Download - Safety motion for tro (00082468)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
GEORGE BARISICH, individually and on behalf of THE UNITED COMMERCIAL FISHERMAN’S ASSOCIATION, INC. Civil Action No. 2:10-cv-01316 v. Section N Mag. 2 BP, P.L.C., BP EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION INC., and BP AMERICA PRODUCTION COMPANY
PLAINTIFF’S SUPPLEMENTAL EMERGENCY MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER
NOW INTO COURT, through undersigned counsel, comes Plaintiff, George Barisich,
individually and on behalf of the United Commercial Fisherman’s Association, Inc. as President
thereof, who, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65, moves this Court for supplemental
emergency relief and a temporary restraining order enjoining Defendants, BP, plc, BP
Exploration & Production Inc., and BP America Production Company (collectively “BP”), from
ignoring or otherwise circumventing its responsibility for safety oversight as to hazardous
chemical exposure for services performed by vessel owners, captains, and crews under the
Master Vessel Charter Agreement (“MVCA”) (or substantially similar documents) attached as
Exhibit A to both Plaintiff’s Supplemental Verified Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive
Relief and to the memorandum of law filed herewith.
As set forth more fully in the corresponding Supplemental Verified Complaint for
Declaratory and Injunctive Relief and the memorandum of law, parties entering into the MVCA
and their captains and crews are likely to be exposed to hazardous chemicals. The MVCA
specifically states that “SERVICES shall include, but not be limited to, tending or deploying
boom and skimming equipment, skimming operations, recovering oiled debris, collecting
Case 2:10-cv-01316-KDE-JCW Document 9 Filed 05/06/10 Page 1 of 7
2
garbage, assistance with wildlife operations and towing equipment.” MVCA at Art. 2. The
agreement contemplates that the vessels may require “decontamination” but is shockingly silent
as to any hazardous chemical exposure safety oversight responsibility on the part of any entity.
Ex. A, passim.
Other than a brief reference to non-specific “training,” there is nothing in the MVCA that
(1) alerts parties to the Agreement that they, their captains, and/or crews may be exposed to
hazardous (and particularly) flammable chemicals as part of the cleanup services nor (2) informs
vessel owners of safety oversight needs for such hazardous and flammable chemical exposure.
The silence on this important issue is of grave concern to Plaintiff and the members of the United
Commercial Fisherman’s Association, Inc. who believe that it is either gross oversight or
intentional manipulation by BP.
Clearly, the vessel owners are not experts in the area of hazardous chemical exposure nor
dealing with flammable crude oil. Further, they do not have experience under the OSHA or U.S.
Coast Guard regulatory regimes respecting hazardous materials exposure or the handling of
flammable crude oil, as does BP. And, of course, it is BP that is responsible for the cleanup of
this disaster and has asked for the special aid of these vessel owners, captains, and crews, despite
their prior lack of experience with hazardous chemical exposure and handling of flammable
crude oil.
As explained by Cdr. David Cole, USCG (ret.):
As commercial fishing vessels, the vessels found in the Gulf Coast region are not inspected by the Coast Guard and their overall condition and fitness will be dependant on the efforts of the individual owners. They are not constructed or equipped to operate in the presence of oil or other hydrocarbons as either cargoes or where these commodities ate [sic] freely in the environment, as where there is a discharge into the environment. Further, the persons-in-charge (captains) of these vessels, along with the crews are not trained, by virtue of the customs of their industry or the professional competence requirements of the Coast Guard, to
Case 2:10-cv-01316-KDE-JCW Document 9 Filed 05/06/10 Page 2 of 7
3
recognize or avoid the hazards to their health or the safety of their vessels, of exposure to the commodities which would be found in a spill of crude oil. . . . Crude oil is also a flammable liquid and will emit flammable vapors, which may be ignited by an ignition source, such as spark-generating motors, hot exhaust fixtures, or any other spark generating equipment (i.e.; two metal items rubbing against each other).
Cole Declaration, Ex. C, at ¶¶ 7, 9.
These concerns are echoed by the industrial hygenist Dr. Vernon E. Rose, Dr.PH.:
Workers, including those vessel owners and crew members who are or will be subject to the Master Vessel Charter Agreements, exposed to crude oil are at risk for a variety of adverse health effects resulting from the inhalation, skin contact and even ingestion of the chemicals in the crude. Inhalation of the chemical vapor as well as skin contact with the vapor and liquid are obvious. Ingestion can occur through inadequate work practices such as the lack of sanitary facilities to wash hands before eating.
Rose Declaration, Ex. B, at ¶ 4.
Without acknowledgement by BP that it is responsible for safety oversight of hazardous
chemical exposure for services performed under the MVCAs and assumption of that
responsibility, the fishermen, shrimpers, oystermen, and owners of all commercial fishing
vessels subject to the Agreement will be gravely harmed. Insult cannot be added to injury.
Before these brave men and women whose income and entire way of life are in jeopardy take
action in the cleanup, all steps must be taken by BP to insure that physical injury will not occur
to them as well. BP must acknowledge immediately that the regulatory compliance burdens for
vessel owners will be impossible to undertake, or at a minimum, so unduly burdensome that they
are prohibited for financial reasons from participating as responders in this issue of critical
national concern.
The most direct route to insure that all necessary protections are in place is for BP to
acknowledge that the OSHA hazardous material safety oversight standards apply to the workers
under the MVCAs, and that it is the responsible party under those standards, not the vessel
Case 2:10-cv-01316-KDE-JCW Document 9 Filed 05/06/10 Page 3 of 7
4
owners. Further, BP should report to the Court on an ongoing basis how BP is complying with
those standards as respects the workers performing services for it under the MVCA.
