ALL COAST, LLC v. SHORE OFFSHORE SERVICES, LLC; MODERN AMERICAN RAILROAD SERVICES, L.L.C.; and MARTIN ENERGY SERVICES, LLC CIVIL ACTION NO: 21-258 | c/w 21-337, 21-464, 21-822, 21-1968, 21-1969, 21-1981, 21-1982, 21-2075, 21-2227, 23-3220 United States District Court, E.D. Louisiana Filed March 06, 2024 Roby, Karen W., United States Magistrate Judge ORDER *1 Before the Court is a Motion to Compel (R. Doc. 559) filed by the Limited Petitioners, Modern American Railroad Services, L.L.C., and Shore Offshore Services, LLC (collectively “THOR Interests”) seeking an Order from this Court compelling Martin Energy Services, LLC, and Martin Operating Partnership L.P. (collectively “Martin”) to produce full and complete responses to Omnibus Interrogatory Nos. 11, 13, 14, 15, 23, 24, 30, 31, 32, and 37; Omnibus Requests for Production Nos. 7, 8, 9, 28, 31, and 33; THOR Interests Interrogatory No. 23; and THOR Interests Request for Production No. 1. The Motion is opposed. R. Doc. 561. The Motion was heard by oral argument on January 24, 2024. I. Background This litigation arises from the breakaway of the D/B THOR and M/V CROSBY ENDEAVOR that occurred on October 28, 2020, during Hurricane Zeta. R. Doc. 561. The D/B THOR, a vessel owned and operated by THOR Interests, arrived at Martin Energy Services Fuel Dock No. 16 in Port Fourchon on October 27, 2020, to receive fuel and water services. R. Doc. 561. THOR Interests asserts that several of the bollards at Martin's dock failed the next day during Hurricane Zeta, causing the D/B THOR to break free from her moorings. R. Doc. 559. Subsequently, the D/B THOR allegedly came into contact with numerous other vessels and objects, resulting in the present litigation. R. Doc. 559. THOR Interests alleges that the discovery requests at issue are relevant to their claims against Martin regarding the October 28, 2020 incident, as well as Martin's claims against THOR Interests for property damage allegedly sustained as a result of incident. R. Doc. 559. THOR Interests asserts that the condition of the dock, Martin's knowledge of that condition, and Martin's inspection and maintenance of the dock are relevant to THOR Interests claims. R. Doc. 559-1. More specifically, such information is relevant to THOR Interests' claims regarding the suitability of the dock for mooring the D/B THOR and Martin's efforts to ascertain the suitability of the dock. Id. Citing Dixie Marine, Inc. v. Q Jake M/V, No. 16-12415 (E.D. La. 8/22/17) (holding a wharfinger liable for damages in a mooring incident on the basis that it had breached its duty to provide a safe berth and warn the incoming vessel of hidden deficiencies). THOR Interests further alleges that Martin's responses to the discovery requests at issue are evasive, incomplete, and replete with boilerplate objections. R. Doc. 559. In their Opposition, Martin asserts that several of the discovery requests in controversy falsely insinuate that Martin has any liability for the inadequate mooring configuration chosen by THOR Interests, when federal jurisprudence limits Martin's liability as a wharfinger to limited hidden defects or known deficiencies of the Martin dock unknown to the D/B THOR. R. Doc. 561. Citing Bunge Corp. v. M/V Furness Bridge, 558 F.2d 790 (5th Cir. 1977) (holding a vessel solely liable for damages in a mooring incident on the basis that the wharfinger had no duty to warn the vessel of the condition of the wharf because defendants could observe all material conditions before they docked). Also citing Trade Banner, Inc. v. Caribbean Steamship Co., 521 F.2d 229 (1975) (holding that a wharfinger was not responsible for securing a vessel that broke free during a storm, on the basis that the responsibility of choosing where and how to moor the vessel rested solely on the master of vessel). *2 Additionally, Martin alleges that the D/B THOR was responsible for securing its mooring to the Martin dock, which was done using cables and lines owned exclusively by THOR Interests under the sole direction of the superintendent aboard the D/B THOR. R. Doc. 561. Martin further alleges that due to the impeding storm, all Martin dock personnel evacuated the facility prior to the breakaway and notified the D/B THOR before doing so. Id. II. Standard of Review Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33 allows a party to serve another party written interrogatories which “must, to the extent it is not objected to, be answered separately and fully in writing under oath.” FED. R. CIV. P. 33(b)(3). Rule 33 states