ALL COAST, LLC v. SHORE OFFSHORE SERVICES, LLC CIVIL ACTION NO: 21-258 United States District Court, E.D. Louisiana Signed January 17, 2023 Filed January 18, 2023 Counsel Matthew Armin Moeller, David Khoury Smith, The Moeller Firm LLC, New Orleans, LA, for All Coast, LLC. Gavin H. Guillot, Aaron Benjamin Greenbaum, Jacob A. Altmyer, Jonathan David Parker, Salvador Joseph Pusateri, Pusateri, Johnston, Guillot & Greenbaum, LLC, New Orleans, LA, Meredith W. Blanque, New Orleans, LA, for Shore Offshore Services, LLC. Roby, Karen W., United States Magistrate Judge ORDER *1 Before the Court is a Motion to Compel (R. Doc. 428) filed by Modern American Railroad Services, L.L.C. and Shore Offshore Services, LLC (hereinafter collectively referred to as “Thor Interests”) seeking an Order from the Court compelling Crosby Tugs, LLC (“Crosby”) to produce more complete responses to the omnibus discovery requests propounded on it by all claimants and the direct discovery requests propounded on it by Thor Interests. The motion is opposed. R. Doc. 437. The motion was heard on January 11, 2023. I. Background A. Introduction This matter arises from a breakaway incident involving the Derrick Barge THOR (“THOR”) and tug CROSBY ENDEAVOR (“CROSBY”) that occurred during Hurricane Zeta on October 28, 2020. R. Doc. 1. A more detailed background can be found in previous Court Orders. The record reflects that THOR was tied to the Martin Energy Services dock in Port Fourchon, Louisiana, during Hurricane Zeta, and Crosby's towing vessel, CROSBY ENDEAVOR, was coupled to THOR's side. Id. Thor Interests contend that despite being paid charter hire to be coupled to the THOR for the storm, that Crosby claims its tug owed no obligation to keep THOR under control or pushed against the dock in the event of a breakaway. R. Doc. 428-1, p. 2. Thor Interests allege that THOR ultimately broke away from the Martin Energy Services dock and, while CROSBY was coupled to THOR, THOR came into contact with a number of other vessels and property, causing damage. Id. B. Instant Motion Thor Interests filed the instant motion on December 22, 2022. R. Doc. 428. In their motion, Thor Interests contend that omnibus discovery requests were propounded on Crosby by all limitation claimants on April 4, 2022. R. Doc. 428-1, p. 2. Thor Interests contend that Crosby produced responses to these omnibus requests on July 11, 2022, and supplemental responses on September 23, 2022. Id. However, Thor Interests allege that many of the responses provide that Crosby is “working to obtain” documents or that documents would be produced upon receipt. Id. Thor Interests contend that they made numerous attempts to obtain more responsive production, but to no avail, Omnibus Requests for Production Nos. 6, 9, 10, 21, 23, 45, 47, 49, and 50 remain deficient and outstanding. Id. at 2-3. In addition to the omnibus discovery requests, Thor Interests contend that they propounded direct discovery upon Crosby on September 23, 2022. Id. at 3. However, Thor Interests contend that when Crosby ultimately provided its responses on November 28, 2022, those responses were not complete. Id. Specifically, Thor Interests allege that they asked Crosby to identify and/or admit certain information regarding CROSBY ENDEAVOR's engine, bow, and thruster before and during the breakaway. Id. Yet, to date, Thor Interests allege that Crosby has refused to respond meaningfully to these requests, stating that it does not maintain any documents that would evidence the answers sought. Id. Further, Thor Interests contend that Crosby indicates that Thor Interests should instead “defer to the expected sworn testimony of its crew members who have yet to be deposed.” Id. *2 Crosby filed an opposition to Thor Interests’ instant motion on January 4, 2023. R. Doc. 437. Essentially, Crosby argues that it has produced all responsive documents that it maintains and its production efforts are ongoing. Id. Further, Crosby argues that some of the documents and information sought from Thor Interests, would be best obtained through the form of a deposition. Id. Thor Interests filed a reply to Crosby's opposition on January 9, 2023 reemphasizing its arguments for compelling production of the requested discovery. R. Doc. 443. II. Standard of Review Rule 26(b)(1) provides that “[p]arties may obtain discovery regarding any non-privileged matter that is relevant to any party's claim or defense.” See Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(1). The Rule specifies that “[r]elevant information need not be admissible at the trial if the discovery appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” Id. The discovery rules are accorded broad and liberal treatment to achieve their purpose of adequately informing litigants in civil trials. Herbert v. Lando, 441 U.S. 153, 177, 99 S.Ct. 1635, 60 L.Ed.2d 115 (1979). Nevertheless, discovery does have “ultimate and necessary boundaries.” Oppenheimer Fund, Inc. v. Sanders, 437 U.S. 340, 351, 98 S.Ct. 2380, 57 L.Ed.2d 253 (1978) (quoting Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495, 507, 67 S.Ct. 385, 91 L.Ed. 451 (1947)). Further, it is well established that “control of discovery is committed to the sound discretion of the trial court ...” Freeman v. United States, 556 F.3d 326, 341 (5th Cir. 2009); Coleman v. Am. Red Cross, 23 F.3d 1091, 1096 (6th Cir. 1994). Under Rule 26(b)(2)(C), discovery may be