June

2016 Mobile Bay Study (collectively, “the 2016 Studies”). See [Doc. 229] (Pl.’s Exhibit 5);

[Doc. 231] (Pl.’s Exhibit 6). The March 2016 Global Study was a review of risks for personnel

transfers based on a review of ExxonMobil’s operations globally, and the June 2016 Mobile Bay

Study used some of the same information specifically looking at ExxonMobil’s Mobile Bay

operations. See Bedgood Depo. at 42:13–22. As is apparent from the documents themselves, the

2016 Studies were internal to ExxonMobil. These documents are helpful to ExxonMobil’s

defense, and there would be no reason not to produce them.

Plaintiff claims these studies are responsive to three of his initial requests for production:

No. 7: All safety or operating rules, regulations or recommendations, written in any

form, relating to the transfer of passengers from the platform described in request
number 3 above 4 and the duties of your employees during such passenger transfers.
This request is for any such items which were in effect at the time Plaintiff was
injured.

No. 10: Each document relating to any passenger transfer from the platform
described in request number 3 above on February 15, 2018.

No. 11: Each pamphlet, book, booklet, memorandum or other document available
to this Defendant, which relates to the transfer of passengers from the platform
described in request number 3 above which were in effect on February 15, 2018.

4
Plaintiff’s Request for Production No. 3 reads, “All log books, or other records of the fixed oil/gas platform from
which Plaintiff was being transferred at the time of his injury on February 15, 2018.” [Doc. 65 at 1].

15
 DOCUMENT 261

See [Doc. 225 at 13]. ExxonMobil did not (and does not now) interpret these requests to

encompass the 2016 Studies.

Grammatically, these requests do not encompass the 2016 Studies. Request No. 7 uses

the correlative conjunction “and,” which indicates the request seeks materials that discuss

multiple factors. Here, the request seeks “safety or operating rules, regulations or

recommendations . . . relating to the transfer of passengers from [B-Deck]” and “the duties for

employees during such passenger transfers.” See Bryan A. Garner, The Redbook: A Manual on

Legal Style 214 (3d ed. 2013) (§ 10.50(a) discussing correlative conjunctions). The 2016 Studies

do not discuss duties of employees, rather they discuss potential mitigations for management to

consider implementing. Additionally, the studies are not the same as “rules, regulations or

recommendations,” which connotate directives to individuals performing transfers; whereas the

2016 Studies were research findings and proposals for potential implementation. See Ex parte

City of Millbrook, 304 So. 3d 202, 205–06 (Ala. 2020) (discussing the associated-words canon).

As for Request No. 10, ExxonMobil objected to this request as vague because

“documents relating to any passenger transfer” is not clear. See [Doc. 65 at 3]. ExxonMobil

interpreted the request to ask for documents or materials regarding specific transfers, not

transfers generally or in the abstract. This is evidenced by ExxonMobil’s reference to its

response to Request No. 3 and the logs of transfers. See id. Even if Plaintiff intended for Request

No. 10 to encompass documents like the 2016 Studies, ExxonMobil should be excused from not

reaching that conclusion based on the awkward wording of the request.

Plaintiff’s attempt to stretch Request No. 11 suffers similar flaws. The request was vague

regarding what it was asking for that “relates to the transfer of passengers from” B-Deck. See id.

at 3–4. Additionally, the 2016 Studies are not of the same ilk as a “pamphlet, book, booklet, [or]

16
 DOCUMENT 261

memorandum” regarding transfers from B-Deck that ExxonMobil would expect those specific

examples to guide the general catchall of “other document.” See, e.g., Ex parte Mitchell,

989 So. 2d 1083, 1091–93 (Ala. 2008) (discussing the ejusdem generis doctrine); Lambert v.

Wilcox Cnty. Comm’n, 623 So. 2d 727, 731 (Ala. 1993) (same); Antonin Scalia & Bryan A.

Garner, Reading Law: The Interpretation of Legal Texts 199 (2012) (“Where general words

follow an enumeration of two or more things, they apply only to persons or things of the same

general kind or class specifically mentioned (ejusdem generis).”). Moreover, the requests

inclusion of “in effect on February 15, 2018,” implies some directive or guiding document that

would have governed the conduct of individuals making transfers offshore. See [Doc 65 at 3–4].

ExxonMobil did not perceive the 2016 Studies as being any kind of publication that would have

directed or mandated conduct relating to transfers; rather, as discussed above, the studies were

results of analysis and included proposed mitigations.

Accordingly, ExxonMobil’s differing interpretation does not justify the imposition of

sanctions. This becomes more apparent because when Plaintiff served the Second Rule 30(b)

Notice, ExxonMobil reviewed the requests and determined that the 2016 Studies were responsive

to those requests, namely:

No. 4: Testimony and documents regarding all Job Safety Analysis performed by
Exxon as to rope transfers, including any analysis of the dangers involved in swing
rope transfers.

No. 6: Testimony and documents regarding the methods and/or modes of

transferring personnel from boats to your platforms in light of the weather
conditions and/or experience of the individuals being transferred.

See Second Rule 30(b) Notice at 2.

17
 DOCUMENT 261

Believing the 2016 Studies were responsive to the document requests in the Second Rule

30(b) notice, 5 ExxonMobil produced the documents, along with others, six days in advance of

the deposition, despite the rule only requiring the materials be made available at the deposition.

See Ala. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(5). Accordingly, Plaintiff had the materials for use in advance of the

deposition of ExxonMobil’s representative, Shaun Bedgood, and was able to (and still can)

question Mr. Bedgood about the documents. What is more, because the 2016 Studies are internal

to ExxonMobil, they would not have been provided to any non-ExxonMobil employees (e.g.,

Scott Skelton, Complete Safety Works, Adam Harrington), and the First Rule 30(b) Notice only

asked about training, which the 2016 Studies would not qualify.

2. May 2018 Mobile Bay Offshore Personnel Transfer Study (Exhibit 7)

ExxonMobil also produced a document titled the May 2018 Mobile Bay Study. See also

[Doc. 232] (Pl.’s Exhibit 7). The May 2018 Mobile Bay Study was a review of risks for

personnel transfers based on a review of the June 2016 Mobile Bay Study and other data

collected following Mr. Harrington’s accident. See Bedgood Depo. at 43:3–20. Again, this

document was internal to ExxonMobil and is helpful to ExxonMobil’s defense.

Plaintiff claims these studies are responsive to two of his initial requests for production:

No. 10: Each document relating to any passenger transfer from the platform
described in request number 3 above on February 15, 2018.

No. 13: All correspondence, e-mails or memoranda of all communications between

or among the Defendants, other than direct communications with their attorneys,
relating in any way to the incident resulting in Plaintiff’s injuries on February 15,
2018.

[Doc. 225 at 14]. ExxonMobil disagrees with Plaintiff.

5
ExxonMobil does not believe either of the 2016 Studies qualify as a “Job Safety Analysis,” which is a specific
term within ExxonMobil. See, e.g., Munksgaard Depo. at 203:14–19. That said, the 2016 Studies otherwise
discuss dangers of swing rope transfers.

18
 DOCUMENT 261

As discussed above relating to the 2016 Studies, Request No. 10 is vague, and

ExxonMobil interpreted the request to seek logs or other documents specifically addressing

transfers on the date of Mr. Harrington’s accident. While the May 2018 Mobile Study mentions

Mr. Harrington’s February 15, 2018, accident during his transfer, the accident is only mentioned

in passing as being somewhat of a springboard for the overall study. See [Doc. 232 at 2]. The

May 2018 Mobile Bay Study does not specifically relate to any transfer on February 15, 2018,

and it does not provide any information beyond the incident reports and statements ExxonMobil

produced previously.

ExxonMobil also disagrees that the May 2018 Mobile Bay Study falls under Request

No. 13. The request specifically calls for “communications between or among the Defendants.”

ExxonMobil interprets this request to mean communications ExxonMobil transmitted to or

received from P&E—the Defendants in this case.

ExxonMobil believed the May 2018 Mobile Bay Study was responsive to document

requests in the Second Rule 30(b) Notice, specifically:

No. 4: Testimony and documents regarding all Job Safety Analysis performed by
Exxon as to rope transfers, including any analysis of the dangers in swing rope
transfers.

No. 5: Testimony and documents regarding other incidences of injury or near

misses involving swing rope transfers.

No. 6: Testimony and documents regarding the methods and/or modes of

transferring personnel from boats to your platforms in light of the weather
conditions and/or experience of the individuals being transferred.

See Second Rule 30(b) Notice at 2. The May 2018 Mobile Bay Study analyzes dangers of swing

rope transfers. An attachment to the study also included a listing of other swing rope incidents,

noting just how incredibly rare they have been, a fact that is helpful to ExxonMobil. Finally, the

May 2018 Mobile Study discussed methods of transfer and various considerations. As mentioned

19
 DOCUMENT 261

before, ExxonMobil believed the study to be responsive the Second Rule 30(b) Notice, and

ExxonMobil voluntarily produed it before Mr. Bedgood’s deposition.

3. Personnel Transfer Requirements from Upstream Safety Manual (Exhibit 8)

On June 28, 2021, after ExxonMobil’s counsel learned of its existence, ExxonMobil

produced the Personnel Transfer Requirements document. See [Doc. 233] (Pl.’s Exh. 8); Aff. of

R. Sewell at ¶ 22. Plaintiff claims this document is responsive to Request No. 7. See [Doc. 225

at 14–15].

ExxonMobil admits that the Personnel Transfer Requirements document is responsive to

Request No. 7, and it would be responsive to requests in the First Rule 30(b) Notice. However,

the late production was oversight, not malice. In his deposition, Mr. Bedgood admitted that he

did not think to look for this portion of the Upstream Safety Manual—two pages out of more

than 500—when initially helping compile documents responsive to Plaintiff’s document

requests. Bedgood Depo. at 77:12–78:16. ExxonMobil produced the document when counsel

learned of it. See Aff. of R. Sewell at ¶ 22.

Additionally, Plaintiff has not suffered prejudice because the Personnel Transfer

Requirements document is largely duplicative of documents already a part of the case or other

witnesses would not have knowledge of this document. The Personnel Transfer Requirements

document is a safety procedure used by ExxonMobil for its employees and made available upon

request for contractors, like Skelton’s, and it does discuss when a person should make his swing.

See [Doc. 233 at 1]; see also Bedgood Depo. at 74:15–21 (Upstream Safety Manual available to

Skelton’s). However, Skelton’s had training policies in place that already discussed when a

person should make his swing. See Exh. 1 to Harrington Depo. at 5, 7. Plaintiff admitted that

prior to the accident he had seen the part of Skelton’s safety policy that discussed the swing rope

transfer procedure. Harrington Depo. at 26:8–27:8. Accordingly, ExxonMobil’s Personnel

20
 DOCUMENT 261

Transfer Requirements document repeats information Mr. Harrington admits he already received

before his accident, thus there is no new information that would prejudice Plaintiff.

Other witnesses likely would not have any additional knowledge of the Personnel

Transfer Requirements document that would be relevant to this case. Plaintiff specifically cites

seven witnesses he previously deposed—Greg Hrinsin (ExxonMobil employee), Kim

Munksgaard (ExxonMobil employee), Shaun Bedgood (ExxonMobil employee), Chris Esfeller

(P&E Crewboats employee), Stacy Perillo (P&E Crewboats employee), Avery Fick (Complete

Safety Works), and Scott Skelton (Skelton’s employee). [Doc. 225 at 2 & n.1]. To be sure,

Plaintiff previously deposed Greg Hrinsin as ExxonMobil’s corporate representative regarding

training, thus the Personnel Transfer Requirements document may be relevant to his testimony.

However, before Plaintiff filed his motion, ExxonMobil agreed to make Mr. Hrinsin available for

another deposition in his individual capacity to discuss topics not previously discussed in his first

deposition. See Email from R. Sewell to R. Hedge (June 22, 2021) (excerpt) (Exhibit U). Also, to

the extent Plaintiff wishes to elicit a response from ExxonMobil’s representative, Mr. Bedgood’s

deposition is open, and Plaintiff can depose Mr. Bedgood further on this document. Ms.

Munksgaard’s involvement in this case was that she led the investigation following Mr.

Harrington’s accident, and she was not local to Mobile Bay Operations to be able to speak to the

implication of the Personnel Transfer Requirements document for Mobile Bay—at least not be

able to speak to it better than Mr. Hrinsin or Mr. Bedgood. See Munksgaard Depo. at 28:19–21,

36:8–37:11 (her involvement in investigation and being based in Houston).

Mr. Esfeller and Ms. Perillo are P&E Crewboats employees, and their training is not at

issue. Mr. Esfeller had never had swing rope training to be able to discuss the topic. See Esfeller

Depo. at 116:4–6. Ms. Perillo testified as to her understanding of timing a swing by swing rope,

21
 DOCUMENT 261

which was consistent with the guidance in the Personnel Transfer Requirements document. See

Perillo Depo. at 88:19–89:6. Mr. Skelton similarly testified that a person should swing when the

boat is coming up, and there is no evidence to indicate he requested or saw the Personnel

Transfer Requirement document. See Skelton Depo. at 96:16–21. Thus, deposing Mr. Skelton

regarding the Personnel Transfer Requirements document would not add to the case. Finally, Ms.

Fick from Complete Safety Works made clear in her deposition that she received no documents

from ExxonMobil, so she would have never seen it. Not only is default (or any other sanction)

inappropriate, but widescale re-deposing of multiple witnesses also is not necessary because

Plaintiff has not suffered prejudice.

4. August 2012 Email from Chevron (Exhibit 9)

On June 23, 2021, ExxonMobil produced a 2012 email from employees of Chevron to

employees at ExxonMobil regarding Chevron’s swing rope safety protocols. See [Doc. 234]

(Pl.’s Exhibit 9). This email discusses Chevron’s requirements for swing rope transfers as a

sharing of information. Facially, the email does appear to be any governing document. Plaintiff

claims the email is responsive to Request No. 11. See [Doc. 225 at 13]. ExxonMobil disagrees.

As with the other documents, Request No. 11 does not appear to cover this email. The

request was vague. This email does not mention B-Deck or any ExxonMobil platforms.

Additionally, the email is not similar to a “pamphlet, book, booklet, [or] memorandum”

regarding transfers from B-Deck that ExxonMobil would expect those specific examples to guide

the general catchall of “other document.” See, e.g., Ex parte Mitchell, 989 So. 2d at 1091–93.

Moreover, the request’s inclusion of “in effect on February 15, 2018,” implies some directive or

guiding document that would have governed the conduct of individuals making transfers

offshore. ExxonMobil did not perceive the email as being any kind of publication that would

22
 DOCUMENT 261

have directed or mandated conduct relating to transfers; rather, the email was just a sharing of

information from another offshore energy company.

As with other documents, Exxon Mobil produced the email as responsive to Request

No. 6 in the Second Rule 30(b) Notice. Again, ExxonMobil produced this email before Mr.

Bedgood’s deposition, which is more than what Rule 30(b)(5) requires.

5. The Training Module (Exhibit 11)

On July 28, 2021, ExxonMobil produced the Training Module after Plaintiff requested it

as supplementation to ExxonMobil’s June 23 and 28 productions. See Pl.’s Exh. 11. Plaintiff

claims this document is responsive to Request No. 9: “All employee training video tapes, films,

photographs or other depictions used by or available to this Defendant which contain any

reference to the conduct of the employees of this Defendant during passenger transfer operations

aboard vessels similar in type and size as the M/V MISS KRISTIN.” See [Doc. 250 at 7].

ExxonMobil, subject to objections regarding overbreadth and relevance, agreed to produce

relevant materials. See [Doc. 65 at 2–3 (Responses to Request Nos. 7 and 9). ExxonMobil does

not interpret this request to include the Training Module.

The Training Module was not used in the United States, so it would not apply to Mobile

Bay’s operations. See Aff. of S. Bedgood at ¶ 7. Additionally, the Training Module was intended

for ExxonMobil employees. There is no indication that contractors’ employees like Plaintiff

would have ever had access to the Training Module. Because the Training Module would not be

provided to workers in Mobile Bay or to contractors’ employees, the Training Module has no

bearing on material facts, and its irrelevance makes it not subject to discovery. See Ala. R. Civ.

P. 26(a)(1); Drewes, 350 So. 2d at 403–04.

Additionally, Plaintiff has not suffered prejudice because information presented in the

Training Module is largely duplicative of information already a part of the case or other

23
 DOCUMENT 261

witnesses would not have knowledge of this document. As mentioned above, Skelton’s had

training policies in place that already discussed when a person should make his swing, and

Plaintiff admitted to having received that policy before the accident. See Exh. 1 to Harrington

Depo. at 5, 7; Harrington Depo. at 26:8–27:8. Accordingly, the Training Module repeats

information Mr. Harrington admits he already received before his accident, thus there is no new

information that would prejudice Plaintiff.