that the “responding party must serve its answers and any objections within 30 days after being served with the interrogatories.” FED. R. CIV. P. 33(b)(2). The person who answers the interrogatories must sign them, and the attorney must sign any objections. FED. R. CIV. P. 33(b)(5). Similarly, Rule 34 allows a party to request the production of “any designated documents or electronically stored information” or “any designated tangible things.” FED. R. CIV. P. 34(a)(1). For each item or category, a “response must ... state with specificity the grounds for objecting to the request, including the reasons.” FED. R. CIV. P. 34 (b)(2)(B). Rules 33 and 34 permit such discovery requests to the extent of Rule 26(b). FED. R. CIV. P. 33(a)(2); 34(a). Rule 26(b)(1) sets the scope of discovery to include “any non-privileged matter that is relevant to any party's claim or defense[.]” FED. R. CIV. P. 26(b)(1). Rule 26(b)(1) further specifies that “[i]nformation within this scope of discovery need not be admissible in evidence to be discovered.” Id. Rule 26(b)(1) also specifies that discovery must be “proportional to the needs of the case, considering the importance of the issues at stake in the action, the amount in controversy, the parties' relative access to relevant information, the parties' resources, the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues, and whether the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit.” Id. Additionally, Rule 26 provides that 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 under the Rule 26(b)(1) balancing test. FED. R. CIV. P. 26(b)(2)(C). Rule 37 allows a party to move for an order compelling discovery from another party in certain circumstances and provides sanctions for failure to cooperate with such discovery. In particular, Rule 37(a)(3)(b)(iii)-(iv) allows a party seeking discovery to move for an order compelling an answer or production of documents where a party “fails to answer an interrogatory” or “fails to produce documents[.]” In this context, an “evasive or incomplete” answer or production is treated the same as a complete failure to answer or produce. FED. R. CIV. P. 37(a)(4). III. Analysis A. Discovery Seeking Lists of Names and Contact Information 1. Omnibus Interrogatory No. 11 THOR Interests contests the sufficiency of Martin's response to Omnibus Interrogatory No. 11, on the basis that Martin's response failed to provide the requested list of individuals. R. Doc. 559-1. THOR Interests assert that Martin's response places a burden on the other parties to search through the hundreds of documents, and that Martin should be compelled to simply identify any individuals responsive to this interrogatory. Id. *3 Martin alleges that the text was vague as to the meaning of “inspected” and “monitored”. R. Doc. 561. More specifically, Martin asserts that the text leaves Martin to speculate whether cargo-based inspections fall under this question. Id. Martin further asserts that the interrogatory is unduly burdensome, and that Martin had no duty to board, inspect, or monitor either vessel during the breakaway. Id. Omnibus Interrogatory No. 11 sought the name and contact information of “each person who boarded and/or inspected and/or monitored the M/V CROSBY ENDEAVOR and/or the D/B THOR on [Martin's] behalf” in October 2020. R. Doc. 559-2. In response to Omnibus Interrogatory No. 11, Martin objected on the basis that the request's language of “boarded and/or inspected and/or monitored” was vague and ambiguous. R. Doc. 561. Subject to that objection, Martin cited its response to Request for Production No. 15. Id. Neither Request for Production No. 15 nor Martin's response was provided for the Court's review in this motion. At oral argument, counsel for Martin asserted that their response to Request for Production No. 15 included the names and contact information at issue in Interrogatory No. 11 through its production of invoices, Bills of Lading (BOL), meter tickets, and yard tickets. The Court overrules Martin's objection on the basis of vagueness and ambiguity. The Court finds that the text of the interrogatory's request is not ambiguous as to what constitutes inspection, boarding, or monitoring. The Court further finds that Martin's response to Omnibus Interrogatory No. 11 is insufficient due to its failure to provide the requested list of names and contact information. It is ordered that Martin shall provide the requested list, not a citation to various documents that purportedly include the requested information. Therefore, THOR Interests' request to compel further response to Omnibus Interrogatory No. 11 is granted. 