To be clear, Plaintiff and the members of the United Commercial Fisherman’s
Association, Inc. which Plaintiff represents do not criticize BP’s decision to utilize the
experience and knowledge of the people who know best how to navigate the sensitive areas most
threatened by this horrific commercial and environmental disaster. However, as aid is rendered
on behalf of BP, it is incumbent that assurances be made regarding safety plans and provisioning.
BP is clearly the only entity that could and should be responsible for such.
For these reasons, Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of the United Commercial
Fisherman’s Association, Inc. as President thereof, respectfully submits that this motion should
be granted to alleviate the risk to him of immediate and irreparable harm before a preliminary
injunction hearing may be scheduled to hear all evidence regarding the issues raised in this
motion.
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(b), undersigned counsel certify that they
have made efforts to provide notice to the BP by contacting the lawyers believed to be BP’s
counsel and relaying Plaintiff’s intention to protect himself by taking this action. However, as
explained more fully in the memorandum of law filed herewith and as set forth in Plaintiff’s
Verified Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief, the facts at issue here clearly show
that immediate and irreparable injury will result before BP can be heard in opposition to this
motion. The discharge spreading across the Louisiana coastal waters continues with every
passing minute, and every helping hand is needed in the efforts to attempt to redress it.
However, persons assisting under the MVCAs cannot be put in harm’s way without necessary
protection.
Case 2:10-cv-01316-KDE-JCW Document 9 Filed 05/06/10 Page 4 of 7
5
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests the Court order the following relief for all
persons contemplating or actually performing services under the MVCA that:
(1) BP is responsible for safety for all persons performing work under the MVCA; (2) BP provide the written safety and health program specific to this class of workers
(i.e., all persons performing services under an MVCA), which should be filed with the Court instanter; however, if such a written program does not exist, then BP should prepare one and file it with the Court within five (5) working days;
(3) BP provide a medical surveillance program for this class of workers, which program and the results of such should be filed with the Court instanter with further updates as they become available to BP filed immediately; however, if such a medical surveillance program does not exist, then BP should provide one and file it with the Court within five (5) working days;
(4) BP monitor airborne hazardous chemicals in the areas in which this class of workers have been or will be assigned to perform work, the status of such should be communicated to the Court immediately; however, if such a monitoring program does not exist, BP should enact one instanter and file proof of such with the Court;
(5) BP identify the hazardous chemical exposure risks specific to the work and in the areas in which this class of workers have been or will be assigned to perform work, the status of such identification should be communicated to the Court instanter; however, if such risk identification has not occurred, then BP should conduct an identification and file it with the Court within five (5) working days; (6) BP should be required to identify to the Court instanter the personal protective equipment being issued by it for persons performing services under the MVCA, including but not limited to the specific types of equipment being provided, to whom they are being provided, and the quantity in which they are being provided; (7) BP should be required to describe to the Court instanter the type of training being provided to persons performing services under the MVCA, including copies of all communications being made as part of that training, including but not limited to written materials disseminated, videos shown, or prepared remarks for speakers; (8) BP should be required to describe to the Court instanter the worker notification program it intends to use for persons performing services under the MVCA; (9) For any further relief that the Court may deem proper to mitigate safety hazards for all persons operating under the MVCA; and (10) For such other and further relief to which Plaintiff may be justly entitled.
Case 2:10-cv-01316-KDE-JCW Document 9 Filed 05/06/10 Page 5 of 7
6
Dated: May 6, 2010. Respectfully submitted, /s/ James M. Garner__________________________ JAMES M. GARNER (# 19589) TIMOTHY B. FRANCIS (# 14973) JOSHUA S. FORCE (# 21975) SHARONDA R. WILLIAMS (# 28809) EMMA ELIZABETH ANTIN DASCHBACH (#27358) Sher Garner Cahill Richter Klein & Hilbert, L.L.C. 909 Poydras Street, 28th Floor New Orleans, LA 70112-1033 Telephone: (504) 299-2100 Facsimile: (504) 299-2300
GLADSTONE N. JONES, III (# 22221) EBERHARD D. GARRISON (# 22058) KEVIN E. HUDDELL (# 26930) H.S. BARTLETT III (# 26795) JACQUELINE A. STUMP (# 31981) Jones, Swanson, Huddell & Garrison, L.L.C.
Pan-American Life Center 601 Poydras Street, Suite 2655 New Orleans, LA 70130 Telephone: (504) 523-2500
Facsimile: (504) 523-2508 /s/ Stuart Smith _______
STUART H. SMITH # 17805 MICHAEL G. STAG Smith Stagg, L.L.C. 365 Canal Street, Suite 2850 New Orleans, LA 70130 (504) 593-9600 (504) 593-9601
VAL PATRICK EXNICIOS, ESQ. Liska, Exnicios & Nungesser One Canal Place 22nd Floor 365 Canal Street, Ste. 2290 New Orleans, LA 70130 Telephone: (504) 410-9611 Facsimile: (504) 410-9937
Case 2:10-cv-01316-KDE-JCW Document 9 Filed 05/06/10 Page 6 of 7
7
THOMAS E. BILEK KELLY COX BILEK The Bilek Law Firm, L.L.P. 808 Travis, Suite 802 Houston, TX 77002 (713) 227-7720 FAX (713) 227-9404
Case 2:10-cv-01316-KDE-JCW Document 9 Filed 05/06/10 Page 7 of 7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
GEORGE BARISICH, individually and on behalf of THE UNITED COMMERCIAL FISHERMAN’S ASSOCIATION, INC. Civil Action No. 2:10-cv-01316 v. Section: N Mag. 2 BP, P.L.C., BP EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION INC., and BP AMERICA PRODUCTION COMPANY
PLAINTIFF’S MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF EMERGENCY MOTION FOR SUPPLEMENTAL
TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER Introduction The Master Vessel Charter Agreement (the “MVCA”) that defendants, BP, plc, BP
Exploration & Production Inc., and BP America Production Company (collectively “BP”), have
and entered into with volunteers assisting in clean-up efforts off the Louisiana coast are glaringly
silent on an important issue – safety oversight for workers’ exposure to hazardous chemicals.