Other witnesses likely would not have any additional knowledge of the Training Module

that would be relevant to this case. In fact, Mr. Bedgood, ExxonMobil’s representative, testified

that he did not recall the Training Module. Bedgood Depo. at 93:8–12. However, the platform

“GOTS eLearning,” was for ExxonMobil employees. See id. at 92:7–16. Mr. Hrinsin,

ExxonMobil’s earlier representative, was only noticed regarding personnel transfer training for

ExxonMobil employees and non-employees in the Gulf of Mexico. 6 See First Rule 30(b) Notice

at 2. Because the first notice’s topics were limited to the Gulf of Mexico and to information

provided to people not employed by ExxonMobil, the Training Module would not have been

relevant or subject to the deposition notice. Also, to the extent Plaintiff wishes to elicit testimony

from ExxonMobil’s representative, Mr. Bedgood’s deposition is open, and Plaintiff can depose

Mr. Bedgood further on this material. Ms. Munksgaard’s involvement in this case makes it

unlikely that she can speak to the Training Module at all. Because this particular training module

was for ExxonMobil employees outside the United States, non-ExxonMobil witnesses would not

be able to testify about the Training Module either. Because of the limited effect the Training

6
As mentioned above, ExxonMobil has also already agreed to make Mr. Hrinsin available for another deposition in
his individual capacity to testify to topics not initially part of Mr. Hrinsin’s depositon.

24
 DOCUMENT 261

Module will have on witnesses and its inapplicability to Mobile Bay, Plaintiff has not suffered

prejudice.

6. The Job-Safety Analysis (Exhibit 10)

With the Training Module, ExxonMobil also produced three job-safety analyses,

including the Swing-Rope JSA, that are within the Training Module. See [Doc. 252] (Pl.’s

Exh. 10). Plaintiff claims this document is responsive to Request No. 8: “All employee training

booklets, manuals or bulletins which relate in any way, or contain instructions to employees of

this Defendant, as to their responsibilities with respect to passenger transfer aboard vessels

similar in type and size as the M/V MISS KRISTIN.” See [Doc. 250 at 5]. ExxonMobil, subject

to objections regarding overbreadth and relevance, agreed to produce relevant materials. See

[Doc. 65 at 2–3 (Responses to Request Nos. 7 and 8). Plaintiff also claims that the Swing Rope

JSA is responsive to Plaintiff’s requests for the first deposition of ExxonMobil’s representative.

See [Doc. 250 at 2]. Those requests sought testimony and documents addressing:

No. 1: Any and all training, instructions, or safety information provided to

individuals, not employed by Exxon, who board or plan on boarding one of your
rigs in the Gulf of Mexico.

No. 2: Any and all training and/or instructions provided to Exxon employees
regarding transferring from one of your rigs onto crewboats, and from crewboats
onto one of your rigs, in the Gulf of Mexico.

First Rule 30(b) Notice at 1–2.

Because the Training Module was not used in the United States, the related job-safety

analyses (including the Swing Rope JSA) would not have been used in the United States either,

and the Swing Rope JSA would not apply to Mobile Bay’s operations. See Aff. of S. Bedgood at

¶¶ 7, 9. Additionally, the Swing Rope JSA was intended for ExxonMobil employees; there is no

indication that contractors’ employees like Plaintiff would have ever had access to the Training

Module. See Aff. of S. Bedgood at ¶ 7; see also [Doc. 252] (document includes acronym

25
 DOCUMENT 261

“EMPC” for ExxonMobil Production Company); Bedgood Depo. at 92:7–16 (GOTS eLearning

limited to ExxonMobil employees). The Swing Rope JSA also describes the task as “Swing

Rope from Kizomba A & B to field service vessels Debbie Tide & Midway Tide.” [Doc. 252].

This is more evidence that the Swing Rope JSA was not implemented in the United States

because Kizomba A and B refer to offshore platforms off the coast of Angola. See B.D. Boles &

G.E. Mayhall, Paper presented at the Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, Texas:

Kizomba A and B: Projects Overview (May 1, 2006), https://doi.org/10.4043/17915-MS (last

visited August 19, 2021). Because the Training Module and the associated Swing Rope JSA

would not be provided to workers in Mobile Bay or to contractors’ employees, the Swing Rope

JSA has no bearing on material facts, and its irrelevance makes it not subject to discovery. See

Ala. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1); Drewes, 350 So. 2d at 403–04.

Plaintiff’s argument that Mr. Hrinsin was less than honest in his deposition is also

without merit. The party noticing a representative deposition must state “with reasonable

particularity the matters on which examination is requested.” Ala. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6). Referring

back to the topics of the deposition, Mr. Hrinsin was asked to testify regarding training or safety

topics related to the Gulf of Mexico. See First Rule 30(b) Notice at 2. Based on these topics,

ExxonMobil made its reasonable efforts to prepare Mr. Hrinsin to testify on the noticed topics.

With the topics limited to the Gulf of Mexico, ExxonMobil was not on notice to prepare Mr.

Hrinsin to speak on matters outside of the United States.

For the same reasons Plaintiff has not suffered prejudice regarding the Training Module,

Plaintiff has not suffered prejudice regarding the Swing Rope JSA.

7. The Go/No-Go Matrix (Exhibit 12)

The 2016 Studies ExxonMobil produced June 23, 2021, included portions of images of

the Go/No-Go Matrix that were part of the discussions of safety steps for ExxonMobil to

26
 DOCUMENT 261

consider. See [Doc. 229 at 12; Doc. 231 at 11]. The Go/No-Go image produced had some text at

the bottom cut off. After ExxonMobil produced the 2016 Studies, Plaintiff’s counsel requested

ExxonMobil produce the complete image. See Email from R. Hedge to R. Sewell (June 28,

2021) (Exhibit V). ExxonMobil began searching for the complete images, but they were not

located in advance of Mr. Bedgood’s deposition. See Bedgood Depo. at 171:12–172:7.

ExxonMobil located a better copy of the Go/No-Go Matrix and produced it on July 28, 2021. See

[Doc. 250 at 1–2]. ExxonMobil’s counsel did not have the complete Go/No-Go Matrix before

Plaintiff asked for it specifically. See Aff. of R. Sewell at ¶ 23.

Plaintiff claims the Go/No-Go Matrix is responsive to Request Nos. 7, 8, 10, and 11 of

his initial requests for production. See [Doc. 250 at 11–12].

The Go/No-Go Matrix is potentially responsive to Request No. 7, and it potentially

would be responsive to requests in the First Rule 30(b) Notice. However, the late production was

not willful. As explained above, ExxonMobil did not consider looking for the 2016 Studies as

responsive to the initial requests, thus ExxonMobil did not think to look for the Go/No-Go

Matrix. Additionally, a review of the May 2018 Mobile Bay Study indicates the Go/No-Go

Matrix was not implemented at the time of the accident. The May 2018 Mobile Bay Study makes

the proposal of implementing or posting the Go/No-Go Checklist, which indicates that measure

was not already in place. See [Doc. 232 at 6]. If the Go/No-Go Matrix was not implemented at

the time of Plaintiff’s injury, then it would not have been a rule, procedure, or recommendation

provided to ExxonMobil employees to consider when conducting swing rope transfers, which is

essentially what Plaintiff’s requests seek.

Specifically for Request No. 10, ExxonMobil objected to this request as vague because

“documents relating to any passenger transfer” is not clear. See [Doc. 65 at 3]. Again,

27
 DOCUMENT 261

ExxonMobil interpreted the request to ask for documents or materials regarding specific

transfers. Even if Plaintiff intended for Request No. 10 to encompass documents like the Go/No-

Go Matrix, ExxonMobil should be excused from not reaching that conclusion based on the

awkward wording of the request.

Moreover, during Mr. Bedgood’s deposition, Plaintiff’s counsel asked Mr. Bedgood

about the portions of the Go/No-Matrix that were available, and Mr. Bedgood testified to his

knowledge of the recommendations in the checklist. With Mr. Bedgood’s deposition still open,

Plaintiff’s counsel will have to opportunity to ask further questions about the remaing portions of

the Go/No-Go Matrix.

8. ExxonMobil had no motive to withhold the documents.

Plaintiff argues that ExxonMobil suppressed these documents because they would be

harmful to ExxonMobil’s defense. See [Doc. 225 at 2]. Nothing could be farther from the truth.

The 2016 Studies and the May 2018 Mobile Bay Study show that ExxonMobil took steps to

evaluate methods of transferring people to and from offshore platforms and accounted for the

various risks and variables associated with those transfers. Not only that, ExxonMobil reached

out to other offshore companies for input on swing rope transfers. Finally, ExxonMobil put

together its Personnel Transfer Requirements document, which include timing considerations

and were available for Mr. Harrington’s employer to review and heed.

To be sure, the studies recognize there are dangers associated with all personnel

transfers—whether by swing rope or another method. But, most important, they show that swing

rope transfers had long been used and were extremely safe. In fact, the Plaintiff’s injury here is

the only injury from swing roping that had ever occurred in Mobile Bay. That is the best fact for

ExxonMobile in the entire case. Why would ExxonMobil try to hide the documents that show

28
 DOCUMENT 261

that fact. The materials are consistent with the testimony from ExxonMobil employees

throughout this case—ExxonMobil takes personnel transfers seriously and takes steps to reduce

the likelihood of injuries. And swing roping has been a very safe method to effect those transfers

in Mobile Bay.

III. Plaintiff Is Not Entitled to Punitive Damages.

In his motion, Plaintiff asks the Court to enter default and to allow Plaintiff to continue

with depositions to seek punitive damages. See [Doc. 225 at 19]. However, Plaintiff is not

entitled to punitive damages. As an initial matter, Plaintiff’s operative complaint has not

requested punitive damages nor raised a claim (e.g., wantonness) that permits punitive

damages—only negligence. See [Doc. 15 at 3] (¶ 8: “Plaintiff suffered injuries which resulted

from the negligence of Defendants”; ad damnum clause requesting compensatory damages,

costs, and interest). Plaintiff’s limnitation of his claim to negligence was entirely appropriate, as

the Eleventh Circuit has consistently maintained that punitive damages are not available in

personal injury claims under general maritime law. See, e.g., Eslinger v. Celebrity Cruises, Inc.,

772 F. App’x 872, 872–73 (11th Cir. 2019) (mem. op.) (citing In re Amtrak Sunset Ltd. Train

Crash in Bayou Canot, Ala. on Sept. 22, 1993, 121 F.3d 1421, 1429 (11th Cir. 1997); Lollie v.

Brown Marine Serv., Inc., 995 F.2d 1565, 1565 (11th Cir. 1993)). 7. Accordingly, the Court

should deny Plaintiff’s efforts to seek punitive damages.

7
United States Supreme Court has held punitive damages are recognized under general maritime law in certain
cases. Atl. Sounding Co. v. Townsend, 557 U.S. 404, 424 (2009). However, the Eleventh Circuit has since ruled, at
least twice, that the holding of Atlantic Sounding is limited and permits punitive damages only under instances of
willful or wanton disregard for maintenance and cure. See Eslinger, 772 F. App’x at 873; Petersen v. NCL
(Bahamas) Ltd., 748 F. App’x 246, 251–52 (11th Cir. 2018). There are no such allegations in this case.

29
 DOCUMENT 261

Conclusion

The Court should deny Plaintiff’s motions for sanctions. ExxonMobil has not violated

any orders of this Court. This dispute does not involve willful discovery abuses, rather it is a

disagreement over the responsiveness of documents to Plaintiff’s various document requests.

Discovery remains open, and the disputed documents were all produced voluntarily. For these

reasons, ExxonMobil asks the Court to deny Plaintiff’s motions.

/s/ M. Christian King

One of the Attorneys for ExxonMobil Corporation

OF COUNSEL:
M. Christian King (KIN017)
[email protected]
Robert J. “Jay” Sewell (SEW007)
[email protected]
LIGHTFOOT, FRANKLIN & WHITE, LLC
The Clark Building
400 20th Street North
Birmingham, Alabama 35203
(205) 581-0700
(205) 581-0799

30
 DOCUMENT 261

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

This is to certify that on August 31, 2021, I filed the foregoing electronically using the

Alafile system, which will serve all counsel of record:

Robert J. Hedge (HED003)

[email protected]
HEDGE COPELAND, P.C.
1206 Dauphin Street
Mobile, AL 36604
(251) 432-8844
(251) 432-8555 (Facsimile)

Richard W. Fuquay (FUQ003)

[email protected]
FUQUAY LAW FIRM
1206 Dauphin Street
Mobile, AL 36604
(251) 473-4443
(251) 432-8555 (Facsimile)

Attorneys for Plaintiff

Brian P. McCarthy (MCC053)

[email protected]
Jonathan M. Lieb (LIE004)
[email protected]
T. Hart Benton, III (BEN085)
[email protected]
MCDOWELL KNIGHT ROEDDER & SLEDGE, LLC
P.O. Box 350
Mobile, Alabama 36601
(251) 432-5300
(251) 432-5303 (Facsimile)
Attorneys for Defendant P&E Crewboats, Inc.

/s/ M. Christian King

Of Counsel
 DOCUMENT 262
ELECTRONICALLY FILED
8/31/2021 4:49 PM
02-CV-2018-903102.00
CIRCUIT COURT OF
MOBILE COUNTY, ALABAMA
JOJO SCHWARZAUER, CLERK

EXHIBIT A
 DOCUMENT 262

1 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF

2 MOBILE COUNTY, ALABAMA

4 CASE NO: 02-CV-2018-903102

5
A D A M P . H A R R I N G T O N,
6

7 P l a i n t i f f,

8
Vs.
9

10 P&E C R E W B O A T S, I N C., e t a l.,

11
D e f e n d a n t s.
12

13

14
The 30(b)(5)&(6) Deposition of
15
E X X O N M O B I L C O R P O R A T I O N, t a k e n
16
through its representative
17
GREG A. HRINSIN, at the law offices
18
of Hedge Copeland, PC, 1206 Dauphin
19
Street, Mobile, Alabama, on January
20
20, 2020, commencing at approximately
21
9:25 a.m.
22

23
 DOCUMENT 262

119

1 Mischaracterizes your previous question.

2 You asked him what was Skelton's provided.

3 T h e n a s e c o n d a g o y o u s a i d M r . H a r r i n g t o n.

4 MR. HEDGE: That's fine. Okay.

5 Q. And you don't --

6 A. I can speak to that Skelton's

7 would have been given the requirements --

8 Q. W h a t r e q u i r e m e n t s?

9 A. -- in this next -- right here.

10 Q. Where?

11 A. On Document 2. R e q u i r e m e n t s.

12 P e r s o n n e l. ExxonMobil --

13 Q. Hold on.

14 THE COURT REPORTER: One at a

15 time, please.

16 Q. R e q u i r e m e n t s. Down here at the

17 bottom?

18 A. It's right here. It's on the

19 front page. Requirements.

20 Q. And it says -- they've got one

21 dot. Starts with Personnel (EM and

22 C o n t r a c t o r s) - -

23 A. -- p e r m a n e n tl y a s s i g n e d t o
 DOCUMENT 262

120

1 offshore installations where the use of a

2 swing rope is the primary means of

3 transferring between the boat and platform

4 a r e r e q u i r e d t o s u c c e s s f u ll y d e m o n s t r a t e t h e

5 a b o v e s w i n g r o p e d e m o n s t r a t i o ns a t a m i n i m u m

6 interval not to exceed (12) months.

7 Q. Okay.

8 A. That is provided to the

9 c o n t r a c t o r s.

10 Q. W e m a y b e g e t t i n g s o m e w h e r e, o k a y?

11 And thank you for pointing that out.

12 A. Yes, sir.

13 Q. So what this down here at the

14 bottom is, because it does say EM -- what's

15 EM?

16 A. E x x o n M o b i l.

17 Q. So both ExxonMobil and

18 c o n t r a c t o r s, s u c h a s M r . H a r r i n g t o n,

19 p e r m a n e n tl y a s s i g n e d t o o f f s h o r e

20 i n s t a l l a t i o ns .

21 A. That would be the employee -- or

22 w e d o h a v e c o n t r a c t o r s t h a t a r e p e r m a n e n tl y

23 assigned there.
 DOCUMENT 262

121

1 Q. Yeah, but Mr. Harrington is not

2 p e r m a n e n tl y a s s i g n e d.

3 A. He still had to demonstrate it

4 within 12 months in order to go offshore.

5 Q. And I'm just bringing that up.

6 B e c a u s e i t d o e s l i m i t i t t o p e r m a n e n tl y

7 a s s i g n e d e m p l o y e e s.

8 A. Yes, sir.

9 Q. Let's go to the next page. I

10 think this is probably the portion that's

11 g o i n g t o a p p l y t o M r . H a r r i n g t o n. Same

12 thing except it applies to visitors and

13 personnel temporarily assigned to offshore

14 w o r k a r e a s a r e r e q u i r e d t o s u c c e s s f u ll y

15 c o m p l e t e t h e a b o v e s w i n g r o p e d e m o n s t r a t i o ns

16 before traveling to offshore installations.