2. Omnibus Interrogatory No. 13 THOR Interests contests the sufficiency of Martin's response to Omnibus Interrogatory No. 13, on the same basis that Martin's response failed to provide the requested list of individuals. R. Doc. 559-1. THOR Interests therefore seeks supplementation of Martin's response to Omnibus Interrogatory No. 13. Id. Martin alleges that it has already provided the contact information for multiple individuals who monitored the storm, along with emails pertaining to the monitoring of weather forecasts. R. Doc. 561. Martin further asserts that such information is irrelevant to the issues of liability, on the basis that a wharfinger has no duty to advise an approaching vessel of weather reports or other conditions arising during the ordinary course of docking that are readily apparent to the ship. Id. Citing Bunge Corp. v. M/V Furness Bridge, 558 F.2d 790 (5th Cir. 1977) (providing that the wharfinger has no duty to warn where the alleged hazardous condition is open and obvious to those in charge of the vessel's management). Omnibus Interrogatory No. 13 sought a list of “the name and contact information of each of person who was monitoring Tropical Depression No. 28, Tropical Storm Zeta, and/or Hurricane Zeta on [Martin's] behalf.” R. Doc. 559-2. In response to Omnibus Interrogatory No. 13, Martin cited to the documents already produced, “including but not limited to, Request for Production No. 7.” Id. Request for Production No. 7 requested “a copy of each of your severe weather and/or hurricane plans for 2016 to date.” See R. Doc. 559-1. See also R. Doc. 561. *4 In response to Request for Production No. 7, Martin objected on the grounds of overbreadth, undue burden, and “not subject to lead to admissible evidence.” Id. Subject to this objection, Martin cited to MARTIN 00644-00715, which Martin asserted contained the Hurricane Preparedness Plan in effect in May 2020 along with the contact information of multiple individuals who monitored the storm. Id. The Court sustains Martin's objection to Request for Production No. 7, since a request for severe weather and hurricane plans from 2016 goes beyond the scope of what is at issue. However, the Court finds that Martin's severe weather and hurricane plans from 2018 through 2020 fall within the scope of discovery and must be produced. Therefore, the Court finds that Martin must produce its severe weather and hurricane plans in effect from 2018 through 2020 pursuant to Request for Production No. 7. By contrast, Omnibus Interrogatory No. 13 specifically requests the name and contact information of the individuals monitoring three named severe storms on Martin's behalf. This greater specificity avoids the problems of overbreadth present in Request for Production No. 7. Additionally, the Court finds that Martin's response to Omnibus Interrogatory No. 13 is non-responsive. Martin must provide the requested list, not a citation to various documents that purportedly include the requested information. Regarding Martin's argument of relevancy, the Court finds that the requested information is relevant to THOR Interests' claims against Martin and falls within the scope of discovery. The strength of THOR Interests' claims and the admissibility of such information are separate from the question of discoverability, which is currently before this Court. Therefore, THOR Interests' request to compel further response to Omnibus Interrogatory No. 13 is granted. 3. Omnibus Interrogatory No. 14 THOR Interests contests the sufficiency of Martin's response to Omnibus Interrogatory No. 14, which sought the names of people involved in the mooring decision. R. Doc. 559-1. THOR Interests contends that Martin's response failed to provide the requested list of individuals. Id. Martin asserts that it is not in the best position to list the names of all persons who decided to moor the D/B THOR to the Martin Dock. R. Doc. 561. Martin asserts that the mooring was the D/B THOR's own decision, not Martin's, and that this request should therefore be denied. Id. Omnibus Interrogatory No. 14 sought a list of “the name and contact information of each person who was involved in the decision to moor and/or how to moor the D/B THOR to the Martin Energy Dock No. 16 in Port Fourchon prior to the arrival of Hurricane Zeta.” R. Doc. 559-2. In response to Omnibus Interrogatory No. 14, Martin objected on the basis that this information “is more readily available from