MVCA attached as Ex. A.
It is not alarmist for Plaintiff to point out that had similar safety oversight been present
and in effect at the location of another national tragedy and disaster—the 9/11 attack on New
York’s Twin Towers—that great physical harm to the first responders could have been
alleviated. This Court has the opportunity and responsibility to insure that worker safety should
not and cannot be forgotten again, even under the most exigent of circumstances.
In a Nutshell: the Emergency Court Action Necessary to Protect these Cleanup Workers
(1) The Emergency Relief Requested
Plaintiff asks that BP acknowledge that it is responsible for hazardous chemical safety
oversight for all persons performing services under an MVCA. Once BP acknowledges this
Case 2:10-cv-01316-KDE-JCW Document 9-1 Filed 05/06/10 Page 1 of 11
2
responsibility, BP should then report to the Court how it carrying out its obligations for safety
oversight.
(2) Why Plaintiff Needs this Immediate Relief from the Court
The MVCA, pursuant to which commercial fishing vessels and their crews will be
deployed to assist BP in the cleanup, fails to contemplate safety oversight responsibility. To be
clear, these workers will be exposed in the course of the cleanup to hazardous chemicals. While
there are rigorous regulatory schemes in place under OSHA and/or the US Coast Guard
regulations for worker exposure to hazardous chemicals, these commercial fishing vessel owners
have no ability or experience with complying with such safety oversight schemes. On the other
hand, the other party to the MVCA, BP which drafted these agreements, has vastly superior
knowledge and experience in this field.1 Indeed, it is most probable that the vessel owners made
subject to the MVCAs or whom are contemplating entering into the MVCAs have no idea that
they are faced with exposure to hazardous chemicals and that necessary, but complex regulatory
schemes exist for safety oversight of workers threatened with exposure to hazardous chemicals.
BP is the only party that can (and should) assume responsibility for hazardous chemical
safety oversight for these commercial fishing vessels and crews. And, yet, the MVCA is entirely
silent on this issue. This glaring oversight must be corrected before the safety of these first
responders is hideously compromised.
Factual Argument
Despite mustering volunteer workers who do not have pervious experience or training
regarding hazardous chemicals, BP fails in the MVCA to assume safety oversight for hazardous
chemical exposure. Expecting the volunteer responders, already victims of the ongoing oil spill
1 Plaintiff will not, however, comment on BP’s success at complying with such regulations. Instead, he acknowledges only that BP has superior knowledge of and experience at complying with same.
Case 2:10-cv-01316-KDE-JCW Document 9-1 Filed 05/06/10 Page 2 of 11
3
disaster, also to carry out and be responsible for hazardous chemical safety oversight is
unconscionable. BP has put the entire Gulf Coast and its people in jeopardy with the ongoing
crude oil release from its Macondo prospect. BP should not be allowed to cause further harm by
attempting to foist important safety oversight obligations on the well-intentioned, but non-expert
owners and crews of commercial fishing vessels.
Plaintiff has previously argued to the Court that “BP’s demanding that Plaintiff – and
others, including many, many members of the United Commercial Fisherman’s Association, Inc.
which Plaintiff represents – execute the Agreement BP drafted to cover its own hide before
allowing Plaintiff – and those others – to assist in cleaning up an environmental disaster of
possibly unprecedented scale that BP caused is akin to demanding that a person running into
their own burning home sign a release limiting or giving up their claims against the arsonist that
caused the fire.” See Memorandum in Support of Plaintiff’s [First] Emergency Motion for
Temporary Restraining Order. BP’s failure in the MVCA to assume the necessary hazardous
chemical safety oversight is akin to the aforementioned arsonist expecting that the homeowner
also be a professional firefighter with special “HazMat” training, experience, and equipment,.
The important responsibility for hazardous chemcial safety oversight which will
necessarily arise under the performance of the MVCAs must fall upon the sole party responsible
for this clean-up and for the hiring of non-professional “HazMat” responders, such as the these
commercial fishing vessels and their crews. The silence in the MVCA on this key issue will
cause further – and irreparable – injury to the citizens of Louisiana and responders from all the
Gulf States. And, at worst, it must be considered that this may be yet another dastardly effort by
Case 2:10-cv-01316-KDE-JCW Document 9-1 Filed 05/06/10 Page 3 of 11
4
BP to compromise the safety of these vessel owners and crews when they are at their most
vulnerable.2
For these reasons, Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of the United Commercial
Fisherman’s Association, Inc. as President thereof, respectfully requests that his Motion for
Supplemental Temporary Restraining Order be granted to alleviate the risk to him of immediate
and irreparable harm before a preliminary injunction hearing may be scheduled to hear all
evidence regarding the issues raised in his Motion.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
The Facts Previously Presented to the Court
Plaintiff incorporates by reference the factual background contained in his Memorandum
of Law in Support of Emergency Motion for [First] Temporary Restraining Order.