17 A. That is correct.

18 Q. That would apply to Mr.

19 H a r r i n g t o n.

20 A. Yes, it would.

21 Q. And the above swing rope

22 demonstrations would be the 1, 2, 3 and 4.

23 A. That is correct.
 DOCUMENT 262

198

1 You understand -- is it your

2 understanding that Skelton's was an

3 independent contractor for Exxon?

4 A. Yes.

5 Q. If you will turn then to page

6 ExxonMobil Harrington 000091. It's

7 Exhibit G.

8 A. Okay.

9 Q. I t's S e c t i o n 1, t h i r d p a r a g r a p h.

10 Contractor is responsible for training its

11 employees in safe working practices and

12 p r o c e d u r e s. D i d I r e a d t h a t c o r r e c t l y?

13 A. Yes.

14 Q. Is it your understanding that --

15 you know, we talked about what was in the

16 contract and things like that. Is it

17 E x x o n' s e x p e c t a t i o n, a s s h o w n i n t h i s

18 contract and in its practice, that when it

19 comes to training employees for what they

20 need to know for their job, it's the

21 c o n t r a c t o r, t h e c o m p a n y, l i k e S k e l t o n' s ,

22 their job?

23 A. T o t r a i n t h e i r e m p l o y e e s, y e s.
 DOCUMENT 262

199

1 Q. So Exxon does not take on training

2 c o n t r a c t o r e m p l o y e e s.

3 A. No, sir.

4 Q. I'll point you then again to,

5 later in Exhibit G, ExxonMobil Harrington

6 000104.

7 A. Okay.

8 Q. Under Section F, second bullet

9 point, Training History. And as I read

10 this, the supplier, which again is

11 S k e l t o n's, a s s u r e s t h a t s u p p l i e r s' a n d

12 s u b-s u p p l i e r s' e m p l o y e e s h a v e b e e n t r a i n e d

13 in the safe performance of all aspects of

14 the work and/or situations normally

15 encountered in and around inland and

16 offshore oil fields, including but not

17 limited to safe ingress and egress on

18 o f f s h o r e p l a t f o r m s. Did I read that right?

19 A. You did.

20 Q. So basically this is Exxon telling

21 the contractor we rely on you to properly

22 train your people?

23 A. Yes, sir.
 DOCUMENT 263
ELECTRONICALLY FILED
8/31/2021 4:49 PM
02-CV-2018-903102.00
CIRCUIT COURT OF
MOBILE COUNTY, ALABAMA
JOJO SCHWARZAUER, CLERK

EXHIBIT B
 DOCUMENT 263
Shaun Bedgood 1

1 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF

2 MOBILE COUNTY, ALABAMA
3

4 CIVIL ACTION NO.: CV-2018-903102

5

6 ADAM P. HARRINGTON,
7 Plaintiff(s),
8 vs.
9 BARRY GRAHAM OFFSHORE SERVICES, LLC, et al.,
10 Defendant(s).
11

12

13

14 DEPOSITION OF
15 SHAUN D. BEDGOOD
16

17

18

19

20

21 BEFORE: Sabrina L. Nimmer, CSR

22 Court Reporter and
23 Notary Public
www.prolegalreporting.com 251.433.2678
 DOCUMENT 263
Shaun Bedgood 42

1 Munksgaard's and --
2 A. Greg Hrinsin.
3 Q. Hrinsin. Okay. And then you said
4 you reviewed the studies that we did. That
5 Exxon did, I assume?
6 A. Yes, Exxon, work. Yes, sir.
7 Q. The studies talking about the --
8 A. For swing rope and personnel
9 transfer methods.
10 Q. The 2016 studies?
11 A. Yeah. I mean, I looked through
12 that and the 2018 as well.
13 Q. Okay. And those studies, they were
14 basically to examine -- well, the first one
15 in the 2016 study, there's two of them here.
16 One is a study and one is an analysis.
17 Those were just Exxon's attempt to identify
18 potential hazards and figure out the best
19 way to minimize those hazards; right?
20 A. It was a study to see what -- you
21 know, what options were viable for personnel
22 transfer globally and in Mobile Bay. That
23 was the two that was before, and then what
www.prolegalreporting.com 251.433.2678
 DOCUMENT 263
Shaun Bedgood 43

1 kind of best practices were within industry

2 and --
3 Q. And you said you reviewed a 2018
4 study. That's May of 2018; is that right?
5 A. Yeah. I reviewed it, yes, sir.
6 Q. And I take it that this -- this
7 appears to be a study that was undertaken as
8 a result of Mr. Harrington's injury.
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. Okay. And it was designed in order
11 to identify kind of what happened, analyze
12 what happened, and then come up and see if
13 there were other alternatives that may help
14 prevent this from happening?
15 A. I don't think it was designed to
16 identify what happened. That was a separate
17 investigation and altogether. This was to
18 look into potential other methods of
19 transfer to see if any of them were viable
20 for Mobile Bay.
21 Q. And it's got a lot of statistics in
22 there.
23 A. Uh-huh. Evaluating risks and
www.prolegalreporting.com 251.433.2678
 DOCUMENT 263
Shaun Bedgood 74

1 MR. KING: Object to the form.

2 MR. SEWELL: Object to the form.
3 MR. KING: Jay, object to the form.
4 MR. SEWELL: I did. You may not
5 have heard me. Sorry.
6 A. No. I don't know why the timing on
7 anything. I know at the time we were
8 reviewing other documents. I produced what
9 I thought was relevant. I didn't think
10 about this being part of it.
11 Q. You didn't think to go to the
12 safety manual when I asked for a safety
13 rule? Is that what you're testifying to?
14 MR. KING: Objection to the form.
15 A. I provided documents around the
16 incident or demonstration what we do for our
17 employees, as ExxonMobil employees; but, no,
18 I didn't -- I didn't pull the "Upstream
19 Safety Manual." Skelton, that was made
20 available to them. They agreed to this when
21 they agreed to do work for us.
22 Q. So when I asked for all safety
23 rules related to transferring passengers
www.prolegalreporting.com 251.433.2678
 DOCUMENT 263
Shaun Bedgood 77

1 stuff that we talked through and when we

2 talked to our -- do the demonstration and
3 trained our people.
4 Q. Again, you were aware, were you
5 not, that there was a section contained in
6 the ExxonMobil "Upstream Safety Manual" that
7 addressed personnel transfer requirements
8 without having to go and search, were you
9 not? You've been aware of that for years,
10 have you not?
11 MR. SEWELL: Object to the form.
12 A. I'm not aware of every piece --
13 every paper. There's 548 pages in our
14 "Upstream Safety Manual." I'm not aware of
15 everything that's in it but I --
16 Q. In 2019 when Mr. Sewell filed the
17 responses with the court, the only two
18 documents that we received was a swing rope
19 proficiency and a Mobile Bay Orientation
20 document, okay, that dealt with anything
21 dealing with transferring -- how to transfer
22 safety rules. Anything like that, okay?
23 That's the only two documents that were
www.prolegalreporting.com 251.433.2678
 DOCUMENT 263
Shaun Bedgood 78

1 responsive to number seven.

2 Number eight, it says, employee
3 training booklets that relate to
4 instructions that Exxon gives to transfer
5 people.
6 Number ten, number eleven and
7 number thirteen -- my question to you is, in
8 March of 2019, were you aware when you gave
9 some of the documents to Mr. Sewell that
10 there was a safety manual that contained a
11 section entitled, "Personnel Transfer
12 Requirements"?
13 MR. SEWELL: Object to the form.
14 A. At the time, I did not think to
15 reference the safety manual to see to
16 provide that.
17 Q. Okay.
18 A. Because that's what it is. It's a
19 reference material for when we need to know
20 something, we look and see what's there for
21 that purpose. I provided what I thought was
22 adequate at the time, which is our
23 demonstration, the orientation materials
www.prolegalreporting.com 251.433.2678
 DOCUMENT 263
Shaun Bedgood 92

1 stands for, you don't know what ISO risk

2 evaluation tools would be, do you?
3 MR. SEWELL: Object to the form.
4 Q. Unless you're just guessing.
5 MR. SEWELL: Object to the form.
6 A. That's fair.
7 Q. GOTS eLearning module, do you know
8 what that is?
9 A. So at that time, GOTS, we just
10 called it GOTS, was our training --
11 computer-based training kind of -- I won't
12 call it a software, but it was what we used
13 for our employees to train through our
14 computer-based training. There would be
15 different modules for different subjects.
16 We would do it for lots of different things.
17 Q. Like what?
18 A. So there's different regulatory
19 requirements. We would have one for spill
20 response, hazardous materials, how to label
21 hazardous materials, how to transport
22 hazardous materials, H2S --
23 Q. Hydrogen sulfide?
www.prolegalreporting.com 251.433.2678
 DOCUMENT 263
Shaun Bedgood 93

1 A. -- competency training. Yes.

2 Q. Okay.
3 A. We had many computer-based training
4 modules to complete a year.
5 Q. And there was a --
6 A. They was a compliance training
7 section.
8 Q. There was a GOTS module for
9 transferring from platforms to boats?
10 A. It shows one in here. I honestly
11 don't recall if that was in place for us at
12 Mobile Bay or not.
13 Q. You said it shows one in here. Is
14 that this --
15 A. I think there's a picture of the
16 GOTS training in here.
17 Q. Page 295?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. So this GOTS eLearning module --
20 I've seen these before in different
21 settings. Employees can take this training
22 online?
23 A. Yes.
www.prolegalreporting.com 251.433.2678
 DOCUMENT 263
Shaun Bedgood 171

1 MR. SEWELL: Object to the form.

2 A. That's not always true. That's not
3 always the case.
4 Q. Going back to 296 right here, it
5 says, "Next steps. Finalize the Global
6 Recommended Practices, Go/no-go criteria."
7 I think that is talking about if you go to
8 page 294 on the left-hand side of that 294
9 has got swing ropes.
10 MR. HEDGE: All the way down and
11 blow that up, that swing rope right there.
12 Q. Okay. Here is my question. I've
13 already asked your lawyer and didn't get a
14 response back. This is cut off at the
15 bottom. Do you see that?
16 A. Uh-huh.
17 Q. Sir?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. Where is the rest of it?
20 A. I don't know.
21 Q. Why isn't it here today on this
22 table?
23 MR. SEWELL: I will say we've asked
www.prolegalreporting.com 251.433.2678
 DOCUMENT 263
Shaun Bedgood 172

1 them to look for it and we're still looking

2 for it.
3 Q. I'm asking Exxon why isn't that
4 here on this table?
5 A. I don't know. I didn't know that
6 it was -- I didn't know the situation. I
7 don't know what's left or what's cut off.
8 Q. So we're going to have to come back
9 and do this deposition and finish it up.
10 You realize that, don't you?
11 MR. SEWELL: Object to the form.
12 A. No, I don't realize that.
13 Q. Because its -- there are several
14 things on here that you can see; but going
15 over the ones we can at the bottom, it says,
16 "Personnel Readiness." And it talks about
17 next step, need to finalize the
18 global-recommended practices; and one of
19 them is -- this is the go/no-go document
20 apparently that Exxon created; is that
21 right?
22 A. That's what it looks like.
23 Q. Okay. When I hear go/no-go, do you
www.prolegalreporting.com 251.433.2678
 DOCUMENT 263
Shaun Bedgood 179

1 know if you know what information is

2 supposed to be conveyed to the person using
3 the swing rope as part of the safety
4 briefing.
5 A. I know what we tell our employees
6 to do, the discussions we have prior to
7 making transfers.
8 Q. Okay. Let me stop you right there.
9 Exxon has implemented a safety briefing for
10 its employees prior to them transferring
11 onto a vessel?
12 MR. SEWELL: Object to the form.
13 A. No.
14 Q. Okay. You know what information is
15 given to your employees?
16 A. I know what we trained our
17 people -- our employees to do which is stop,
18 assess the seas, take your time, make sure
19 you're comfortable with making the transfer.
20 If it's a group of you, then you talk about
21 it before you do it.
22 Q. Okay.
23 A. You always have the ability to stop
www.prolegalreporting.com 251.433.2678
 DOCUMENT 263
Shaun Bedgood 180

1 the work, to not do it, or to intervene on

2 somebody if you feel it's unsafe before they
3 do it.
4 Q. And where does that training take
5 place?
6 A. What is stop work authority
7 training?
8 Q. That training you just described,
9 where does that training take place?
10 A. It's a discussion had every year
11 when we do our demonstration deficiency.
12 Q. And so I think you told me earlier
13 that the demonstration itself is not
14 training but this is what you would consider
15 to be part of the training; right?
16 A. In the discussion we had, yes.
17 Q. Okay.
18 A. Because we hit on timing, we hit on
19 things from the safety manual, we talk about
20 checking the rope for hooks. We go
21 through -- as part of that, we have the
22 discussion around it, which rope does what,
23 how you abort, when you would need to abort.
www.prolegalreporting.com 251.433.2678
 DOCUMENT 263
Shaun Bedgood 181

1 All of that.
2 Q. You kind of go through the entire
3 list of risks involved in making sure that
4 you identify them if there are any and then
5 try to avoid them and how to do it safely
6 ultimately?
7 MR. SEWELL: Object to the form.
8 Q. Right?
9 A. Yes, safely.
10 Q. And where is that training -- where
11 does that training take place for Exxon
12 employees?
13 A. Where?
14 Q. Yes. Where?
15 A. At our facility.
16 Q. Our facility where?
17 A. OTF where our demonstrator is --
18 where our swing rope demonstrator is.
19 Q. What is OTF? Another acronym.
20 Sorry.
21 A. Onshore treating facility is the
22 plant where the office is in Mobile Bay or
23 was.
www.prolegalreporting.com 251.433.2678
 DOCUMENT 263
Shaun Bedgood 345

1 (Whereupon, a short break was

2 taken.)
3

4 MR. HEDGE: Just for purposes of

5 today and for this deposition, we're going
6 to mark as exhibits -- I'm going to change
7 this up. Where is my 4? I haven't talked
8 about it yet. Exhibit 4 is going to be the
9 Chevron email, okay? It's 1 through 24,
10 okay? And 23 is going to be the --
11 MR. SEWELL: Organizational chart?
12 MR. HEDGE: What's it called?
13 MR. SEWELL: Organizational chart.
14 MR. HEDGE: Yeah. 23 will be the
15 organizational chart.
16

17 (Whereupon, Plaintiff's Exhibit

18 Nos. 1-24 were marked for identification and
19 same are attached hereto.)
20

21 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Back on the

22 record at 5:17 p.m.
23 MR. HEDGE: Okay. We've decided to
www.prolegalreporting.com 251.433.2678
 DOCUMENT 263
Shaun Bedgood 346

1 adjourn this is deposition, I guess is what

2 the word is, because of time and whatnot.
3 We've marked as Exhibits 1 through 24 to be
4 included as part of the record. I've got
5 hard copies. We've got electronic copies.
6 And we'll just go ahead and get back
7 together about reconvening at some time in
8 the future fairly soon.
9 MR. SEWELL: Agreed.
10 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Day one of the
11 deposition is concluded at 5:19 p.m.
12

13 FURTHER DEPONENT SAITH NOT

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

www.prolegalreporting.com 251.433.2678
 DOCUMENT 264
ELECTRONICALLY FILED
8/31/2021 4:49 PM
02-CV-2018-903102.00
CIRCUIT COURT OF
MOBILE COUNTY, ALABAMA
JOJO SCHWARZAUER, CLERK

EXHIBIT C
 Complete Safety Works Inc.
90 N. Sage Ave. Mobile, Alabama 36607 251 479-6788

Adam Harrington
has on this date, successfully demonstrated

Swing Rope Transfer Techniques

Guidelines developed and required for offshore personnel by Exxon Mobil
include:
1. 5 second hang, slick rope - Pass
2. Swing to raised deck, knotted rope- Pass
3. Swing from raised deck, slick rope- Pass
4. Aborted swing, knotted rope- Pass

February 6, 2018

Ste en F. Fick
Instructor

Skelton00017
 DOCUMENT 265
ELECTRONICALLY FILED
8/31/2021 4:49 PM
02-CV-2018-903102.00
CIRCUIT COURT OF
MOBILE COUNTY, ALABAMA
JOJO SCHWARZAUER, CLERK

EXHIBIT D
DOCUMENT 265
DOCUMENT 265
DOCUMENT 265
DOCUMENT 265
DOCUMENT 265
DOCUMENT 265
 DOCUMENT 266
ELECTRONICALLY FILED
8/31/2021 4:49 PM
02-CV-2018-903102.00
CIRCUIT COURT OF
MOBILE COUNTY, ALABAMA
JOJO SCHWARZAUER, CLERK