limited if: (1) the discovery sought is unreasonably cumulative or duplicative, or is obtainable from another, more convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive source; (2) the party seeking discovery has had ample opportunity to obtain the discovery sought; or (3) the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit. Id. In assessing whether the burden of the discovery outweighs its benefit, a court must consider: (1) the needs of the case; (2) the amount in controversy; (3) the parties’ resources; (4) the importance of the issues at stake in the litigation; and (5) the importance of the proposed discovery in resolving the issues. Id. at 26(b)(2)(C)(iii). Discovery of documents, electronically stored information, and the like is governed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 34. Rule 34 allows a party to request the production of “any designated documents or electronically stored information” or “any tangible things” in the responding party's “possession, custody, or control.” Id. III. Analysis In their instant motion, Thor Interests seek a Court order compelling Crosby to more fully respond to Omnibus Requests for Production Nos. 6, 9, 10, 21, 23, 45, 47, 49, and 50; and Thor Interests Direct Interrogatories Nos. 9, 10, 12, 19 and 21; and Requests for Admissions Nos. 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, and 43. During oral argument, Crosby informed the Court, and Thor Interests accepted, that Crosby will be providing third supplemental responses to Omnibus Requests for Production Nos. 6, 9, 10, 21, 23, 45, 47, 49, and 50, and therefore they are rendered MOOT. Regarding Thor Interests’ Direct Interrogatories Nos. 10 and 21, and Requests for Admissions Nos. 32-36, and 38-43, Thor Interests allege that this discovery seeks information pertaining to whether the tug assist CROSBY ENDEAVOR's propellors and battle thrusters were engaged. Crosby objected to Interrogatory No. 10 on the basis that it is not in possession of responsive information at this time and defers to the expected testimony of its crew members aboard the CROSBY ENDEAVOR on October 28, 2020. Crosby objected to Interrogatory No. 21 for the same reasons as Interrogatory No. 10 and relevancy. *3 Crosby objected to the Requests for Admission to the extent they imply that Crosby owed a duty to “secure” the THOR in place during Hurricane Zeta. Further, Crosby alleges that it lacks the knowledge and information to either admit or deny the requests because it does not maintain documents that would evidence “thrust levels.” The Court overrules Crosby's objections. The Court finds that Thor Interests’ Direct Interrogatories Nos. 10 and 21, and Requests for Admissions Nos. 32-36, and 38-43 are relevant because they go to the scope of liability and orders Crosby to respond. Thor Interests’ Direct Interrogatory No. 9 seeks information pertaining to all instances in the past five years preceding the incident where a Crosby Tugs, LLC vessel was tied to a manned barge during a storm “to seek shelter.” Crosby objected on the basis that Interrogatory No. 9 is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and not relevant. During oral argument, counsel for Thor Interests offered to limit the incident to the CROSBY ENDEAVOR. Crosby accepted this modification and agreed to supplement its response. Thor Interests’ Direct Interrogatory No. 12 seeks information pertaining to all contracts in effect at the time of the incident between Crosby and any claimants in the consolidated proceedings. Crosby objected to Interrogatory No. 12 to the extent it calls for a legal conclusion and directs Thor Interests to see its response to Omnibus Interrogatory No. 41. During oral argument, Crosby contended that Interrogatory No. 12 is duplicative of Omnibus Request for Production No. 47 which seeks all contracts. Further, Crosby contended, and Thor Interests accepted, that Interrogatory No. 12 will be addressed in Crosby's third supplemental responses. Therefore, Interrogatory No. 12 is rendered MOOT. Thor Interests’ Direct Interrogatory No. 19 seeks information pertaining to the relationship that Crosby Tugs, LLC had with Dawn Services, LLC regarding the use of the CROSBY ENDEAVOR on October 28, 2020. Crosby responded by directing Thor Interests to see its response to Omnibus Interrogatory No. 41. Crosby's response to Omnibus Interrogatory No. 41 describes its relationship with Dawn Services, LLC. The Court finds that based on Crosby's response to Omnibus Interrogatory No. 41, its response to Thor Interests’ Direct Interrogatory No. 19 is sufficient. The Court does not order a further response from Crosby. IV. Conclusion Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the Modern American Railroad Services, L.L.C. and Shore Offshore Services, LLC's Motion to Compel (R. Doc. 428) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part, consistent with the opinion above. The motion is GRANTED in part because the Court orders Crosby Tugs, LLC to respond to Direct Interrogatory Nos. 10 and 21, and Requests for Admission Nos. 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, and 43. The motion is DENIED in part because the Court does not order further response to Direct Interrogatory No. 19. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that supplemental responses as described above are provided no later than 10 days from the issue of this Order.