The Supplemental Facts
The compelling facts supporting the requested relief are detailed in the Verified
Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief. Those facts substantiate that the requirements
for injunctive relief are met.
Further, in support of his Emergency Motion and Supplemental Complaint for
Declaratory Judgment and Injunctive Relief, Plaintiff submits the following Declarations, which
are attached and incorporated by reference as follows:
Ex. B: Declaration of Dr. Vernon E. Rose, Dr.PH, with attachments; and
Ex. C: Declaration of Cmdr. David E. Cole, USCG (ret.), with attachments.
2 As this Court is aware, the other thing “spewing” out of BP these days comes from its legal department. One-sided and unconscionable releases and contracts drafted by BP are inundating the fishing communities along the Gulf Coast. That BP would seek to take advantage of the citizens of this region under these exigent circumstances and in such a myriad of ways shocks the conscience.
Case 2:10-cv-01316-KDE-JCW Document 9-1 Filed 05/06/10 Page 4 of 11
5
The Declaration of Dr. Vernon E. Rose, Dr.PH
The purpose of the submitting the Rose declaration to this Court is two-fold. First, Dr.
Rose informs the Court of the fact that the crude oil spilling from BP’s Macondo prospect
unquestionably contains hazardous materials, including, but not limited to substances such as
benzene, cyclohexane, ethylbenzene, toluene, and xylene. Ex. B at ¶ 5 and 11(a). “[W]orker
exposure to all are regulated as toxic substances by OSHA.” Id. Dr. Rose also points out that
the MCVA clearly addresses vessel and crew contact with those substances as a consequence of
the description of “SERVICES” to be performed as part of the oil-spill clean-up. Id. at ¶ 6.
Second, Dr. Rose educates the Court regarding the complex and multi-layered regulatory
scheme regarding worker exposure to such hazardous materials. In broad strokes, that scheme
provides for the following: (1) a written safety and health program, (2) medical surveillance, (3)
hazard identification, (4) use of personal protective equipment, (5) monitoring of airborne
hazardous chemicals, (6) risk identification, (7) worker notification, and (8) training of workers.
Id. at ¶ 9. Based on his review of the situation, Dr. Rose concludes that:
The Master Vessel Charter Agreement does not address the issue of worker health and safety and appears to require the individual boat owners to become experts in hazardous waste management and the recognition and control of their and their crew’s exposure to hazardous chemicals. This is an unrealistic expectation. To protect the health and well being of the individuals involved in the services described in 11.B above requires the establishment and implementation of an effective and comprehensive hazardous waste and emergency control plan for the owners and crews performing services under the Master Vessel Carter Agreements, as required under OSHA’s Hazardous Waste and Emergency Response regulation. In order to ensure the safety of these workers, BP should file with the court a written safety and health program targeted to this specific class of workers and make periodic additional reports to the court on actions taken under that plan and problems encountered. It would also seem appropriate for BP to fulfill the requirements of the OSHA regulation in all aspects including appropriate training with an emphasis on hazard recognition and exposure control, exposure monitoring and evaluation, as well as the provision of safety and protective equipment and supplies to these workers.
Rose Decl. at ¶ 7.
Case 2:10-cv-01316-KDE-JCW Document 9-1 Filed 05/06/10 Page 5 of 11
6
The Declaration of Cmdr. David E. Cole, USCG (ret.)
The Declaration of Cmdr. David E. Cole, USCG (ret.) also raises the significant concerns
voiced by Dr. Rose about the crews of commercial fishing vessels being tasked by BP under the
MVCA for the performance of cleanup services without the necessary safety oversight from
trained and experienced parties. Cole Decl. at Ex. 3. Cmdr. Cole recognizes that these fishing
vessels “are not constructed or equipped to operate in the presence of oil or other hydrocarbons
as either cargoes or where these commodities ate [sic] [eat] freely... as where there is a discharge
into the environment.” Id. at ¶ 7. Cole further points out that captains and crews of these vessels
“are not trained, by virtue of the customs of their industry or the professional competence
requirement of the Coast Guard, to recognize or avoid the hazards to their health of the safety of
their vessels, of exposure to the commodities which would be found in a spill of crude oil.” Id.
Cole concludes:
These uninspected commercial fishing vessels, being used in oil recovery without the benefit of crew training and vessel inspection are exposing their crews to... harmful vapors and the risk of explosion and fire. It is my understanding that the vessel owners and operators are executing contracts whereby they are considered independent contractors. However, prudent vessel operation, marine safety and seamanship would require BP to exercise proper supervision and accept responsibility for the workmanlike procedures which would be expected of the vessel crew members.
Id. at ¶ 14. Once again, it is incumbent on this Plaintiff and the United Commercial Fisherman’s
Association, Inc. to point out to this Court the irreparable consequences of the MVCA. Through
this agreement, BP attempts to shift responsibility for key aspects of its own disaster response
obligations onto the shoulders of others who cannot and should not have to bear this heavy, but
absolutely necessary, burden. Allowing BP to shirk the duty of hazardous material exposure
safety oversight for the commercial fishing vessel crews who will play a key role in the clean-up
Case 2:10-cv-01316-KDE-JCW Document 9-1 Filed 05/06/10 Page 6 of 11
7
will itself be another tragedy BP will suffer unto Louisiana and its citizens. It cannot, and should
not, be allowed to stand.