EXHIBIT E
 DOCUMENT 266
Adam P. Harrington

1 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF

MOBILE COUNTY, ALABAMA
2

3 ADAM P. HARRINGTON,
4 Plaintiff,
5 vs. CASE NO. CV-2018-903102
6 BARRY GRAHAM OIL SERVICE, LLC,
EXXON MOBIL CORPORATION, et al.,
7
Defendants.
8

9 * * * * * * * * * *
10 DEPOSITION OF ADAM PARKER HARRINGTON
11 * * * * * * * * * *
12 In accordance with Rule 5(d) of the
13 Alabama Rules of Civil Procedure, as Amended,
14 I, Audrey Kirkland, am hereby delivering to
15 Mr. Jonathan M. Lieb the original transcript of
16 the oral testimony taken on Tuesday,
17 October 22, 2019, along with exhibits.
18 Please be advised that this is the same
19 and not retained by the Court Reporter, nor
20 filed with the Court.
21 * * * * * * * * * *
22

23

www.prolegalreporting.com 251.433.2678
 DOCUMENT 266
Adam P. Harrington 21

1 involved going offshore, were you still trained

2 on the offshore aspects of the Skelton's
3 manual?
4 A. I do not recall if I had done any
5 the year that I was hired.
6 Q. Okay. But you were trained on the
7 offshore aspects of their manual before you
8 went offshore; is that correct?
9 A. Yes, sir.
10 Q. All right. And one thing you said,
11 TVTC, what is that?
12 A. I believe it stands for Tennessee
13 Valley Training Center. But there's a location
14 in Mobile that used to be on Halls Mill Road, I
15 believe. They've moved.
16 Q. Okay. Now, does Skelton's also
17 utilize Complete Safety Works, Inc., as a
18 third-party safety training company?
19 A. Yes, sir.
20 Q. And did you go to Complete Safety
21 Works, Inc., to have some training?
22 A. Yes, sir.
23 Q. All right. I want to show you what

www.prolegalreporting.com 251.433.2678
 DOCUMENT 266
Adam P. Harrington 22

1 I'll mark as Exhibit 1 to your deposition. And

2 I'll represent to you that these are documents
3 that we got from Skelton's.
4 (Defendants' Exhibit Number 1 was
5 marked for identification. A
6 copy is attached.)
7 A. Yes --
8 Q. All --
9 A. -- sir.
10 Q. -- right. Now, the bottom right-
11 hand corner where it says "Skelton," and this
12 one starts off with 632 --
13 A. Uh-huh.
14 Q. -- those are numbers we stick on
15 there. So you've never seen those before.
16 That's just so we can kind of talk about them
17 here but --
18 A. Yes, sir.
19 Q. So, again, I'll represent to you, I
20 asked for -- I asked Skelton's for their --
21 their safety manual that was in place at the
22 time of the -- the incident, and this was what
23 was represented to me as -- as being the part

www.prolegalreporting.com 251.433.2678
 DOCUMENT 266
Adam P. Harrington 23

1 of that safety manual that dealt with offshore

2 safety. Okay?
3 A. (Witness nodded.)
4 Q. Now, having said that background, do
5 you recognize the document that I've marked as
6 Exhibit 1?
7 A. Yes, sir.
8 Q. All right. And were you trained on
9 this document by your employer, Skelton's?
10 A. Yes, sir.
11 Q. All right. Tell me what Skelton's
12 did as far as training you on this aspect of
13 their safety manual.
14 A. We -- typically we go over --
15 they'll have it -- it's read over with
16 everybody. Anything that needs to be cleared
17 up as far as questions that people have, if
18 something's not clear to you, you ask that,
19 it's gone over. And like I said, in the safety
20 meetings, this is also gone over. There's a
21 company that does that for us and they'll go
22 over it. And there's a test, or a quiz, I'd
23 say, that you -- it's multiple choice -- and

www.prolegalreporting.com 251.433.2678
 DOCUMENT 266
Adam P. Harrington 26

1 annual basis?
2 A. Yes, sir.
3 Q. Okay. And Number 2 under that says:
4 All personnel authorized and trained in swing
5 rope transfer will be given a copy of the,
6 quote, swing rope transfer procedure to review
7 before each job task requiring this task.
8 If you'll flip over to six -- the next
9 page, 638, there's a document titled Swing Rope
10 Transfer Procedure. Have you seen that
11 document before?
12 A. Yes, sir.
13 Q. And were you given this document to
14 review by Skelton's or one of the third-party
15 training folks?
16 A. I do not recall if I had it.
17 Q. You do recall hav- -- having seen
18 this document?
19 A. Yes, sir. I do not recall receiving
20 it before that time going offshore.
21 Q. Okay. When do you recall receiving
22 it?
23 A. The swing rope training that I had

www.prolegalreporting.com 251.433.2678
 DOCUMENT 266
Adam P. Harrington 27

1 the year before, so I guess that'd be 2017.

2 Q. Okay. So what you're saying is you
3 don't recall getting this right before the trip
4 that you went offshore where the accident
5 occurred but you have received this document
6 prior to the accident at some point; is that
7 correct?
8 A. Yes, sir.
9 Q. All right. How many times did
10 you -- were you trained on the swing rope
11 procedures prior to the accident?
12 A. I'm trying to recall. Twice.
13 Q. Okay. And was that done by the --
14 the third party, Complete Safety Works?
15 A. Yes, sir.
16 Q. Let me show you -- keep that
17 document in front of you because we're not done
18 with it yet but . . .
19 Let me show you what I'll mark as
20 Exhibit 2.
21 (Defendants' Exhibit Number 2 was
22 marked for identification. A
23 copy is attached.)

www.prolegalreporting.com 251.433.2678
 DOCUMENT 267
ELECTRONICALLY FILED
8/31/2021 4:49 PM
02-CV-2018-903102.00
CIRCUIT COURT OF
MOBILE COUNTY, ALABAMA
JOJO SCHWARZAUER, CLERK

EXHIBIT F
 DOCUMENT 267

Loss Prevention
Skelton's Fire & Equipment, Inc. Environmental & Regulatory Compliance
Policies & Procedures Number
Offshore Safety, Personnel Transfer and 2018-04
Page 1 of 6
Revision:
Working Near or Over Water A
Approval: Date:
January 1, 2018

I. PURPOSE

This procedure has been prepared for the guidance of all personnel involved in offshore
transport, personnel transfer and working near water.

IL SCOPE

This policy/procedure covers provisions to prevent injury, loss of life or property and applies
to all Skelton's Fire & Equipment personnel involved in Offshore work including personnel
transfer.

III. POLICY STATEMENT

All personnel/employees have the best opportunity to avoid accidents or property damage by
Incident Investigation and Reporting to address proper recognition and assessment of hazards
likely to be encountered. Such circumstances may occur where:

3.1 All personnel/employee(s) do not know or do not follow the policies and guidelines set
forth within this procedure. These employees include, but are not limited to, the
following personnel:

A. Management

B. Supervisor/Superintendent

C. Authorized Personnel/Employee

D. Affected Personnel/Employee

3.2 Authorized personnel do not perform as outlined in this procedure.

3.3 Training is not performed before the personnel/employee.

All personnel, employees, their supervisors/superintendents and management share full

responsibility for the performance of the Incident Investigation and Reporting program.

Prepared by:
Bonner's Safety Service, Inc.

Skelton 000632
 DOCUMENT 267

Loss Prevention
Skelton's Fire & Equipment, Inc. Environmental & Regulatory Compliance
Policies & Procedures
Offshore Safety, Personnel Transfer and Revision A Page 2 of 6
Working Near or Over Water

VI. RESPONSIBILITIES

ft is the responsibility of Management and all employees to read and understand the safety
procedure for the Incident Investigation and Reporting Program.

6.1 Management is responsible for:

A. Establishing procedures for the Offshore Safety, Personnel Transfer and Working
Near or Over Water Program.

B. Designating the Supervisor/Superintendent responsible for Offshore Safety,

Personnel Transfer and Working Near or Over Water Program.

C. Assuring that a financial plan and time is allowed for certified training of all
personnel/employees affected by working Offshore.

D. Adhering to the Offshore Safety, Personnel Transfer and Working Near or Over
Water Program at all times.

6.2 The HSE Director, Supervisors/Superintendents, Group Leaders, Line Leaders are
responsible for:

A. Supervisors are responsible for verifying that all assigned employees have the
required training and to coordinate any additional required training with the
contractor which requires the employees of Skelton's Fire & Equipment to work
offshore, or requires them to transfer from any vessel to a work platform or work
near or over water.

B. Adhering to the Offshore Safety, Personnel Transfer and Working Near or Over
Water Program at all times.

6.3 Personnel/Employee will:

1. Receive training in all areas of Offshore Safety, Personnel

Transfer and Working Near or Over Water supplied by
Skelton's Fire & Equipment, Inc. and taught by their third party
training consultant.

2. Adhere to the Offshore Safety, Personnel Transfer and Working

Near or Over Water Program at all times.
Prepared by:
Bonner's Safety Service, Inc.

Skelton 000633
 DOCUMENT 267

Loss Prevention
Skelton's Fire & Equipment, Inc. Environmental & Regulatory Compliance
Policies & Procedures
Offshore Safety, Personnel Transfer and Revision A
Page 3 of 6
Working Near or Over Water

VII. PROCEDURE

A. All Skelton's Fire & Equipment personnel that provide offshore services or work near or
over water and personnel traveling offshore will abide by this section of the safety manual.

B. All employees assigned to an offshore work will attend any required orientation and will
annually complete all "Water Safety" type training required including Personnel Transfer
provided by Skelton's Fire & Equipment, Inc. through their third party consultant.

C. Training records will be maintained and kept by Skelton's Fire & Equipment, Inc.

D. General Safety Rules

In addition to the Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) requirements, safety
rules and procedures found elsewhere in the Skelton's Fire & Equipment Safety
Manual, the following general safety rules will also apply for all Personnel
assigned to work at offshore locations:

1. Work clothing will be comprised of clean well-fitting clothing in good

condition that cover your legs, body and upper arms.
2. All Flame Retardant (FR) clothing, if required on the facility, will be
worn with sleeves rolled down and fully buttoned.
3. Employees working over or near water shall be provided with a U.S.
Coast Guard-approved life jacket or buoyant work vest when the danger of
drowning exists.
4. Workers shall inspect buoyant work vests or life preservers for defects
which could alter their strength or buoyancy prior to, and after, each use.
5. Defective units shall not be used and shall be discarded.
6. Ring buoys must be provided with at least 90 feet of line and the distance
between ring buoys may not exceed 200 feet. (Lead personnel should check
with the lead personnel of the offshore platform or contractor to ensure this
provision / requirement is met).
7. Entry into the water is prohibited unless it is the only means of evacuation.
8. At least one lifesaving skiff shall be made immediately available when
employees are working over or adjacent to water.

Prepared by:
Bonner's Safety Service, Inc.

Skelton 000634
 DOCUMENT 267

Loss Prevention
Skelton's Fire & Equipment, Inc. Environmental & Regulatory Compliance

Policies & Procedures

Offshore Safety, Personnel Transfer and Revision A
Page 4 of 6
Working Near or Over Water

9. Employees working over or near water must be adequately trained in their

responsibilities and the safe work practices associated with their task.
10. Employees, who will be performing work over or near water, where the
danger of drowning exists, are not permitted to work alone at any time.

E. Crew Boat Transfer & Transport

Personnel being transferred to or from offshore locations by boat must adhere to
the following:

1. All vessel captains are required to be licensed by the property authorities.

2. The vessel captain has full authority during boarding, loading, when
underway and disembarking procedures.
3. The vessel captain has the authority to refuse passage to anyone considered
an unsafe passenger or anyone refusing to wear a Personal Flotation Device
(PFD).
4. All personnel must receive a safety briefing before boarding any vessel. o
Follow the deckhand's instructions on boarding the vessel.
5. All hazardous material shall be properly identified, classified, named,
packaged, marked, labeled and manifested.
6. All cargo must be stowed and secured as directed by the vessel crew. o No
Smoking except in designated areas.
7. All personnel must wear life vest while on deck or transferring to and from
the vessel.
8. Personnel must be familiar with emergency exits and the location of life
boats and lifesaving equipment.
9. "Man Overboard" must be shouted in the event of a person falling in the
water. Inform the captain and crew immediately.

The vessel captain has absolute authority during all stages of the voyage.
Personnel must follow the captain's instructions at all times!

Prepared by:
Bonner's Safety Service. Inc.

Skelton 000635
 DOCUMENT 267

Loss Prevention
Skelton's Fire & Equipment, Inc. Environmental & Regulatory Compliance
Policies & Procedures
Offshore Safety, Personnel Transfer and Revision A
Page 5 of 6
Working Near or Over Water

F. Swing Ropes
Transfers by swing rope are not recommended, but if necessary, personnel being
transferred to or from vessels by swing rope must adhere to the following:

1. Life vest or personal flotation devices must be worn while using a swing
rope.
2. Personnel must have both hands and arms free.
3. Personnel must position themselves on the deck as directed by the captain.
4. Catch the knotted end of the rope. Do not let the rope get between your
legs.
5. Wait until the boat is at the top of a swell then push off with your feet and
swing to the structure.
6. After landing on deck, release the rope and turn to assist the next person.

G. Personnel Baskets
Personnel being transferred to or from vessels by personnel baskets must adhere to
the following:

1. Life vest or work vest must be worn while using a personnel basket.
2. Know the maximum number of persons allowed on the personnel basket
(typically 4). Never exceed this number. Reduce the number by half in
rough weather.
3. Personnel must position themselves on the deck as directed by the captain.
4. Personnel must never stand under the personnel basket.
5. Personnel must never ride in the middle of the personnel basket.
6. Personnel must stand on the outside rim of the basket and grasp the upright
basket ropes. Be prepared for sudden movement.

H. Reporting to Facility Supervisor upon Arrival

Once on the offshore facility, report immediately to the individual in charge.
Know your responsibilities in the event of an emergency. Personnel must know
the following:

1. Know your duties in the event of an emergency.

2. Know the location of all life craft and life-saving equipment.
Prepared by:
Bonner's Safety Service, inc.

Skelton 000636
 DOCUMENT 267

Loss Prevention
Skelton's Fire & Equipment, Inc. Environmental & Regulatory Compliance
Policies & Procedures
Offshore Safety, Personnel Transfer and Revision A
Page 6 of 6
Working Near or Over Water

7.3 TRAINING AND RETRAINING

A. Training:

I. Training will be completed on an annual basis.

7. All personnel authorized and trained in Swing Rope Transfer will be
given a copy of the "Swing Rope Transfer Procedure" to review before
each job task requiring this task (see attached).

C. Retraining:

1. Retraining will be completed when an employee shows lack of

knowledge, understanding or skill sets involving any aspect of Offshore
Safety or Personnel Transfer.
2. Retraining will also be completed when any incident occurs whether it is
a near-miss or when an injury occurs.

7.4 RECORDS

A. Training records will be kept for the duration of employment.

Prepared by:
Bonner's Safety Service, Inc.

Skelton 000637
 DOCUMENT 267

Swing Rope Transfer Procedure

Swing ropes are used to transfer workers from boats to the landing area of the platform. During
moderate to heavy seas, using a swing rope can be quite demanding. Safety should always come first!

Follow these guidelines when transferring workers using the swing rope:

1. Deck hands should always be present to perform swing rope.

2. Unless an authorized person approves, transfers should occur during daylight hours.
3. Workers should face the boat when it is at a safe position as determined by the Boat Captain.
4. If seas allow the boat to bump the structure, workers should face where the boat is bumping
against the offshore structure.
5. Boat or platform landing area lighting must be adequate.

Follow these procedures when transferring to platform:

1.Make sure both hands and arms are free.

2.Catch the knotted rope when the boat is at top of a swell. Grab the knotted rope high enough
to clear the catwalk.
3. Swing as boat dips down from the highest point of a wave. Do not jump.
4. Wait until the boat is on top of a swell. Swing to the structure by pushing off from the boat with
your feet.
5. Always keep feet and legs clear of the structure's landing, keep legs and feet away from boat
bumpers and do not let the swing rope get between your legs.
6. Don personal floatation device. Wear an appropriate Type I Personal Floatation Device (PFD).
7. Do not carry any items while transferring by swing rope. Transfer bags, tools or equipment
separately.
8. ATTEMPT TRANSFER ONLY WHEN YOU ARE READY, DO NOT JUMP!
9. Be alert for next person. Assist in steading other passengers.

Passengers Transferring To Boat:

1. Make sure both hands and arms are free.

2. Don personal floatation device. Wear an appropriate Type I Personal Floatation Device (PFD).
3. Grab the knotted rope high enough to clear boat deck.
4. Swing as the boat is beginning to rise.
5. Time swing to land on boat deck as it completes its rise. Do not jump.
6. Do not carry any items while transferring by swing rope. Transfer bags, tools or equipment
separately.
7. ATTEMPT TRANSFER ONLY WHEN YOU ARE READY, DO NOT JUMP!

