A federal judge presiding over the high-profile Deepwater Horizon case declined BP鈥檚 request that he reconsider an earlier ruling because he had allowed inadmissible testimony at trial.
In September, U.S. District Judge Carl J. Barbier found British Petroleum guilty of 鈥済ross negligence鈥 and 鈥渨illful misconduct鈥 in the 2010 blowout that killed 11 people and poured more than 200 million gallons of oil into the Gulf of Mexico. The ruling put BP, which has already spent $28 billion on cleanup and damage claims, at fault for 67 percent of the blame and at risk of up to $18 billion in fines under the Clean Water Act.
BP, which had put aside only $3.5 billion for potential fines, announced it would appeal the ruling based on the court鈥檚 use of inadmissible testimony from Gene Beck of Halliburton, one of two other companies sharing blame for the disaster. BP asked Barbier to amend the gross negligence ruling or call for a new trial, arguing the Beck鈥檚 testimony was critical to finding BP at 鈥済ross鈥 fault, . The judge rejected the request Thursday.
鈥淏P鈥檚 assertions that it was 鈥榰nfairly surprised鈥 and 鈥榩rejudiced鈥 by the court鈥檚 reliance on this testimony lacks any basis in fact or law,鈥 Barbier wrote in . 鈥淩ather, it seems BP was a 鈥榲ictim鈥 of its own trial strategy.鈥
Though the testimony was at one point barred from admission for being 鈥渙utside the scope of [Beck鈥檚] expert report 鈥 [and containing] undisclosed opinion,鈥 Barbier explains, BP鈥檚 lawyers referred to the testimony later in the trial, inadvertently reintroducing it into play.
BP spokesman Geoff Morrell told reporters that the company still disagrees and will continue pursuing an appeal.
The September ruling pertained only to the blowout of the Deepwater Horizon rig. Barbier will rule on the amount of oil spilled and exact fiscal penalties beginning in January, reports the .