Legal Argument
The requirements for injunctive relief are well known and previously brought to this
Court’s attention by Plaintiff. Plaintiff must show:
(1) there is substantial likelihood that he will succeed on the merits of his claim;
(2) without the injunction, he faces an imminent threat of irreparable harm;
(3) the threatened harm he seeks to avoid through the injunction outweighs any harm
that may befall BP if the injunction is granted; and
(4) granting the injunction will not disserve the public interest.
Paulson Geophysical Servs., Inc. v. Sigmar, 529 F. 3d 303, 309 (5th Cir. 2008). Each of these
requirements is met here.
As a general proposition, expecting and requiring the volunteer responders – like Plaintiff
and the members of the United Commercial Fisherman’s Association, Inc. who he represents –to
assume hazardous material safety oversight for their role in the clean-up of BP’s oil spill is
unconscionable. BP should, but did not, assume this responsibility in the MVCA. Ex. 1, passim.
Instead BP remained silent. To be very clear, BP fails to (1) alert parties to the MVCA that they,
their captains, and/or crews will be exposed to hazardous and flammable chemicals as part of the
cleanup services nor (2) informs vessel owners of safety oversight needs for such hazardous and
flammable chemical exposure. The silence on this important issue is of grave concern to
Plaintiff and the members of the United Commercial Fisherman’s Association, Inc. who believe
that it is either gross oversight or intentional manipulation by BP.
Case 2:10-cv-01316-KDE-JCW Document 9-1 Filed 05/06/10 Page 7 of 11
8
The complained-of attempt by BP to shift responsibility for hazardous materials safety
oversight onto vessel owners under the MVCA under these exigent circumstances is
unenforceable. As such, this creates an unconscionable, adhesionary contract under Louisiana
law. See Aguillard v. Auction Management Corp., 2004-2804 (La. June 29, 2005), 908 So. 2d 1,
9 (noting that a contract is adhesionary where one party “is in a position stronger than the
other’s. The party in the weaker position is left with no other choice than to adhere to the terms
proposed by the other[.]”) (emphasis added); LaFleur v. Law Offices of Anthony Buzbee, 2006-
0466 (La. App. 1st Cir. March 23, 2007), 960 So. 2d 105, 112 (observing that adhesionary
contracts are “unconscionable” and invalid where of “unduly harsh substance”).
To put a finer point on it:
No section of the Louisiana Civil Code directly addresses, in so many words, the doctrine of unconscionability or the related concept of adhesionary contracts. Nonetheless, Louisiana jurisprudence does recognize that certain contractual terms, especially when contained in dense standard forms that are not negotiated, can be too harsh to justly enforce. The theory of such decisions, often, is that an unconscionable contract or term can be thought of as lacking the free consent that the Code requires of all contracts.
Iberia Credit Bureau, Inc. v. Cellular Wireless, LLC, 379 F.3d 159, 167 (5th Cir. 2004).
Here, Plaintiff and the other Louisiana fishermen like him are clearly in a weaker position
with regard to negotiation of their rights in relation to BP. Further, BP is vastly more
sophisticated in the area of applicable regulatory schemes such as OSHA and US Coast Guard
regulations relating to hazardous materials. In comparison, most commercial fishing vessel
owners are probably completely unaware that these specific schemes even exist. Because of the
threat to their very livelihood caused by BP’s own actions in causing the catastrophic oil
discharge that Plaintiff and other fishermen are responding to, and because of the expedited
nature of the training of Plaintiff and the execution of associated documents, there was neither
Case 2:10-cv-01316-KDE-JCW Document 9-1 Filed 05/06/10 Page 8 of 11
9
time nor bargaining position to review the provisions at issue here or to negotiate them. Notably,
this Court, acting as an admiralty court, must provide special scrutiny to the contract at issue
here, and owes special protection to those fishermen such as Plaintiff, who are to be treated as
wards under this Court’s special protection. See Coto v. J. Ray McDermott, S.A., 1999-1866 (La.
App. 4th Cir. Oct. 25, 2000), 772 So. 2d 828, 830.
Irreparable harm is that which “cannot be remedied merely by monetary or other legal
damages.” Tillman v. Miller, 917 F. Supp. 799, 801 (N.D. Ga. 1995), aff’d 133 F. 3d 1402 (11th
Cir. 1998). In light of the impact of the Agreement’s complete silence on hazardous materials
safety oversight responsibility, and absent intervention from this Court, Plaintiff most certainly
faces imminent and irreparable harm.
By insisting that Plaintiff execute the Agreement before allowing them to assist in clean-
up efforts but without informing them of the hazardous material exposure that they will, more
likely than not, encounter and the regulatory regime attendant to worker exposure to such
materials, BP puts Plaintiff and the members of the United Commercial Fisherman’s
Association, Inc. in harm’s way while attempting to shift safety oversight responsibility solely
onto their shoulders. Plaintiff is subject to immediate and irreparable injury if he either
(1) chooses not to sign the Agreement and therefore not to participate in the cleanup activities
and loses his livelihood as a result, or (2) chooses to participate in the cleanup activities to
attempt to protect the source of his livelihood but as a consequence of signing the Agreement is
forced to assume hazardous material safety oversight for exposure to BP’s own crude oil. That
same untenable choice faces every member of the United Commercial Fisherman’s Association,
Inc. to whom BP has also demanded execute the MVCA.
Case 2:10-cv-01316-KDE-JCW Document 9-1 Filed 05/06/10 Page 9 of 11
10
As indicated above, it is believed that it is BP’s aim to obtain executed copies of the
MVCA from all volunteers who assist in BP’s mandatory clean-up obligations. Some of those
volunteers are likely people represented by counsel or putative members of one of the several
filed, but not yet certified, classes in actions against BP. Thus, the Agreement could irreparably
impact and/or tortiously interfere with attorney-client relationships and be in violation of rules of
the Louisiana State Bar.