If at any time you are unsure of yourself or your limitations to complete this
task DO NOT ATTEMPT the swing. Always remember that your safety is the first
priority to yourself and Skelton's Fire & Equipment, Inc.

Skelton 000638
 DOCUMENT 268
ELECTRONICALLY FILED
8/31/2021 4:49 PM
02-CV-2018-903102.00
CIRCUIT COURT OF
MOBILE COUNTY, ALABAMA
JOJO SCHWARZAUER, CLERK

EXHIBIT G
 DOCUMENT 268

Subject: Harrington
Date: Thursday, October 31, 2019 at 3:19:27 PM Central Daylight Time
From: Richard Fuquay
To: Robert J. Sewell
CC: Robert Hedge

Jay:
We have a couple issues we need to address concerning your client's document producMon. The first issue involves
documents related to training they give concerning swing rope transfers. RFPs 7, 8, 9, and 11 seek documents related
to any such training. The response to RFP no. 7 and the others by reference is "Subject to and without waiving its
objecMons, Exxon Mobil will produce relevant policies, procedures, and training materials upon entry of an
appropriate protecMve order." Have you produced any documents responsive to these requests? If so, please
idenMfy which documents by their Bates numbers. If not, please produce any such documents. In this same vein,
your response to interrogatory number 17 menMons guidelines your client provides to contractors concerning swing
rope training for the contractor's employees and an orientaMon and informaMon your client provides itself to the
contractor's employees concerning the safe use of swing ropes. Please produce all documents related to the
orientaMon and informaMon referenced in your answer.

The second issue concerns RFP number 20 which seeks documents related to the services provided by P&E to your
client on the date of Adam's injury. You agreed to produced a copy of the contract between Exxon Mobil and P&E
but the Charter itself references a Vessel Order and 4 related documents which are exhibits to the sample Vessel
Order at the back of the Charter. It seems that there should be completed documents for the Miss Kristen. Please
produce any such Vessel Orders or related documents.

Please produce the documents discussed above within the next 10 days so we can avoid filing a moMon.

Richard W. Fuquay
FUQUAY LAW FIRM
1206 Dauphin Street
Mobile, Alabama 36604
(251) 473-4443

Page 1 of 1
 DOCUMENT 269
ELECTRONICALLY FILED
8/31/2021 4:49 PM
02-CV-2018-903102.00
CIRCUIT COURT OF
MOBILE COUNTY, ALABAMA
JOJO SCHWARZAUER, CLERK

EXHIBIT H
 DOCUMENT 269

1 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF

2 MOBILE COUNTY, ALABAMA

4 CASE NO: 02-CV-2018-903102

5
A D A M P . H A R R I N G T O N,
6

7 P l a i n t i f f,

8
Vs.
9

10 P&E C R E W B O A T S, I N C., e t a l.,

11
D e f e n d a n t s.
12

13

14
DEPOSITION TESTIMONY OF:
15 STACY JEAN PERILLO

16

17

18

19
DATE: November 6, 2019
20
TIME: 8:58 a.m.
21

22 REPORTED BY: Daphne M. Cotten, CSR

23
 DOCUMENT 269

88

1 a r e t i m e s w h e n I ' m , s a y, i n t h e w h e e l h o u s e.

2 And if I'm tied to the dock, people can

3 board the vessel when the gangway is there.

4 And as long as my deckhand is there to

5 assist with bags, then I may or may not see

6 them come aboard.

7 Q. I know. But your authority as

8 captain is not diminished for some reason

9 d u r i n g a b o a r d i n g o p e r a t i o n. In other

10 words, you're still in charge, right?

11 A. I'm in charge of the vessel.

12 Q. Always, right?

13 A. Yes.

14 Q. Okay. Let's talk about -- in your

15 statement -- in here you say that he swung

16 when the boat was dropping and he failed to

17 slide down the rope. He basically dropped

18 three feet.

19 Based on your training, tell me

20 about when you're supposed to -- the timing

21 of your swing in a swing rope transfer.

22 A. You're supposed to time your swing

23 to where the vessel is coming up. So as

 DOCUMENT 269

89

1 you're swinging out, the vessel comes up and

2 you have a minimum drop.

3 Q. Is the goal for you to make

4 contact at the apex of the movement of the

5 boat?

6 A. Correct.

7 Q. Is that what you were taught, or

8 is that what you watching --

9 A. That's what is taught in the swing

10 rope class.

11 Q. The one you took; is that right?

12 A. Yes.

13 Q. I mean, you don't know what was

14 taught in the swing rope class that Mr.

15 Harrington took, right?

16 A. I was not there. No.

17 Q. Do you believe there is a standard

18 s w i n g r o p e t r a n s f e r p r o t o c o l o r p r o c e d u r e?

19 A. Yes.

20 Q. T e l l m e w h a t a l l i s e n c o m p a s se d b y

21 that.

22 A. The two different ropes. The

23 slick rope is the rope that you're supposed

 DOCUMENT 270
ELECTRONICALLY FILED
8/31/2021 4:49 PM
02-CV-2018-903102.00
CIRCUIT COURT OF
MOBILE COUNTY, ALABAMA
JOJO SCHWARZAUER, CLERK

EXHIBIT I
 DOCUMENT 270

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF MOBILE COUNTY, ALABAMA

ADAM P. HARRINGTON, *

Plaintiff, *

v. * CV-2018-903102

BARRY GRAHAM OFFSHORE *

SERVICES, LLC, et al.,
*
Defendants.
*

30(b)(5) & (6) NOTICE OF DEPOSITION OF DEFENDANT

EXXON MOBIL CORPORATION

TO: All Counsel of Record

DEPONENT: Exxon Mobil Corporation

DATE: January 20, 2020

TIME: 9:30 a.m.

LOCATION: Hedge Copeland, P.C.

1206 Dauphin Street
Mobile, Alabama 36604

Please take notice that at the time, date and location indicated above, pursuant

to the Alabama Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 30(b)(5) and (6), Plaintiff will take the

deposition of Exxon Mobil Corporation upon oral examination before an officer

authorized to administer oaths. The oral examination will continue from day to day until

completed, and you are invited to attend and examine the deponent.

Pursuant to Rule 30(b)(5) and (6) of the Alabama Rules of Civil Procedure, the

matters on which examination is requested, and the documents requested to be

produced, are as follows:

 DOCUMENT 270

1. Any and all training, instructions, or safety information provided to

individuals, not employed by Exxon, who board or plan on boarding one of your rigs in

the Gulf of Mexico.

2. Any and all training and/or instructions provided to Exxon employees

regarding transferring from one of your rigs onto crewboats, and from crewboats onto

one of your rigs, in the Gulf of Mexico.

Further, note that pursuant to Rule 30 (b)(6), said corporation “shall designate

one or more officers, directors, managing agents, or other persons who consent to

testify on its behalf,” and “the persons so designated shall testify as to matters known or

reasonably available to said corporation.”

Pursuant to Rule 30(b)(5), Plaintiff requests that, at the time and place of the

taking of said deposition, said corporation produce for inspection and copying THE

ORIGINAL AND/ OR AN ACCURATE AND LEGIBLE REPRODUCTION of each

document requested above.

Done this 13th day of January, 2020.

HEDGE COPELAND, P.C.,

Attorneys for Plaintiff,

/s/ Robert J. Hedge

ROBERT J. HEDGE (HED003)
1206 Dauphin Street
Mobile, Alabama 36604
Telephone: (251) 432-8844
Facsimile: (251) 432-8555
[email protected]
 DOCUMENT 270

OF COUNSEL:

FUQUAY LAW FIRM

Richard W. Fuquay
1206 Dauphin Street
Mobile, Alabama 36604
Telephone: (251) 473-4443
Facsimile: (251) 432-8555
[email protected]

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on this the 13th of January, 2020, a copy of the above and
foregoing document was electronically filed with the Clerk of the Court using the E-File
system, which will send notification of such filing to the following:

John Lieb
McDowell Knight Roedder & Sledge
[email protected]
RSA Battle House Tower
11 North Water St. Suite 13290
P.O. Box 350
Mobile, AL 36601

Robert J. “Jay” Sewell

[email protected]
LIGHTFOOT, FRANKLIN & WHITE, L.L.C.
The Clark Building
400 20th Street North
Birmingham, Alabama 35203

/s/ Robert J. Hedge

 DOCUMENT 271
ELECTRONICALLY FILED
8/31/2021 4:49 PM
02-CV-2018-903102.00
CIRCUIT COURT OF
MOBILE COUNTY, ALABAMA
JOJO SCHWARZAUER, CLERK

EXHIBIT J
 DOCUMENT 271

1 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF

2 MOBILE COUNTY, ALABAMA

4 CASE NO: CV-2018-903102

5
A D A M P . H A R R I N G T O N,
6

7 P l a i n t i f f,

8
Vs.
9

10 BARRY GRAHAM OFFSHORE

SERVICES, LLC, et al.,
11

12 D e f e n d a n t s.

13

14

15

16 The 30(b)(5)&(6) Video/Webcast

17 Deposition of Complete Safety Works,

18 Inc. taken through its representative

19 AVERY P. FICK, at the offices of

20 Complete Safety Works, Inc., 90 N. Sage

21 Avenue, Mobile, Alabama, on May 27,2020,

22 commencing at approximately 9:25 a.m.

23
 DOCUMENT 271

37

1 A. Yes, sir.

2 Q. The guidelines were developed and

3 required for offshore personnel by

4 E x x o n M o b i l. You have to -- that's what you

5 -- you're issuing a certificate of that. So

6 that's the state of the facts when you issue

7 t h i s c e r t i f i c a t e, r i g h t?

8 A. T h a t w a s m y u n d e r s t a n d i n g, y e s .

9 Q. Okay. When we subpoenaed records

10 earlier in this case we asked for a copy of

11 a n y g u i d e l i n e s. If there are a written set

12 of guidelines that were developed by Exxon

13 utilized in connection with this testing and

14 required for personnel that worked offshore

15 on Exxon rigs.

16 A. We were never given written

17 guidelines, no.

18 Q. Okay. All right. Did you get

19 guidelines in some other manner besides

20 getting written ones?

21 A. Yes, sir.

22 Q. Okay. Tell me about that.

23 A. When they called and asked us if

 DOCUMENT 271

43

1 to do it, such as that?

2 A. Not at all.

3 Q. And am I right Stephen conducted

4 the test which is reflected in the

5 certificate from February 1, 2016? He's not

6 qualified to do training on swing rope

7 methods, is he?

8 A. That's true.

9 Q. Okay. And you're not either as

10 you sit here today.

11 A. No, we are not swing rope

12 trainers.

13 Q. Okay. We were talking about the

14 approved vendor's list that you're on with

15 Exxon. What did your company have to do to

16 get on that list?

17 A. Well, there's a quite -- it

18 depended on what the training was. In the

19 case of CPR First Aid, they had a list of

20 approved agencies. And we taught those

21 sorts of trainings. Like American Heart,

22 American Safety & Health, like that.

23 American Red Cross.

 DOCUMENT 272
ELECTRONICALLY FILED
8/31/2021 4:49 PM
02-CV-2018-903102.00
CIRCUIT COURT OF
MOBILE COUNTY, ALABAMA
JOJO SCHWARZAUER, CLERK

EXHIBIT K
 DOCUMENT 272

1 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT

2 OF MOBILE COUNTY, ALABAMA

3
4 ADAM P. HARRINGTON, )

5 Plaintiff, )

6 VS. )CIVIL ACTION NO:

7 BARRY GRAHAM OFFSHORE)02-CV-2018-903102

8 SERVICES, LLC, et al.)DEPOSITION OF:

9 Defendant. )SCOTT SKELTON

10
11 S T I P U L A T I O N S

12 IT IS STIPULATED AND AGREED, by and between

13 the parties through their respective counsel, that the

14 deposition of SCOTT SKELTON, may be taken before

15 Sandra Bain Moon, Commissioner and Notary Public,

16 State at Large, at the Law Offices of McDowell,
17 Knight, Roedder & Sledge, LLC, 11 North Water Street,

18 Suite 13290, Mobile, Alabama 36602, on the 15th day

19 of June, 2020, commencing at 9:00 a.m.

20

21

22
23

Bain & Associates Court Reporting Services, Inc.

1-888-326-0594 [email protected]
 DOCUMENT 272

17

1 Q. Do you mind putting the clip back on that

2 Number 1 there so those papers don't get mixed up?

3 A. (Witness complies.)
4 Q. Thank you very much.

5 And before you had this contract,

6 Mr. Skelton, you had another one?

7 A. Yes.

8 Q. And you've told me this written contract

9 encompasses your responsibility to Exxon Mobile and

10 their responsibility to you?

11 A. Yes.

12 Q. And as far as you know, your company has

13 done its best to fulfill its obligation?

14 A. Yes.

15 Q. Now, let me ask you about some of your

16 employee training, if I can switch gears with you.
17 Before a Skelton employee was allowed to go

18 offshore, did that employee receive any training?

19 A. Yes.
20 Q. And can you -- let me ask you this first.

21 Did the employee receive some written materials to

22 study?
23 A. Yes.

Bain & Associates Court Reporting Services, Inc.

1-888-326-0594 [email protected]
 DOCUMENT 272

20

1 through 631. But I know this was produced -- this was

2 shown during Harrington's deposition.

3 MR. LIEB: Right. It's Exhibit 1.

4 MR. HEDGE: And does it end right there at

5 -- is that the end of the document, 637? I mean, is

6 that all of -- there's more documents out there?

7 MR. LIEB: One additional page that I have

8 is 638.

9 MR. HEDGE: Just to be clear from a

10 production standpoint, the documents produced by

11 Skelton would be documents 1 through 638?

12 MR. LIEB: I believe so.

13 MR. HEDGE: Okay.

14 MR. KING: And I'm about to mark 638, so --

15 MR. HEDGE: I've got it. I just didn't --

16 I was trying to figure out how it was with the
17 numbers.

18 Q. (By Mr. King) So, Mr. Skelton, this is a

19 portion of the safety manual, and it has a revision

20 date of January 1, 2018.

21 Does this appear to be the portion of the

22 manual that would have been in effect at the time of

23 Mr. Harrington's accident?

Bain & Associates Court Reporting Services, Inc.

1-888-326-0594 [email protected]
 DOCUMENT 272

21

1 A. Yes.

2 Q. And if you'll look at that last page

3 there under "Training." Look at the last page

4 where it says, "Training and Retraining." Do you

5 see where I am?

6 A. Yes.
7 Q. And under A, training on 2, it says

8 this: "All personnel authorized and trained in

9 Swing Rope Transfer will be given a copy of the

10 'Swing Rope Transfer Procedure' to review before

11 each job task requiring this task."

12 Do you see that?

13 A. Yes.
14 (Defendant's Exhibit 4 was

15 marked for identification.)

16 Q. All right. Let me show you a document
17 that came from your file -- I think it's Skelton

18 638 that the lawyers were just talking about

19 that's called "Swing Rope Transfer Procedure" --

20 and ask you if this appears to be the document

21 that the employee is to be given in accordance

22 with that last page of the safety manual record

23 portion that we read?

Bain & Associates Court Reporting Services, Inc.

1-888-326-0594 [email protected]
 DOCUMENT 272

22

1 A. I don't -- I don't recall seeing this

2 document.

3 Q. Okay. Do you think that reference in

4 Exhibit 3 that we read on the last page might refer to

5 some other swing rope transfer procedure document?

6 A. I don't know.
7 Q. Okay.

8 A. I just don't recall seeing this particular

9 document.

10 Q. Do you know how it made its way into your

11 file?

12 A. No. My guess -- and, again, I guess -- the

13 lady that was responsible for maintaining these

14 documents and getting whatever is asked for got this

15 document and put it in the PSM manual. I just don't

16 recall seeing this document personally.
17 Q. Okay. Is it -- since it's titled the same

18 thing --

19 A. Yeah.
20 Q. -- that's referenced in Exhibit 3, is it

21 your best judgment that if this is what was in your

22 file, this Exhibit 4 would have been what was provided

23 to employees?

Bain & Associates Court Reporting Services, Inc.

1-888-326-0594 [email protected]
 DOCUMENT 272

23

1 A. Yes.

2 Q. Now, Mr. Harrington went to work for

3 Skelton's when?
4 A. I think it was in 2015, thereabouts.

5 Q. And would he have gone through the safety

6 training that you put employees through before he went

7 offshore?

8 A. Yes.

9 Q. All right. And would he have received and

10 expected to -- be expected to review this safety

11 manual?

12 A. No, they don't review the safety manual. We

13 do actual training sessions at our facility. Bonner

14 comes in and does all the compliance training. We

15 also go to things like PEC, T -- TSCI, where you go in

16 there for ten hours and they train you on all kind of
17 things, you know, electrical, safety, working at

18 heights, excavation, general safe work practices, you

19 know. You're required to do all this stuff before you

20 can go on any industrial plant. You go through

21 refreshers on an annual basis.

