Legal Expert’s Testimony on the Customs and Usages of the Oil and Gas Industry Admitted
Posted on September 3, 2025 by Expert Witness Profiler
Louisiana Minerals, Ltd., as lessor, and Weyerhaeuser, as lessee, are the successors in interest to a 1986 Timber Sale and Lease Contract (“Contract”).
LML asserted that Weyerhaeuser has entered into a significant number of unauthorized third-party agreements that impinge upon or adversely affect LML’s rights under the Contract. Damages were sought for harm caused by Weyerhaeuser’s alleged breach of contract and a declaration of the parties’ rights under the Contract to preclude Weyerhaeuser’s “unauthorized” activity going forward.
Both parties retained multiple experts to offer testimony concerning the interpretation of the parties’ agreement and calculation of damages. Weyerhaeuser Company filed a Daubert motion exclude the testimony of Patrick Ottinger while Louisiana Minerals, Ltd. filed a Daubert motion or alternative motion in limine to exclude or limit the testimony of Keith B. Hall.
Law And Legal Expert Witnesses
Patrick S. Ottinger has practiced mineral law for forty-nine years — including examining title for oil and gas purposes, has taught oil and gas courses at the Paul M. Hebert Law Center, Louisiana State University since 1996, and has authored numerous articles on a variety of issues involved in this field.
Professor Keith B. Hall practiced law for sixteen years focusing on oil and gas litigation and transactions prior to joining the LSU Law faculty in 2012. He has served as an expert on customs and practices within the oil and gas industry on numerous occasions, including disputes that arose in Louisiana. Hall also holds multiple academic and professional appointments that focus on mineral rights and energy law, including serving as Director of the Mineral Law Institute at Louisiana State University (LSU). He is also the co-author of four books on oil and gas law.
Discussion by the Court
The Ottinger Motion
LML’s proffered expert, Ottinger was retained to give his “opinion as to the effect and import of the [Contract] … particularly as to the provisions contained therein relative to the right to exploit mineral resources in and under the [Property] affected by the [Contract], and to conduct surface activities, or to grant other surface rights, on the [Property] described in the [Contract].”
Weyerhaeuser sought to exclude Ottinger’s trial testimony on the basis that the opinions rendered in his expert report consisted entirely of legal opinions.
Weyerhaeuser pointed to Ottinger’s deposition testimony stating that his proposed testimony is “fairly characterized as an opinion about how the [Contract] might be interpreted in granting or reserving rights to minerals in the land, including how the Contract would be viewed as a legal instrument within the structure of the Civil Code.”
The Hall Motion
Hall was retained by Weyerhaeuser to opine on “customs, usages and practices of the oil and gas industry, and particularly … relevant to agreements governing a mineral owner’s and its mineral lessee’s right to use the surface of land to conduct mineral operations and the concurrent rights of others to use the surface.”
LML asserted that Hall did not possess the requisite knowledge, skill, experience, training or education to instruct the Court as the fact finder on custom and practices of timber leases or surface use agreements.
LML also claimed that Hall did not review documents showing the opinions or practice of mineral lessees or their interpretations of the Contract as it pertains to surface use on the Property.
Analysis
Having carefully reviewed Ottinger’s expert report and deposition testimony, and particularly considering his years of experience as an oil and gas title examiner, professor of law, and mineral lawyer, the Court is satisfied that he possesses knowledge that may assist the trier of fact in understanding how the issues presented in this case conform to the customs and usages in the oil and gas industry.
As a result, Ottinger was allowed to testify, based on custom and usages, as to how the Contract and third-party agreements of the kind in dispute work in the oil and gas industry. However, Weyerhaeuser’s point is well taken that, “it is inappropriate to allow an expert to opine on legal conclusions, even in a bench trial.” Accordingly, Ottinger was barred from testifying about the legal effect and meaning of the Contract.
Hall’s experience as an oil and gas lawyer and an expert on customs and practices within the industry, coupled with his multiple academic and professional appointments and related authorship, are all indicia that he possesses knowledge that will assist the Court in understanding the custom and practice regarding the agreements that LML now challenges. While Hall was allowed to testify about how the Contract and third-party agreement of the kind in dispute operate in the oil and gas industry, the Court did not permit Hall to testify about the legal effect or meaning of the Contract.
Held
- The Court granted in part and denied in part the Defendant Weyerhaeuser Company’s Daubert motion to exclude the testimony of Patrick Ottinger.
- The Court granted in part and denied in part LML’s Daubert motion to exclude the testimony of Keith B. Hall.
Key Takeaway:
It is inappropriate to allow an expert to opine on legal conclusions, even in a bench trial. Accordingly, both Ottinger and Hall were barred from testifying about the legal effect and meaning of the Contract.
Please refer to the blog previously published about this case:
Oil and Gas Industry Expert is Qualified Despite Her Lack of Forensic Accounting Credentials
Case Details:
| Case Caption: | Louisiana Minerals Ltd V. Weyerhaeuser Company |
| Docket Number: | 5:22cv145 |
| Court Name: | United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana, Shreveport Division |
| Order Date: | June 4, 2025 |
