BP, oil spill victims argue over trial venue

Article from Borneo Bulletin Weekend. Published on Saturday Jul, 31 2010

BOISE, Idaho (AFP) - Lawyers for Gulf of Mexico disaster victims opened the first stage in a massive civil trial Thursday, arguing for the venue to be in one of the hardest hit states and not the oil headquarters of Texas as requested by BP.

The hearing before a panel of judges in Boise, Idaho was to consider whether lawsuits from some 200 plaintiffs should be consolidated into one or several cases, and where the trial or trials should take place.

British energy giant BP argued in favour of Houston, Texas - headquarters of the oil industry and where it has set up its control rooms to coordinate its response to what has been called America's worst environmental disaster.

"The better access to evidence is in Houston. The key evidences are by far in Houston," BP attorney Andrew Langan told a packed courtroom.

But the plaintiffs hit back that the case should be heard closer to locations hit hardest by the oil spill, such as Louisiana or Alabama, with New Orleans appearing to be their preferred option.

"We have a very special culture in New Orleans and our culture has been damaged," said attorney Russ Hermann, representing shrimpers, hotels, food processors and boat captains.

"And we would like the case there so that our people have hope, and so that the country and the world are focused where the damages occurred."

A decision is expected in around two weeks, but the 90-minute session gave lawyers a test run for the arguments they will make during legal proceedings that could stretch out for years.

Law professor Richard Nagareda said the seven federal judges of the Multidistrict Litigation Panel (MDL Panel) could in theory choose to send the sprawling oil-spill litigation to one judge in one federal US court.

"The panel may very well be inclined to choose a judge located around the Gulf Coast area," said Nagareda, a professor at Vanderbilt University.

US prosecutor Stephen Flynn backed the plaintiffs' argument to move the case to Louisiana, his jurisdiction.

"We are not a party to the case, but we were asked our opinion," he said. "We think that a case of this magnitude should be centralised geographically."

He argued that Louisiana offered "best access for the plaintiffs and witnesses, and most of the economic and natural damages were in Louisiana."