22 Q. And we also know that -- according to the

23 document we have, that Mr. Harrington would have gone

Bain & Associates Court Reporting Services, Inc.

1-888-326-0594 [email protected]
 DOCUMENT 272

96

1 improper timing? Is that -- I thought he had to swing

2 over when the boat was coming up.

3 A. So, what is your question?

4 Q. Well, I'm assuming -- when he told you, he

5 said, Look, I swung over, the boat came up and hit the

6 bottom of my foot and basically, at that point, all I

7 felt was pain, we know from a medical standpoint --

8 A. Uh-huh.

9 Q. -- that what happened was, when that boat

10 hit the bottom of his foot, force went up and

11 basically shattered his tibia --

12 A. Uh-huh.

13 Q. -- which ruptured his femur.

14 I'm trying to figure out -- because he said

15 poor technique caused the injury in this report.

16 I'm trying to figure out what poor technique
17 was it? Was it -- it wasn't the timing of swinging

18 over. It couldn't have been because I thought you had

19 to swing over when the boat was coming up?

20 A. That is true. That would be my

21 interpretation of the best method.

22 Q. Do you -- was your conclusion of poor

23 technique basically your belief or you're saying,

Bain & Associates Court Reporting Services, Inc.

1-888-326-0594 [email protected]
 DOCUMENT 273
ELECTRONICALLY FILED
8/31/2021 4:49 PM
02-CV-2018-903102.00
CIRCUIT COURT OF
MOBILE COUNTY, ALABAMA
JOJO SCHWARZAUER, CLERK

EXHIBIT L
 Loss Prevention
Skelton’s Fire & Equipment, Inc.
Environmental & Regulatory Compliance
Policies & Procedures Number
I
Offshore Safety, Personnel Transfer and 2018-04
I Page 1 of6
Revision: I
Working Near or Over Water A I
Approval: Date:
January 1, 2018

PURPOSE

This procedure has been prepared for the guidance of all personnel involved in offshore
transport, personnel transfer and working near water.

II. SCOPE

This policy/procedure covers provisions to prevent injury, loss of life or property and applies
to all Skelton’s Fire & Equipment personnel involved in Offshore work including personnel
transfer.

III. POLICY STATEMENT

All personnel/employees have the best opportunity to avoid accidents or property damage by
Incident Investigation and Reporting to address proper recognition and assessment of hazards
likely to be encountered. Such circumstances may occur where:

3.1 All personnel/employee(s) do not know or do not follow the policies and guidelines set
forth within this procedure. These employees include, but are not limited to, the
following personnel:

A. Management

B. Supervisor/Superintendent

C. Authorized Personnel/Employee

D. Affected Personnel/Employee

3.2 Authorized personnel do not perform as outlined in this procedure.

3.3 Training is not performed before the personnel/employee.

All personnel, employees, their supervisors/superintendents and management share full

responsibility for the performance of the Incident Investigation and Reporting program.

‘ DEFENDANT’S —

EXHIBIT
Prepared by:
Bonner’s Safety Service, Inc.

Skelton 000632
Ske]ton s Fire & Equipment, Inc. Loss Prevention
Environmental & Regulatory Compliance
Policies & Procedures
Offshore Safety, Personnel Transfer and A
Page 2 of 6
Working Near or Over Water

VI. RESPONSIBILITIES

It is the responsibility of Management and all employees to read and understand the safety
procedure for the Incident Investigation and Reporting Program.

6.1 Management is responsible for:

A. Establishing procedures for the Offshore Safety, Personnel Transfer and Working
Near or Over Water Program.

B. Designating the Supervisor/Superintendent responsible for Offshore Safety,

Personnel Transfer and Working Near or Over Water Program.

C. Assuring that a financial plan and time is allowed for certified training of all
personnel/employees affected by working Offshore.

D. Adhering to the Offshore Safety, Personnel Transfer and Working Near or Over
Water Program at all times.

6.2 The HSE Director, Supervisors/Superintendents, Group Leaders, Line Leaders are
responsible for:

A. Supervisors are responsible for verifying that all assigned employees have the
required training and to coordinate any additional required training with the
contractor which requires the employees of Skelton’s fire & Equipment to work
offshore, or requires them to transfer from any vessel to a work platform or work
near or over water.

B. Adhering to the Offshore Safety, Personnel Transfer and Working Near or Over
Water Program at all times.

6.3 Personnel/Employee will:

1. Receive training in all areas of Offshore Safety, Personnel

Transfer and Working Near or Over Water supplied by
Skelton’s Fire & Equipment, Inc. and taught by their third party
training consultant.

2. Adhere to the Offshore Safety, Personnel Transfer and Working

Near or Over Water Program at all times.

Prepared by:
Bonner’s Safeh’ Service, The.

Sketton 000633
Sketton s Fire & Equipment, Inc. Loss Prevention
Environmental & Regulatory Compliance
Policies & Procedures
Offshore Safety, Personnel Transfer and Revision A
Page 3 of 6
Working Near or Over Water

VII. PROCEDURE

A. All Skelton’s F ire & Equipment personnel that provide offshore services or work near or
over water and personnel traveling offshore will abide by this section of the safety manual.

B. All employees assigned to an offshore work will attend any required orientation and will
annually complete all “Water Safety” type training required including Personnel Transfer
provided by Skelton’s Fire & Equipment, Inc. through their third party consultant.

C. Training records will be maintained and kept by Skelton’s Fire & Equipment, Inc.

D. General Safety Rules

In addition to the Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) requirements, safety
rules and procedures found elsewhere in the Skelton’s F ire & Equipment Safety
Manual, the following general safety rules will also apply for all Personnel
assigned to work at offshore locations:

1. Work clothing will be comprised of clean well-fitting clothing in good

condition that cover your legs, body and upper arms.
2. All Flame Retardant (FR) clothing, if required on the facility, will be
worn with sleeves rolled down and fully buttoned.
3. Employees working over or near water shall be provided with a U.S.
Coast Guard-approved life jacket or buoyant work vest when the danger of
drowning exists.
4. Workers shall inspect buoyant work vests or life preservers for defects
which could alter their strength or buoyancy prior to, and after, each use.
5. Defective units shall not be used and shall be discarded.
6. Ring buoys must be provided with at least 90 feet of line and the distance
between ring buoys may not exceed 200 feet. (Lead personnel should check
with the lead personnel of the offshore platform or contractor to ensure this
provision / requirement is met).
7. Entry into the water is prohibited unless it is the only means of evacuation.
8. At least one lifesaving skiff shall be made immediately available when
employees are working over or adjacent to water.

Prepared by:
Bonner’s Safety Senice, Inc.

Skelton 000634
 Skelton s Fire & Equipment, Inc. Loss Prevention
Environmental & Regulatory Compliance
Policies & Procedures
Offshore Safety, Personnel Transfer and Revision A
Page 4 of 6
Working Near or Over Water

9. Employees working over or near water must be adequately trained in their

responsibilities and the safe work practices associated with their task.
10. Employees, who will be performing work over or near water, where the
danger of drowning exists, are not permitted to work alone at any time.

E. Crew Boat Transfer & Transport

Personnel being transferred to or from offshore locations by boat must adhere to
the following:

1. All vessel captains are required to be licensed by the property authorities.

2. The vessel captain has full authority during boarding, loading, when
underway and disembarking procedures.
3. The vessel captain has the authority to refuse passage to anyone considered
an unsafe passenger or anyone refusing to wear a Personal Flotation Device
(PFD).
4. All personnel must receive a safety briefing before boarding any vessel. o
follow the deckhand’s instructions on boarding the vessel.
5. All hazardous material shall be properly identified, classified, named,
packaged, marked, labeled and manifested.
6. All cargo must be stowed and secured as directed by the vessel crew. o No
Smoking except in designated areas.
7. All personnel must wear life vest while on deck or transferring to and from
the vessel.
8. Personnel must be familiar with emergency exits and the location of life
boats and lifesaving equipment.
9. “Man Overboard” must be shouted in the event of a person falling in the
water. Inform the captain and crew immediately.

The vessel captain has absolute authority during all stages of the voyage.
Personnel must follow the captain’s instructions at all times!

Prepared by:
Bonner’s Safety Service, Inc.

Skelton 000635
 Loss Prevention
Skelton s Fire & Equipment, Inc.
Environmental & Regulatory Compliance
Policies & Procedures
Offshore Safety, Personnel Transfer and Revision A
PageS of 6
Working Near or Over Water

F. Swing Ropes
Transfers by swing rope are not recommended, but if necessary, personnel being
transferred to or from vessels by swing rope must adhere to the following:

1. Life vest or personal flotation devices must be worn while using a swing
rope.
2. Personnel must have both hands and arms free.
3. Personnel must position themselves on the deck as directed by the captain.
4. Catch the knotted end of the rope. Do not let the rope get between your
legs.
5. Wait until the boat is at the top of a swell then push off with your feet and
swing to the structure.
6. After landing on deck, release the rope and turn to assist the next person.

G. Personnel Baskets
Personnel being transferred to or from vessels by personnel baskets must adhere to
the following:

1. Life vest or work vest must be worn while using a personnel basket.
2. Know the maximum number of persons allowed on the personnel basket
(typically 4). Never exceed this number. Reduce the number by half in
rough weather.
3. Personnel must position themselves on the deck as directed by the captain.
4. Personnel must never stand under the personnel basket.
5. Personnel must never ride in the middle of the personnel basket.
6. Personnel must stand on the outside rim of the basket and grasp the upright
basket ropes. Be prepared for sudden movement.

H. Reporting to Facility Supervisor upon Arrival

Once on the offshore facility, report immediately to the individual in charge.
Know your responsibilities in the event of an emergency. Personnel must know
the following:

1. Know your duties in the event of an emergency.

2. Know the location of all life craft and life-saving equipment.

Prepared by:
Bonner’s Safety Service, Inc.

Skelton 000636
Skelton’s Fire & Equipment, Inc. Loss Prevention
Environmental & Regulatory Compliance
Policies & Procedures
Offshore Safety, Personnel Transfer and Revision A

Working Near or Over Water

7.3 TRAINING AND RETRAINING

A. Training:

1. Training will be completed on an annual basis.

2. All personnel authorized and trained in Swing Rope Transfer will be
given a copy of the “Swing Rope Transfer Procedure” to review before
each job task requiring this task (see attached).

C. Retraining:

1. Retraining will be completed when an employee shows lack of

knowledge, understanding or skill sets involving any aspect of Offshore
Safety or Personnel Transfer.
2. Retraining will also be completed when any incident occurs whether it is
a near-miss or when an injury occurs.

7.4 RECORDS

A. Training records will be kept for the duration of employment.

Prepared by:
Bonner’s Safety Service, Inc.

Skelton 000637
 DEFENDANT’S

I
EXHBIT
I
Swing Rope Transfer Procedure
Swing ropes are used to transfer workers from boats to the landing area of the platform. During
moderate to heavy seas, using a swing rope can be quite demanding. Safety should always come first!

Follow these guidelines when transferring workers using the swing rope:

1. Deck hands should always be present to perform swing rope.

2. Unless an authorized person approves, transfers should occur during daylight hours.
3. Workers should face the boat when it is at a safe position as determined by the Boat Captain.
4. If seas allow the boat to bump the structure, workers should face where the boat is bumping
against the offshore structure.
5. Boat or platform landing area lighting must be adequate.

Follow these procedures when transferring to platform:

1. Make sure both hands and arms are free.

2. Catch the knotted rope when the boat is at top of a swell. Grab the knotted rope high enough
to clear the catwalk.
3. Swing as boat dips down from the highest point of a wave. Do not jump.
4. Wait until the boat is on top of a swell. Swing to the structure by pushing off from the boat with
your feet.
5. Always keep feet and legs clear of the structure’s landing, keep legs and feet away from boat
bumpers and do not let the swing rope get between your legs.
6. Don personal floatation device. Wear an appropriate Type I Personal Floatation Device (PFD).
7. Do not carry any items while transferring by swing rope. Transfer bags, tools or equipment
separately.
8. ATTEMPT TRANSFER ONLY WHEN YOU ARE READY, DO NOT JUMP!
9. Be alert for next person. Assist in steading other passengers.

Passengers Transferring To Boat:

1. Make sure both hands and arms are free.

2. Don personal floatation device. Wear an appropriate Type I Personal Floatation Device fPFD).
3. Grab the knotted rope high enough to clear boat deck.
4. Swing as the boat is beginning to rise.
5. Time swing to land on boat deck as it completes its rise. Do not jump.
6. Do not carry any items while transferring by swing rope. Transfer bags, tools or equipment
separately.
7. ATTEMPT TRANSFER ONLY WHEN YOU ARE READY, DO NOT JUMP!

If at any time you are unsure of yourself or your limitations to complete this
task DO NOT ATTEMPT the swing. Always remember that your safety is the first
priority to yourself and Skelton’s Fire & Equipment, Inc.

Skelton 000638
 DOCUMENT 274
ELECTRONICALLY FILED
8/31/2021 4:49 PM
02-CV-2018-903102.00
CIRCUIT COURT OF
MOBILE COUNTY, ALABAMA
JOJO SCHWARZAUER, CLERK

EXHIBIT M
 DOCUMENT 274
Chris Esfeller 1

1 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF

2 MOBILE COUNTY, ALABAMA
3

4 CIVIL ACTION NO.: CV-2018-903102

5

6 ADAM P. HARRINGTON,
7 Plaintiff(s),
8 vs.
9 BARRY GRAHAM OFFSHORE SERVICES,
10 LLC, et al.,
11 Defendant(s).
12

13

14

15 DEPOSITION OF
16 CHRIS ESFELLER
17

18

19

20

21 BEFORE: Sabrina L. Nimmer, CSR

22 Court Reporter and
23 Notary Public
www.prolegalreporting.com 251.433.2678
 DOCUMENT 274
Chris Esfeller 116

1 Q. Right. It appears to be for

2 training; right?
3 A. Yes, sir.
4 Q. Have you ever had swing rope
5 training?
6 A. No, sir.
7 Q. Do you know what swing rope
8 training would entail?
9 A. I just went through it.
10 Q. Or at least that part of it that
11 video applied to; right?
12 A. Yeah. I mean, a little common
13 sense would -- if you're a boat person and
14 outdoors man, I mean, it's almost common
15 sense to be able to pick up, --
16 Q. Right.
17 A. -- you know, something to have a
18 little knowledge about it but not --
19 Q. But if you're a land lover, you're
20 not a boat person, it would be less common
21 sense; right?
22 A. Yes, sir.
23 Q. We've talked about the Miss Kristen
www.prolegalreporting.com 251.433.2678
 DOCUMENT 274
Chris Esfeller 120

1 A. No, we did not.

2 Q. You don't have -- you didn't have
3 any video you showed them before they went
4 on or off the boat; right?
5 A. Right. No video or nothing.
6 Q. No handouts --
7 A. No, sir.
8 Q. -- with any instructions; right?
9 A. No, sir.
10 Q. You absolutely relied on Exxon for
11 that?
12 A. Yes, sir?
13 MR. SEWELL: Object to the form.
14 Q. Are you aware of any training such
15 as videos or handouts that Exxon gave to
16 passengers back in that time frame?
17 A. The only thing that I would know
18 about that would be that their orientation
19 that --
20 Q. Well, tell me what you know about
21 that.
22 A. The orientation that anyone that
23 was going on -- out to one of their
www.prolegalreporting.com 251.433.2678
 DOCUMENT 274
Chris Esfeller 121

1 platforms is they had to go through

2 orientation.
3 Q. Okay. Describe the orientation.
4 A. Well, the orientation is they show
5 you videos and the dos and the don'ts; and
6 at the end when they get through, they also
7 have an environment video to tell you about
8 cigarette butts and stuff like that. You
9 know, no trash overboard.
10 Q. Right.
11 A. And they talk about the safety
12 stuff like, you know, stop work. But at the
13 end, they have a -- they had a swing rope --
14 what's the word? I'm going to call it a
15 class. They also had a helo boarding class.
16 And they -- if the passengers were going to
17 the platform, then that option for like boat
18 people like us at the time, we had no
19 bearing on that. So we didn't have to go to
20 it. And so these passengers would go and
21 they would go back and they would do swing
22 rope and they would also do helo boarding.
23 So I never attended one of them.
www.prolegalreporting.com 251.433.2678
 DOCUMENT 275
ELECTRONICALLY FILED
8/31/2021 4:49 PM
02-CV-2018-903102.00
CIRCUIT COURT OF
MOBILE COUNTY, ALABAMA
JOJO SCHWARZAUER, CLERK

EXHIBIT N
 DOCUMENT 275

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF MOBILE COUNTY, ALABAMA

ADAM P. HARRINGTON, *

Plaintiff, *

v. * CV-2018-903102

BARRY GRAHAM OFFSHORE *

SERVICES, LLC, et al.,
*
Defendants.
*
NOTICE OF VIDEO DEPOSITION

TO: All Counsel of Record

DEPONENT: Kim Munksgaard

DATE: June 17, 2021

TIME: 10:00 a.m. CST

REPORTER: Patsy Cosson White-Spunner

Pro-Legal Court Reporting
[email protected]

VIDEOGRAPHER: David Scarborough

[email protected]
[email protected]

LOCATION: Via Zoom Video Conferencing

Hedge Copeland, P.C.
1206 Dauphin Street
Mobile, Alabama 36604

Please take notice that Hedge Copeland, P.C., attorney for Plaintiff, will take the

video deposition of the deponent named above at the time, date and location indicated

above, VIA ZOOM, upon oral examination pursuant to the Alabama Rules of Civil

Procedure before an officer duly authorized to administer oaths and swear witnesses. The
 DOCUMENT 275

oral examination will continue from day to day until completed, and you are invited to

attend and examine the deponent.