In sum, if the Motion is denied, Plaintiff – and others like him – faces immediate and
irreparable harm. On the other hand, if a TRO is issued, BP will be no worse off, nor will
granting a TRO disserve the public interest. To the contrary granting a TRO will serve the
public interest in promoting worker safety and expediting the cleanup of the environmental
disaster now facing the State of Louisiana, the other Gulf States, and their citizens
CONCLUSION
For all of the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of the United
Commercial Fisherman’s Association, Inc. as President thereof, urges this Court to grant his
Emergency Motion for a Supplemental Temporary Restraining Order.
Respectfully submitted, /s/ James M. Garner__________________________ JAMES M. GARNER (# 19589) TIMOTHY B. FRANCIS (# 14973) JOSHUA S. FORCE (# 21975) SHARONDA R. WILLIAMS (# 28809) EMMA ELIZABETH ANTIN DASCHBACH (#27358) Sher Garner Cahill Richter Klein & Hilbert, L.L.C. 909 Poydras Street, 28th Floor New Orleans, LA 70112-1033 Telephone: (504) 299-2100 Facsimile: (504) 299-2300
Case 2:10-cv-01316-KDE-JCW Document 9-1 Filed 05/06/10 Page 10 of 11
11
GLADSTONE N. JONES, III (# 22221) EBERHARD D. GARRISON (# 22058) KEVIN E. HUDDELL (# 26930) H.S. BARTLETT III (# 26795) JACQUELINE A. STUMP (# 31981) Jones, Swanson, Huddell & Garrison, L.L.C.
Pan-American Life Center 601 Poydras Street, Suite 2655 New Orleans, LA 70130 Telephone: (504) 523-2500
Facsimile: (504) 523-2508 /s/ Stuart Smith _______
STUART H. SMITH # 17805 MICHAEL G. STAG Smith Stagg, L.L.C. 365 Canal Street, Suite 2850 New Orleans, LA 70130 (504) 593-9600 (504) 593-9601
VAL PATRICK EXNICIOS, ESQ. Liska, Exnicios & Nungesser One Canal Place 22nd Floor 365 Canal Street, Ste. 2290 New Orleans, LA 70130 Telephone: (504) 410-9611 Facsimile: (504) 410-9937
THOMAS E. BILEK KELLY COX BILEK The Bilek Law Firm, L.L.P. 808 Travis, Suite 802 Houston, TX 77002 (713) 227-7720 FAX (713) 227-9404
Case 2:10-cv-01316-KDE-JCW Document 9-1 Filed 05/06/10 Page 11 of 11
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
GEORGE BARISICH, individually and on behalf of THE UNITED COMMERCIAL FISHERMAN’S ASSOCIATION, INC. Civil Action No. 2:10-cv-01316 v. Section N Mag. 2 BP, P.L.C., BP EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION INC., and BP AMERICA PRODUCTION COMPANY
ORDER This cause came before this Court on the Supplemental Emergency Motion for
Temporary Restraining Order filed on behalf of Plaintiff, George Barisich, individually and on
behalf of the United Commercial Fisherman’s Association, Inc. as President thereof;
CONSIDERING the pleadings, memoranda, exhibits thereto and applicable law;
FURTHER CONSIDERING that the discharge spreading across the Louisiana coastal
waters continues, that clean-up of said discharge includes the participation of commercial fishing
vessels, that said clean-up will expose those vessels and their crews to hazardous materials, and
therefore, that the facts at issue here clearly show that immediate and irreparable injury will
result before Defendants, BP, plc, BP Exploration & Production Inc., and BP America
Production Company (collectively “BP”), can be heard in opposition to Plaintiff’s motion;
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Supplemental Emergency Motion for Temporary
Restraining Order filed on behalf of Plaintiff is GRANTED;
IT IS HEREBY FURTHER ORDERED that BP shall be responsible for safety for all
persons performing work under the Master Vessel Charter Agreement (“MVCA”);
Case 2:10-cv-01316-KDE-JCW Document 9-2 Filed 05/06/10 Page 1 of 3
2
IT IS HEREBY FURTHER ORDERED that BP provide the written safety and health
program specific to this class of workers (i.e., all persons performing services under an MVCA),
which should be filed with the Court instanter; however, if such a written program does not
exist, then BP should prepare one and file it with the Court within five (5) working days;
IT IS HEREBY FURTHER ORDERED that BP provide a medical surveillance
program for this class of workers, which program and the results of such should be filed with the
Court instanter with further updates as they become available to BP filed immediately; however,
if such a medical surveillance program does not exist, then BP should provide one and file it with
the Court within five (5) working days;
IT IS HEREBY FURTHER ORDERED that BP monitor airborne hazardous chemicals
in the areas in which this class of workers have been or will be assigned to perform work, the
status of such should be communicated to the Court immediately; however, if such a monitoring
program does not exist, BP should enact one instanter and file proof of such with the Court;
IT IS HEREBY FURTHER ORDERED that BP identify the hazardous chemical
exposure risks specific to the work and in the areas in which this class of workers have been or
will be assigned to perform work, the status of such identification should be communicated to the
Court instanter; however, if such risk identification has not occurred, then BP should conduct an
identification and file it with the Court within five (5) working days;
IT IS HEREBY FURTHER ORDERED that BP identify to the Court instanter the
personal protective equipment being issued by it for persons performing services under the
MVCA, including but not limited to the specific types of equipment being provided, to whom
they are being provided, and the quantity in which they are being provided;
Case 2:10-cv-01316-KDE-JCW Document 9-2 Filed 05/06/10 Page 2 of 3
3
IT IS HEREBY FURTHER ORDERED that BP describe to the Court instanter the
type of training being provided to persons performing services under the MVCA, including
copies of all communications being made as part of that training, including but not limited to
written materials disseminated, videos shown, or prepared remarks for speakers; and
IT IS HEREBY FURTHER ORDERED that BP describe to the Court instanter the
worker notification program it intends to use for persons performing services under the MVCA;
New Orleans, Louisiana, this _____ day of May, 2010 at _________ ___.m. __________________________________________ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 2:10-cv-01316-KDE-JCW Document 9-2 Filed 05/06/10 Page 3 of 3
Case 2:10-cv-01316-KDE-JCW Document 9-3 Filed 05/06/10 Page 1 of 90
Case 2:10-cv-01316-KDE-JCW Document 9-3 Filed 05/06/10 Page 2 of 90
Case 2:10-cv-01316-KDE-JCW Document 9-3 Filed 05/06/10 Page 3 of 90
Case 2:10-cv-01316-KDE-JCW Document 9-3 Filed 05/06/10 Page 4 of 90
Case 2:10-cv-01316-KDE-JCW Document 9-3 Filed 05/06/10 Page 5 of 90
Case 2:10-cv-01316-KDE-JCW Document 9-3 Filed 05/06/10 Page 6 of 90
Case 2:10-cv-01316-KDE-JCW Document 9-3 Filed 05/06/10 Page 7 of 90
Case 2:10-cv-01316-KDE-JCW Document 9-3 Filed 05/06/10 Page 8 of 90
Case 2:10-cv-01316-KDE-JCW Document 9-3 Filed 05/06/10 Page 9 of 90
Case 2:10-cv-01316-KDE-JCW Document 9-3 Filed 05/06/10 Page 10 of 90
Case 2:10-cv-01316-KDE-JCW Document 9-3 Filed 05/06/10 Page 11 of 90
Case 2:10-cv-01316-KDE-JCW Document 9-3 Filed 05/06/10 Page 12 of 90
Case 2:10-cv-01316-KDE-JCW Document 9-3 Filed 05/06/10 Page 13 of 90
Case 2:10-cv-01316-KDE-JCW Document 9-3 Filed 05/06/10 Page 14 of 90
Case 2:10-cv-01316-KDE-JCW Document 9-3 Filed 05/06/10 Page 15 of 90
Case 2:10-cv-01316-KDE-JCW Document 9-3 Filed 05/06/10 Page 16 of 90
Case 2:10-cv-01316-KDE-JCW Document 9-3 Filed 05/06/10 Page 17 of 90
Case 2:10-cv-01316-KDE-JCW Document 9-3 Filed 05/06/10 Page 18 of 90
Case 2:10-cv-01316-KDE-JCW Document 9-3 Filed 05/06/10 Page 19 of 90
Case 2:10-cv-01316-KDE-JCW Document 9-3 Filed 05/06/10 Page 20 of 90
Case 2:10-cv-01316-KDE-JCW Document 9-3 Filed 05/06/10 Page 21 of 90
Case 2:10-cv-01316-KDE-JCW Document 9-3 Filed 05/06/10 Page 22 of 90
Case 2:10-cv-01316-KDE-JCW Document 9-3 Filed 05/06/10 Page 23 of 90
Case 2:10-cv-01316-KDE-JCW Document 9-3 Filed 05/06/10 Page 24 of 90
Case 2:10-cv-01316-KDE-JCW Document 9-3 Filed 05/06/10 Page 25 of 90
Case 2:10-cv-01316-KDE-JCW Document 9-3 Filed 05/06/10 Page 26 of 90
Case 2:10-cv-01316-KDE-JCW Document 9-3 Filed 05/06/10 Page 27 of 90
Case 2:10-cv-01316-KDE-JCW Document 9-3 Filed 05/06/10 Page 28 of 90
Case 2:10-cv-01316-KDE-JCW Document 9-3 Filed 05/06/10 Page 29 of 90
Case 2:10-cv-01316-KDE-JCW Document 9-3 Filed 05/06/10 Page 30 of 90