Done this 8th day of June, 2021.

HEDGE COPELAND, P.C.

Attorneys for the Plaintiff

/s/ Robert J. Hedge

ROBERT J. HEDGE (HED003)
1206 Dauphin Street
Mobile, Alabama 36604
Telephone: 251-432-8844
Facsimile: 251-432-8555
[email protected]

OF COUNSEL:

FUQUAY LAW FIRM

Richard W. Fuquay
1206 Dauphin Street
Mobile, Alabama 36604
Telephone: (251) 473-4443
Facsimile: (251) 432-8555
[email protected]

2
 DOCUMENT 275

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on this the 8th of June, 2021, a copy of the above and foregoing
document was electronically filed with the Clerk of the Court using the E-File system, which
will send notification of such filing to the following:

John Lieb
McDowell Knight Roedder & Sledge
RSA Battle House Tower
11 North Water St. Suite 13290
P.O. Box 350
Mobile, AL 36601

Robert J. “Jay” Sewell

LIGHTFOOT, FRANKLIN & WHITE, L.L.C.
The Clark Building
400 20th Street North
Birmingham, Alabama 35203

/s/ Robert J. Hedge

3
 DOCUMENT 276
ELECTRONICALLY FILED
8/31/2021 4:49 PM
02-CV-2018-903102.00
CIRCUIT COURT OF
MOBILE COUNTY, ALABAMA
JOJO SCHWARZAUER, CLERK

EXHIBIT O
 DOCUMENT 276

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF MOBILE COUNTY, ALABAMA

ADAM P. HARRINGTON, *

Plaintiff, *

v. * CV-2018-903102

BARRY GRAHAM OFFSHORE *

SERVICES, LLC, et al.,
*
Defendants.
*
NOTICE OF VIDEO DEPOSITION

TO: All Counsel of Record

DEPONENT: Shaun Bedgood

DATE: June 29, 2021

TIME: 9:30 a.m.

REPORTER: Patsy Cosson White-Spunner

Pro-Legal Court Reporting
[email protected]

VIDEOGRAPHER: David Scarborough

[email protected]
[email protected]

LOCATION: McDowell Knight Roedder & Sledge, LLC

11 North Tower Water Street, Suite 13290
Mobile, Alabama 36602

Please take notice that Hedge Copeland, P.C., attorney for Plaintiff, will take the

video deposition of the deponent named above at the time, date and location indicated

above, upon oral examination pursuant to the Alabama Rules of Civil Procedure before an

officer duly authorized to administer oaths and swear witnesses. The oral examination will

continue from day to day until completed, and you are invited to attend and examine the

deponent.
 DOCUMENT 276

Done this 8th day of June, 2021.

HEDGE COPELAND, P.C.

Attorneys for the Plaintiff

/s/ Robert J. Hedge

ROBERT J. HEDGE (HED003)
1206 Dauphin Street
Mobile, Alabama 36604
Telephone: 251-432-8844
Facsimile: 251-432-8555
[email protected]

OF COUNSEL:

FUQUAY LAW FIRM

Richard W. Fuquay
1206 Dauphin Street
Mobile, Alabama 36604
Telephone: (251) 473-4443
Facsimile: (251) 432-8555
[email protected]

2
 DOCUMENT 276

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on this the 8th of June, 2021, a copy of the above and foregoing
document was electronically filed with the Clerk of the Court using the E-File system, which
will send notification of such filing to the following:

John Lieb
McDowell Knight Roedder & Sledge
RSA Battle House Tower
11 North Water St. Suite 13290
P.O. Box 350
Mobile, AL 36601

Robert J. “Jay” Sewell

LIGHTFOOT, FRANKLIN & WHITE, L.L.C.
The Clark Building
400 20th Street North
Birmingham, Alabama 35203

/s/ Robert J. Hedge

3
 DOCUMENT 277
ELECTRONICALLY FILED
8/31/2021 4:49 PM
02-CV-2018-903102.00
CIRCUIT COURT OF
MOBILE COUNTY, ALABAMA
JOJO SCHWARZAUER, CLERK

EXHIBIT P
 DOCUMENT 277

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF MOBILE COUNTY, ALABAMA

ADAM P. HARRINGTON, *

Plaintiff, *

v. * CV-2018-903102

BARRY GRAHAM OFFSHORE *

SERVICES, LLC, et al.,
*
Defendants.
*

30(b)(5) & (6) NOTICE OF VIDEO DEPOSITION OF DEFENDANT

EXXON MOBIL CORPORATION

TO: All Counsel of Record

DEPONENT: Exxon Mobil Corporation

DATE: June 29, 2021

TIME: 9:30 a.m.

REPORTER: Patsy Cosson White-Spunner

Pro-Legal Court Reporting
[email protected]

VIDEOGRAPHER: David Scarborough

[email protected]
[email protected]

LOCATION: McDowell Knight Roedder & Sledge, LLC

11 North Tower Water Street, Suite 13290
Mobile, Alabama 36602

Please take notice that at the time, date and location indicated above, pursuant

to the Alabama Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 30(b)(5) and (6), Plaintiff will take the

video deposition of Exxon Mobil Corporation upon oral examination before an officer

authorized to administer oaths. The oral examination will continue from day to day until

completed, and you are invited to attend and examine the deponent.
 DOCUMENT 277

Pursuant to Rule 30(b)(5) and (6) of the Alabama Rules of Civil Procedure, the

matters on which examination is requested, and the documents requested to be

produced, are as follows:

1. Testimony and documents regarding the organizational structure of Exxon

as it relates to the Mobile Bay assets at the time of the incident made the basis of this

suit.

2. Testimony and documents regarding the business relationship between

Exxon and Otto Candies and/or P&E as it relates to transporting third party contractors

like Mr. Harrington to Exxon platforms.

3. Testimony and documents regarding any and all investigations into the

incident involving Mr. Harrington.

4. Testimony and documents regarding all Job Safety Analysis performed by

Exxon as to rope transfers, including any analysis of the dangers involved in swing rope

transfers.

5. Testimony and documents regarding other incidences of injury or near

misses involving swing rope transfers.

6. Testimony and documents regarding the methods and/or modes of

transferring personnel from boats to your platforms in light of the weather conditions

and/or experience of the individuals being transferred.

7. Testimony and documents concerning all communications between you

and Skelton regarding:

a. The paperwork required to be completed before a Skelton employee is

allowed to board an Exxon platform;

 DOCUMENT 277

b. The vendors that Exxon approved to provide Skelton employees swing

rope training.

8. Testimony and documents concerning all actions taken by you to

determine whether Mr. Harrington was sufficiently trained in swing rope transfers.

9. Testimony and documents regarding all communications with Complete

Safety Works regarding Complete Safety Works becoming an Exxon approved vendor

on swing rope transfer training.

10. Testimony and documents regarding any due diligence or investigation

conducted by you concerning Complete Safety Works’ competency to provide swing

rope training to individuals such as Mr. Harrington.

11. Testimony and documents as to any due diligence or investigation

conducted by you as to what services were provided by Complete Safety Works to

individuals such as Mr. Harrington.

12. Testimony and documents regarding any efforts taken on your part to

ensure that Complete Safety Works was properly training individuals such as Mr.

Harrington as to swing rope transfers.

13. Testimony and documents regarding the orientation given to contractors

like Mr. Harrington before being allowed to board one of your platforms. This is both

prior to and after the incident made the basis of this suit.

14. Testimony and documents regarding all communications between you

and Complete Safety Works concerning Complete Safety Works conducting Swing

Rope assessments for Exxon third party contractor employees, including

a. The identity of those Exxon employees who communicated with Complete

 DOCUMENT 277

Safety Works regarding performing such assessments;

b. The reasons for outsourcing said assessments;

c. Any information provided to Complete Safety Works related to performing

said assessments.

15. Testimony and documents regarding the training video produced by

Exxon in this case. This is to include all discussions, documents, or decisions

concerning the information included in the video.

16. Testimony and documents regarding the use of wristbands for those

individuals who are inexperienced in the use of rope transfer, including

a. How you determine who is required to wear such wristbands;

b. When this protocol of issuing wristbands was implemented;

c. Why this protocol of issuing wristbands was implemented;

d. The identify of those individuals who made the decision to implement

such protocols;

e. Your policies regarding advising the boat captain of the identity of those

individuals who are required to wear such wristband;.

17. Testimony and documents regarding the reasons for the termination of

the business relationship between Exxon and P&E as described in P&E’s 30(b)(6)

deposition.

18. Testimony and documents that address any coordination between Exxon

and P&E regarding protocols to be followed to ensure that third party contractors such

as Mr. Harrington are safely transported to and from a crewboat and an Exxon platform.

Further, note that pursuant to Rule 30 (b)(6), said corporation “shall desig nate
 DOCUMENT 277

one or more officers, directors, managing agents, or other persons who consent to

testify on its behalf,” and “the persons so designated shall testify as to matters known or

reasonably available to said corporation.”

Pursuant to Rule 30(b)(5), Plaintiff requests that, at the time and place of the

taking of said deposition, said corporation produce for inspection and copying THE

ORIGINAL AND/ OR AN ACCURATE AND LEGIBLE REPRODUCTION of each

document requested above.

Done this 8th day of June, 2021.

HEDGE COPELAND, P.C.,

Attorneys for Plaintiff,

/s/ Robert J. Hedge

ROBERT J. HEDGE (HED003)
1206 Dauphin Street
Mobile, Alabama 36604
Telephone: (251) 432-8844
Facsimile: (251) 432-8555
[email protected]

OF COUNSEL:

FUQUAY LAW FIRM

Richard W. Fuquay
1206 Dauphin Street
Mobile, Alabama 36604
Telephone: (251) 473-4443
Facsimile: (251) 432-8555
[email protected]
 DOCUMENT 277

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on this the 8 th of June, 2021, a copy of the above and
foregoing document was electronically filed with the Clerk of the Court using the E-File
system, which will send notification of such filing to the following:

John Lieb
McDowell Knight Roedder & Sledge
RSA Battle House Tower
11 North Water St. Suite 13290
P.O. Box 350
Mobile, AL 36601

Robert J. “Jay” Sewell

LIGHTFOOT, FRANKLIN & WHITE, L.L.C.
The Clark Building
400 20th Street North
Birmingham, Alabama 35203

/s/ Robert J. Hedge

 DOCUMENT 278
ELECTRONICALLY FILED
8/31/2021 4:49 PM
02-CV-2018-903102.00
CIRCUIT COURT OF
MOBILE COUNTY, ALABAMA
JOJO SCHWARZAUER, CLERK

EXHIBIT Q
 DOCUMENT 278
Kim Munksgaard 1

1 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF

2 MOBILE COUNTY, ALABAMA
3 CIVIL ACTION NUMBER
4 CV-2018-903102
5

7 ADAM P. HARRINGTON,
8 Plaintiff,
9 v.
10 BARRY GRAHAM OFFSHORE SERVICES, LLC, et al.,
11 Defendants.
12

13

14 VIRTUAL DEPOSITION OF KIM MUNKSGAARD

15 JUNE 17, 2021
16 10:03 A.M.
17

18 The deposition of KIM MUNKSGAARD was

19 taken virtually before Jessica Pitts, CCR, on
20 June 17, 2021, by Robert J. Hedge, commencing
21 at approximately 10:03 A.M., whereupon all
22 parties appeared virtually, pursuant to the
23 stipulations set forth herein.

www.prolegalreporting.com 251.433.2678
 DOCUMENT 278
Kim Munksgaard 28

1 example, like a core value of ExxonMobil is

2 "Nobody gets hurt." So, you know, "Safety is
3 everybody's business," you know. "Protect
4 Tomorrow. Today" would be an example of an
5 environmental policy or core value versus when
6 I mention the word "process," I'm saying -- you
7 know, for instance, training is an important
8 process that involves QA, QC, and validation.
9 And so I'm saying the difference is
10 that a policy is higher-level guidance versus a
11 process is a bit more specific.
12 Q. Okay. And see if I'm -- and if I can
13 repeat it in language that I understand down
14 here in south Alabama. It might be helpful. A
15 policy is kind of a general statement of a
16 company, a processes or processes are the way
17 that you implement that policy?
18 A. Yes, I agree with that.
19 Q. Okay. Okay. And then you were in
20 charge of incident investigation, right?
21 A. Correct.
22 Q. Okay. And we touched -- touched on
23 it a minute ago about this root cause analysis.

www.prolegalreporting.com 251.433.2678
 DOCUMENT 278
Kim Munksgaard 36

1 were in the beginning. You're called in when

2 there is a certain hurt level as an outside set
3 of eyes, so to speak?
4 A. Correct.
5 Q. Okay. And that's what you did in
6 this case, as I understand it, right?
7 A. Yeah, that's correct.
8 Q. Okay. Now, I'm trying -- what I'm --
9 what I'm -- what I want to do is I'm trying to
10 figure out kind of how you did your
11 investigation, kind of the process that you
12 took. And as I understand it, you being a --
13 an -- you know, an engineer type, I'm sure
14 you -- everything is by the book, labeled, you
15 do step by step by step by step. I have talked
16 to too many engineers to know that's kind of
17 how y'all operate and how you work.
18 Take me through, if you could, just
19 generally when you first found out about this
20 incident, who called you, what you were told or
21 asked to do. You know, kind of generally
22 speaking, kind of give me some background, if
23 you don't mind.

www.prolegalreporting.com 251.433.2678
 DOCUMENT 278
Kim Munksgaard 37

1 A. Yeah. So this was three years ago,

2 so I cannot exactly recall all the details.
3 But I will offer what I vaguely remember, was
4 that this occurred late in the week, almost the
5 weekend. And I was contacted by my supervisor,
6 I believe it was, Sunday or Monday morning and
7 asked to fly out to Mobile Bay, based on the
8 severity of the incident, to lead the incident
9 investigation.
10 Q. And you were in Houston at the time?
11 A. That's correct.
12 Q. And so did you get any information
13 from your supervisor as to kind of what
14 happened or what your -- you know, what your
15 parameters of your investigation were?
16 A. Yeah. So I had information that was
17 shared about, you know, high level what had
18 happened. But obviously that's part of the
19 incident investigation, is to go examine it
20 with cold eyes yourself.
21 Q. Okay. Can you tell us, who was your
22 supervisor at the time that called you?
23 A. Laura Johnson.

www.prolegalreporting.com 251.433.2678
 DOCUMENT 278
Kim Munksgaard 201

1 swing rope risk;" is that right?

2 A. Yeah, that's what it says.
3 Q. And there are alternative ways of
4 transferring personnel from the boats to
5 platforms, as I understand it?
6 A. That's correct.
7 Q. Did y'all come to a conclusion about
8 what would be better, what would be safer for
9 somebody like Mr. Harrington who is
10 inexperienced?
11 A. My understanding is that -- so I
12 wasn't assigned this corrective action, but
13 they did the risk assessment and they
14 implemented a lot of mitigations or ways to
15 reduce the risk that made swing rope
16 acceptable. And so it wasn't necessary to
17 change the transfer method.
18 Q. They made some risk assessments after
19 the fact?
20 A. They conducted a risk assessment in
21 order to analyze what the exact risk was for
22 swing rope versus other personnel transfer
23 methods, and then they looked at how to reduce

www.prolegalreporting.com 251.433.2678
 DOCUMENT 278
Kim Munksgaard 202

1 the risk if you implement additional

2 preventative actions.
3 Q. Okay. And, well, I have not seen --
4 there should be some documentation as to that
5 risk assessment and analysis, would there not
6 be?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. Have you seen that documentation?
9 A. Have I seen it?
10 MR. SEWELL: What was that question?
11 A. Yes, I have.
12 Q. Ma'am, I'm sorry?
13 A. Yes, I have seen it.
14 Q. Okay. When did you see it?
15 A. It was shared as part of briefings
16 prior to this deposition. But, again, I wasn't
17 involved in it. This was after I had left and
18 moved on to a new role.
19 Q. Okay. So and the reason I ask --
20 asked for all risk assessments relative to
21 swing ropes, and I haven't gotten -- haven't
22 received a copy.
23 MR. HEDGE: Jay, do you have a copy

www.prolegalreporting.com 251.433.2678
 DOCUMENT 278
Kim Munksgaard 203

1 of that?
2 MR. SEWELL: We do. I don't think
3 it's been asked for in discovery yet. But we
4 can probably discuss about how to get that to
5 you after this.
6 MR. HEDGE: A job safety analysis
7 would cover that.
8 A. No. That's not a --
9 MR. SEWELL: We would --
10 A. -- job safety analysis. This is a
11 risk assessment. It's different.
12 Q. (By Mr. Hedge:) There ain't no
13 difference between the two, I can assure you.
14 A. At ExxonMobil, a job safety analysis
15 is a very specific form and tool. It's not a
16 risk assessment. A risk assessment is much
17 more detailed and it involves a lot more
18 probability analysis. Those are not
19 interchangeable terms.
20 Q. Okay. Well, it sounds to me like
21 Exxon is playing games with me, which is fine.
22 Okay. We will address that down the road
23 because we may have to take about six

www.prolegalreporting.com 251.433.2678
 DOCUMENT 279
ELECTRONICALLY FILED
8/31/2021 4:49 PM
02-CV-2018-903102.00
CIRCUIT COURT OF
MOBILE COUNTY, ALABAMA
JOJO SCHWARZAUER, CLERK

EXHIBIT R
 DOCUMENT 279

Tuesday, August 31, 2021 at 16:06:58 Central Daylight Time

Subject: RE: Harrington v. ExxonMobil

Date: Friday, August 27, 2021 at 4:22:04 PM Central Daylight Time
From: Robert Hedge
To: Robert J. Sewell, Jon M. Lieb, Richard Fuquay, Brian McCarthy
CC: M. ChrisMan King, Mila Hubbard, Jennifer Wright, Ashley Odom
AFachments: image001.jpg, image002.jpg

CAUTION: External Sender.

This date no longer works. I have a trial set starMng September 20 jury term, with docket set Monday. Will let
you know if that case is going and if so, will need to work around it.

Best Regards,

Robert Hedge
Hedge Copeland, P.C.
1206 Dauphin Street
Mobile, Alabama 36604
251-432-8844 (Office)
(Cell)

From: Robert J. Sewell [mailto:[email protected]]

Sent: Monday, August 23, 2021 10:00 AM
To: Jon M. Lieb; Robert Hedge; Richard Fuquay; Brian McCarthy
Cc: M. Christian King; Mila Hubbard; Jennifer Wright; Ashley Odom
Subject: Re: Harrington v. ExxonMobil

Good morning,

I have found space for Ms. Criswell’s deposiMon at Moore, Hill & Westmoreland, P.A., at 350 W. Cedar Street,
Suite 100, Pensacola, FL, 32502. I will have to drive down the morning of Sept. 9, so if we can start in the
adernoon I would appreciate it.

Thanks,
Jay

Robert J. Sewell ​

Attorney

Page 1 of 4
 DOCUMENT 279

205-581-0700 main
The Clark Building
205-581-0731 direct
400 20th Street North
205‑581‑0799 fax
Birmingham, AL 35203
[email protected]

Confidentiality Notice

lightfootlaw.com
v2.01012020

From: "Robert J. Sewell" <[email protected]>

Date: Wednesday, August 18, 2021 at 11:16 AM
To: "Jon M. Lieb" <[email protected]>, Robert Hedge <[email protected]>,
Richard Fuquay <rwf@fuquaylawfirm.com>, Brian McCarthy <[email protected]>
Cc: "M. ChrisMan King" <[email protected]>, Mila Hubbard <[email protected]>,
Jennifer Wright <[email protected]>, Ashley Odom <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Harrington v. ExxonMobil

Thanks, we’ll circulate a locaMon as soon as we pin it down.

Robert J. Sewell ​

Attorney

205-581-0700 main
The Clark Building
205-581-0731 direct
400 20th Street North
205‑581‑0799 fax
Birmingham, AL 35203
[email protected]

Confidentiality Notice

lightfootlaw.com
v2.01012020

From: "Jon M. Lieb" <[email protected]>

Date: Wednesday, August 18, 2021 at 11:14 AM
To: Robert Hedge <[email protected]>, "Robert J. Sewell" <[email protected]>,
Richard Fuquay <rwf@fuquaylawfirm.com>, Brian McCarthy <[email protected]>
Cc: "M. ChrisMan King" <[email protected]>, Mila Hubbard <[email protected]>,
Jennifer Wright <[email protected]>, Ashley Odom <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: Harrington v. ExxonMobil

CAUTION: External Sender.

9/9 works for me.

From: Robert Hedge <[email protected]>

Sent: Wednesday, August 18, 2021 11:13 AM
To: Robert J. Sewell <[email protected]>; Richard Fuquay <rwf@fuquaylawfirm.com>; Jon M. Lieb

Page 2 of 4
 DOCUMENT 279

To: Robert J. Sewell <[email protected]>; Richard Fuquay <rwf@fuquaylawfirm.com>; Jon M. Lieb

<[email protected]>; Brian McCarthy <[email protected]>
Cc: M. ChrisMan King <[email protected]>; Mila Hubbard <[email protected]>; Jennifer
Wright <[email protected]>; Ashley Odom <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: Harrington v. ExxonMobil

I am available September 9.

Best Regards,

Robert Hedge
Hedge Copeland, P.C.
1206 Dauphin Street
Mobile, Alabama 36604
251-432-8844 (Office)
(Cell)

From: Robert J. Sewell [mailto:[email protected]]

Sent: Wednesday, August 18, 2021 11:09 AM
To: Robert Hedge; Richard Fuquay; Jon M. Lieb; Brian McCarthy
Cc: M. Christian King; Mila Hubbard; Jennifer Wright; Ashley Odom
Subject: Harrington v. ExxonMobil

Good morning,

Robert has asked to depose Tammie Criswell. She has availability September 7–9. She currently lives in the
Pensacola area, and she needs to stay in that area because she is the primary caregiver for her father. Once
we have a date in place, we’ll be happy to find a locaMon for the Pensacola area for the deposiMon. Please let
us know what works for you.

Regards,
Jay

Robert J. Sewell​

Attorney

Page 3 of 4
 DOCUMENT 279

205-581-0700 main
The Clark Building
205-581-0731 direct
400 20th Street North
205‑581‑0799 fax
Birmingham, AL 35203
[email protected]

Confidentiality Notice

lightfootlaw.com
v2.01012020

Page 4 of 4
 DOCUMENT 280
ELECTRONICALLY FILED
8/31/2021 4:49 PM
02-CV-2018-903102.00
CIRCUIT COURT OF
MOBILE COUNTY, ALABAMA
JOJO SCHWARZAUER, CLERK

EXHIBIT S
 DOCUMENT 280

Subject: RE: Harrington v P&E Crewboats, Inc.; Exxon Mobile CV 2018-903102

Date: Friday, July 2, 2021 at 10:10:39 AM Central Daylight Time
From: M. ChrisOan King
To: Robert Hedge
CC: Robert J. Sewell, rwf@fuqualawfirm.com

Robert, I will want a call, but in the meanOme, can you tell me which porOons of our recent producOon you
contend was called for by which prior RFP or prior depo noOce? I see the argument on a couple of the docs,
but I’m having trouble matching up much of what we recently produced with a previous discovery request
and response. Thanks.

M. Christian King ​

Attorney

205-581-0700 ma n
The C ark Bu d ng
205-581-0715 d rect
400 20th Street North
205‑581‑0799 fax
B rm ngham, AL 35203
ck ng@ ghtfoot aw.com

Conf dent a ty Not ce

lightfootlaw.com

From: Robert Hedge <[email protected]>

Sent: Friday, July 2, 2021 9:23 AM
To: M. ChrisOan King <cking@ligh\ootlaw.com>
Cc: Robert J. Sewell <jsewell@ligh\ootlaw.com>; rwf@fuqualawfirm.com
Subject: RE: Harrington v P&E Crewboats, Inc.; Exxon Mobile CV 2018-903102

CAUTION: External Sender.

Not a problem – always willing to work with other lawyers on discovery issues.

I simply need Exxon to agree to tender every Exxon witness we have already deposed, here in Mobile; agreed
to allow us to re-depose any non-Exxon individuals that we have already taken, e.g., Complete Safety Works,
Scoc Skelton, P&E witnesses (which will require you to work that issue out with P&E, Skelton, and Complete
Safety’s counsel); reimburse my firm for all the Ome necessary to re-take all these deposiOons; and produce
all the documents that we have requested be produced.

Page 1 of 3
 DOCUMENT 280

Exxon will also need to tender a witness who actually can tesOfy to my 30(b)(6) categories. In other words,
we will have to start over with discovery, but this Ome with all documents that PlainOff requested in our
RFP/30(b)(5) in hand.

If you want to discuss ajer talking with your client, feel free to call.

Best Regards,

Robert Hedge
Hedge Copeland, P.C.
1206 Dauphin Street
Mobile, Alabama 36604
251-432-8844 (Office)

From: M. Christian King [mailto:[email protected]]

Sent: Thursday, July 01, 2021 9:41 AM
To: Robert Hedge
Cc: Robert J. Sewell; [email protected]
Subject: RE: Harrington v P&E Crewboats, Inc.; Exxon Mobile CV 2018-903102

Robert, I’d like to try to work out any discovery differences if we can. Are you available for a call at 10:30 or
ajer tomorrow? If not, what do you look like on Tuesday? I’m copying Richard in case he wants to be on the
call.

M. Christian King ​

Attorney

205-581-0700 ma n
The C ark Bu d ng
205-581-0715 d rect
400 20th Street North
205‑581‑0799 fax
B rm ngham, AL 35203
ck ng@ ghtfoot aw.com

Conf dent a ty Not ce

lightfootlaw.com

Page 2 of 3
 DOCUMENT 281
ELECTRONICALLY FILED
8/31/2021 4:49 PM
02-CV-2018-903102.00
CIRCUIT COURT OF
MOBILE COUNTY, ALABAMA
JOJO SCHWARZAUER, CLERK

EXHIBIT T
 DOCUMENT 282
ELECTRONICALLY FILED
8/31/2021 4:49 PM
02-CV-2018-903102.00
CIRCUIT COURT OF
MOBILE COUNTY, ALABAMA
JOJO SCHWARZAUER, CLERK

EXHIBIT U
 DOCUMENT 282

Robert Sewell

Subject: Re: Harrington

Date: Tuesday, June 22, 2021 at 10:35:53 AM Central Daylight Time
From: Robert J. Sewell <[email protected]>
To: Robert Hedge <[email protected]>
CC: M. ChrisKan King <[email protected]>, Jennifer Wright
<[email protected]>, 'Richard Fuquay (rwf@fuquaylawfirm.com)'
<rwf@fuquaylawfirm.com>
A<achments: image001.jpg, image002.jpg, image003.jpg, image004.jpg, image005.jpg

Robert,

We understand your posiKon regarding Greg Hrinsin’s deposiKon, and we will agree to make him available for
a deposiKon in his individual capacity to answer relevant quesKons as to topics within his personal knowledge
and to which he did not address in his prior deposiKon. This should allow you to ask remaining quesKons
without expending addiKonal Kme or requiring us to start at “square one.” A]er reviewing the transcript, I
think you were able to ask, and I allowed Mr. Hrinsin to answer, a good deal regarding his personal knowledge
of the invesKgaKon of Mr. Harrington’s injury and even of prior incidents. I will be in touch with the client
about potenKal dates. I believe Mr. Hrinsin is currently located in Houston, so we ask that you consider a
Zoom deposiKon.

As for the referenced risk assessment, we believe it is responsive to requests included in your pending Rule
30(b)(5) & (6) deposiKon noKce. While we disagree with your posiKon that such materials would be
responsive to Request for ProducKon No. 13, or any other requests for producKon outside of the deposiKon
noKces, we intend to produce the document with the risk assessment, and others, this week in preparaKon
for next week’s deposiKon. Now, and throughout this case, absent an appropriately lodged
objecKon, ExxonMobil has produced and will conKnue to produce responsive, non-privileged documents that
is has located in its possession, custody, or control a]er expending reasonably diligent efforts to locate the
materials.

If you have any further quesKons or concerns, please feel free to call me or Chris to discuss.

Jay

Robert J. Sewell ​

Attorney

205-581-0700 ma n
The C ark Bu d ng
205-581-0731 d rect
400 20th Street North
205‑581‑0799 fax
B rm ngham, AL 35203
jsewe @ ghtfoot aw.com

Conf dent a ty Not ce

lightfootlaw.com

Page 1 of 26
 DOCUMENT 282

From: Robert Hedge <[email protected]>

Date: Monday, June 21, 2021 at 10:48 AM
To: "Robert J. Sewell" <[email protected]>
Cc: "M. ChrisKan King" <[email protected]>, Jennifer Wright <[email protected]>,
"'Richard Fuquay (rwf@fuquaylawfirm.com)'" <rwf@fuquaylawfirm.com>
Subject: RE: Harrington

CAUTION: External Sender.

Jay –

We cannot agree that the 30b6 deposiKon in which Hrinsin tesKfied may also serve as his personal
deposiKon. I tried to work that out during the 30b6 deposiKon, but you insisted on objecKng. Please let me
know when he will be available here in Mobile.

As I told you during the deposiKon, the law allows me to go beyond the scope of the 30(b)(6) areas of inquiry,
and obtain informaKon that is within the knowledge of the witness, (King v. Pral& Whitney, 161 F.R.D 475,
476 (S.D. Fla. 1995)), so as to avoid having to re-noKce the witness individually – absent some compelling
reason. In this case, Hrinsin has knowledge regarding his invesKgaKon into this incident, and I am enKtled to
discover this informaKon, parKcularly now a]er Ms. Munksgaard’s tesKmony.

As such, please provide me with dates we can take Hrinsin’s deposiKon.

Finally, we learned last week that Exxon created a Risk Assessment document post-accident. PlainKff’s RFP
number 13 sought producKon of “All correspondence, e-mails or memoranda of all communicaKons between
or among the Defendants, other than direct communicaKons with their alorneys, relaKng in any way to the
incident resulKng in PlainKff’s injuries on February 15, 2018.” Clearly, this Risk Assessment is related to the
PlainKff’s incident, and is a communicaKon between or among the Defendants. Do I need to file a moKon to
compel the producKon?

I also want Exxon to confirm, in wriKng, that no other documents exist that may be responsive to RFP number
13, that have not already been produced, in light of Exxon’s withholding of the Risk Assessment.

If you have any quesKons, feel free to call me.

Best Regards,

Robert Hedge
Hedge Copeland, P.C.
1206 Dauphin Street
Mobile, Alabama 36604
251-432-8844 (Office)

Page 2 of 26
 DOCUMENT 283
ELECTRONICALLY FILED
8/31/2021 4:49 PM
02-CV-2018-903102.00
CIRCUIT COURT OF
MOBILE COUNTY, ALABAMA
JOJO SCHWARZAUER, CLERK

EXHIBIT V
 DOCUMENT 283

Subject: RE: Harrington v. ExxonMobil Corpora5on - Documents for Corporate Representa5ve Deposi5on
Date: Monday, June 28, 2021 at 4:17:12 PM Central Daylight Time
From: Robert Hedge
To: Robert J. Sewell, 'Richard Fuquay (rwf@fuquaylawfirm.com)', Jon M. Lieb, Brian McCarthy
CC: M. Chris5an King, Mila Hubbard, Jennifer Wright, Ashley Odom

CAUTION: External Sender.

Well I suggest they become available before 5 pm today

Best Regards,

Robert Hedge
Hedge Copeland, P.C.
1206 Dauphin Street
Mobile, Alabama 36604
251-432-8844 (Office)

From: Robert J. Sewell [mailto:[email protected]]

Sent: Monday, June 28, 2021 4:16 PM
To: Robert Hedge; 'Richard Fuquay ([email protected])'; Jon M. Lieb; Brian McCarthy
Cc: M. Christian King; Mila Hubbard; Jennifer Wright; Ashley Odom
Subject: Re: Harrington v. ExxonMobil Corporation - Documents for Corporate Representative Deposition

I have abached ExxonMobil.Harrington003419–003432, which is duplica5ve of

Exxon.Mobil.Harrington.000267–000280 but the link is ac5ve. The link to the Swing Rope Transfer Video on
003426 goes to the video on YouTube. That is the only version of this video of which we are aware. We are
con5nuing efforts to locate other relevant videos, and we will produce them as they become available.

Robert J. Sewell ​

Attorney

205-581-0700 ma n
The C ark Bu d ng
205-581-0731 d rect
400 20th Street North
205‑581‑0799 fax
B rm ngham, AL 35203
jsewe @ ghtfoot aw.com

Conf dent a ty Not ce

lightfootlaw.com

Page 1 of 4
DOCUMENT 283
DOCUMENT 283
DOCUMENT 283