Case 2:10-cv-01316-KDE-JCW Document 9-3 Filed 05/06/10 Page 31 of 90
Case 2:10-cv-01316-KDE-JCW Document 9-3 Filed 05/06/10 Page 32 of 90
Case 2:10-cv-01316-KDE-JCW Document 9-3 Filed 05/06/10 Page 33 of 90
Case 2:10-cv-01316-KDE-JCW Document 9-3 Filed 05/06/10 Page 34 of 90
Case 2:10-cv-01316-KDE-JCW Document 9-3 Filed 05/06/10 Page 35 of 90
Case 2:10-cv-01316-KDE-JCW Document 9-3 Filed 05/06/10 Page 36 of 90
Case 2:10-cv-01316-KDE-JCW Document 9-3 Filed 05/06/10 Page 37 of 90
Case 2:10-cv-01316-KDE-JCW Document 9-3 Filed 05/06/10 Page 38 of 90
Case 2:10-cv-01316-KDE-JCW Document 9-3 Filed 05/06/10 Page 39 of 90
Case 2:10-cv-01316-KDE-JCW Document 9-3 Filed 05/06/10 Page 40 of 90
Case 2:10-cv-01316-KDE-JCW Document 9-3 Filed 05/06/10 Page 41 of 90
Case 2:10-cv-01316-KDE-JCW Document 9-3 Filed 05/06/10 Page 42 of 90
Case 2:10-cv-01316-KDE-JCW Document 9-3 Filed 05/06/10 Page 43 of 90
Case 2:10-cv-01316-KDE-JCW Document 9-3 Filed 05/06/10 Page 44 of 90
Case 2:10-cv-01316-KDE-JCW Document 9-3 Filed 05/06/10 Page 45 of 90
Case 2:10-cv-01316-KDE-JCW Document 9-3 Filed 05/06/10 Page 46 of 90
Case 2:10-cv-01316-KDE-JCW Document 9-3 Filed 05/06/10 Page 47 of 90
Case 2:10-cv-01316-KDE-JCW Document 9-3 Filed 05/06/10 Page 48 of 90
Case 2:10-cv-01316-KDE-JCW Document 9-3 Filed 05/06/10 Page 49 of 90
Case 2:10-cv-01316-KDE-JCW Document 9-3 Filed 05/06/10 Page 50 of 90
Case 2:10-cv-01316-KDE-JCW Document 9-3 Filed 05/06/10 Page 51 of 90
Case 2:10-cv-01316-KDE-JCW Document 9-3 Filed 05/06/10 Page 52 of 90
Case 2:10-cv-01316-KDE-JCW Document 9-3 Filed 05/06/10 Page 53 of 90
Case 2:10-cv-01316-KDE-JCW Document 9-3 Filed 05/06/10 Page 54 of 90
Case 2:10-cv-01316-KDE-JCW Document 9-3 Filed 05/06/10 Page 55 of 90
Case 2:10-cv-01316-KDE-JCW Document 9-3 Filed 05/06/10 Page 56 of 90
Case 2:10-cv-01316-KDE-JCW Document 9-3 Filed 05/06/10 Page 57 of 90
Case 2:10-cv-01316-KDE-JCW Document 9-3 Filed 05/06/10 Page 58 of 90
Case 2:10-cv-01316-KDE-JCW Document 9-3 Filed 05/06/10 Page 59 of 90
Case 2:10-cv-01316-KDE-JCW Document 9-3 Filed 05/06/10 Page 60 of 90
Case 2:10-cv-01316-KDE-JCW Document 9-3 Filed 05/06/10 Page 61 of 90
Case 2:10-cv-01316-KDE-JCW Document 9-3 Filed 05/06/10 Page 62 of 90
Case 2:10-cv-01316-KDE-JCW Document 9-3 Filed 05/06/10 Page 63 of 90
Case 2:10-cv-01316-KDE-JCW Document 9-3 Filed 05/06/10 Page 64 of 90
Case 2:10-cv-01316-KDE-JCW Document 9-3 Filed 05/06/10 Page 65 of 90
Case 2:10-cv-01316-KDE-JCW Document 9-3 Filed 05/06/10 Page 66 of 90
Case 2:10-cv-01316-KDE-JCW Document 9-3 Filed 05/06/10 Page 67 of 90
Case 2:10-cv-01316-KDE-JCW Document 9-3 Filed 05/06/10 Page 68 of 90
Case 2:10-cv-01316-KDE-JCW Document 9-3 Filed 05/06/10 Page 69 of 90
Case 2:10-cv-01316-KDE-JCW Document 9-3 Filed 05/06/10 Page 70 of 90
Case 2:10-cv-01316-KDE-JCW Document 9-3 Filed 05/06/10 Page 71 of 90
Case 2:10-cv-01316-KDE-JCW Document 9-3 Filed 05/06/10 Page 72 of 90
Case 2:10-cv-01316-KDE-JCW Document 9-3 Filed 05/06/10 Page 73 of 90
Case 2:10-cv-01316-KDE-JCW Document 9-3 Filed 05/06/10 Page 74 of 90
Case 2:10-cv-01316-KDE-JCW Document 9-3 Filed 05/06/10 Page 75 of 90
Case 2:10-cv-01316-KDE-JCW Document 9-3 Filed 05/06/10 Page 76 of 90
Case 2:10-cv-01316-KDE-JCW Document 9-3 Filed 05/06/10 Page 77 of 90
Case 2:10-cv-01316-KDE-JCW Document 9-3 Filed 05/06/10 Page 78 of 90
Case 2:10-cv-01316-KDE-JCW Document 9-3 Filed 05/06/10 Page 79 of 90
Case 2:10-cv-01316-KDE-JCW Document 9-3 Filed 05/06/10 Page 80 of 90
Case 2:10-cv-01316-KDE-JCW Document 9-3 Filed 05/06/10 Page 81 of 90
Case 2:10-cv-01316-KDE-JCW Document 9-3 Filed 05/06/10 Page 82 of 90
Case 2:10-cv-01316-KDE-JCW Document 9-3 Filed 05/06/10 Page 83 of 90
Case 2:10-cv-01316-KDE-JCW Document 9-3 Filed 05/06/10 Page 84 of 90
Case 2:10-cv-01316-KDE-JCW Document 9-3 Filed 05/06/10 Page 85 of 90
Case 2:10-cv-01316-KDE-JCW Document 9-3 Filed 05/06/10 Page 86 of 90
Case 2:10-cv-01316-KDE-JCW Document 9-3 Filed 05/06/10 Page 87 of 90
Case 2:10-cv-01316-KDE-JCW Document 9-3 Filed 05/06/10 Page 88 of 90
Case 2:10-cv-01316-KDE-JCW Document 9-3 Filed 05/06/10 Page 89 of 90
Case 2:10-cv-01316-KDE-JCW Document 9-3 Filed 05/06/10 Page 90 of 90