another party, namely D/B THOR.” Id. Subject to this objection, Martin cited to the documents produced in response to Request for Production No. 15. Id. As discussed above regarding Omnibus Interrogatory No. 11, Martin's response to Request for Production No. 15 purportedly included names and contact information of who was on board the M/V CROSBY ENDEAVOR and D/B THOR. The Court overrules Martin's objection, on the basis that Martin cannot rely solely on the discovery responses of other parties. The Court further finds that Martin's response to Omnibus Interrogatory No. 14 is insufficient on the basis that Martin's citation to Request for Production No. 15 fails to provide the requested list of names and contact information for each person involved in the decision to moor the D/B THOR to the Martin Energy Dock No. 16. The Court further finds that Martin's citation to all documents produced in the course of discovery is vague and evasive. Therefore, THOR Interests' request to compel further responses to Omnibus Interrogatory No. 14 is granted. 4. Omnibus Interrogatory No. 15 *5 THOR Interests contests the sufficiency of Martin's response to Omnibus Interrogatory No. 15, on the same basis that Martin's response failed to provide the requested list of individuals involved in the mooring decision. R. Doc. 559-1. Martin alleges that this request is better addressed to the owner and operators of the D/B THOR, on the basis that such individuals were responsible for the decision of whether and how to moor the D/B THOR. R. Doc. 561. Omnibus Interrogatory No. 15 sought a list of “the name and contact information of each of person who discussed whether to moor and/or how to moor the D/B THOR Martin Energy Dock No. 16 in Port Fourchon prior to the arrival of Hurricane Zeta.” R. Doc. 559-2. In response to Omnibus Interrogatory No. 15, Martin provided the exact same objection and citation as seen in its response to Omnibus Interrogatory No. 14. Id. The Court sustains Martin's objection, on the grounds that Omnibus Interrogatory No. 15 is duplicative of Omnibus Interrogatory No. 14. Therefore, THOR Interests' request to compel further responses to Omnibus Interrogatory No. 15 is denied. 5. Omnibus Interrogatory No. 23 THOR Interests contests the sufficiency of Martin's response to Omnibus Interrogatory No. 23, seeking the names of people involved in inspection, upkeep, maintenance, or repair of Martin's dock. R. Doc. 559-1. THOR Interests contends that Martin's generalized reference to all documents produced is facially deficient. Id. THOR Interests alleges that Martin's identification of four Martin personnel was inadequate. Id. More specifically, THOR Interests asserts that such a response fails to include United States Coast Guard (“USCG”) and the Greater Lafourche Parish Commission (“GLPC”), who performed an inspection of the dock less than a month before the incident in controversy. Id. Martin alleges that Omnibus Interrogatory No. 23 is unreasonably duplicative and that the information requested is easily obtainable from documents already produced. R. Doc. 561. More specifically, Martin asserts that the inspection reports from these parties have already been produced by Martin and GLPC, along with invoices for dock repairs by SBL Construction, LLC and Grand Isle Shipyard, LLC. Id. Martin asserts that such documents satisfy Omnibus Interrogatory No. 23. Id. Omnibus Interrogatory No. 23 sought “the names and contact information of all persons involved in or responsible for the inspection, upkeep, maintenance and/or repair of the Martin Energy Dock No. 16 in Port Fourchon for the period from five years before the breakaway of the D/B THOR on October 28, 2020 to the present.” R. Doc. 559-2. In response to Omnibus Interrogatory No. 23, Martin objected on the grounds of overbreadth, undue burden, vagueness, and ambiguity. Id. Martin asserted that the request was “not propounded within specificity related to the issues in this litigation.” Id. Subject to this objection, Martin cited to its response to Interrogatory No. 1 and all documents produced in its responses to Omnibus Requests for Production of Documents. Id. Omnibus Interrogatory No. 1 requested “the names and contact information of all individuals who were on duty at the Martin Energy Dock No. 16 in Port Fourchon during October 1 - 31, 2020, including the date and time each was on duty.” Id. Martin objected on the basis of overbreadth, undue burden, and “not subject to lead to admissible evidence.”[1] Id. Subject to this objection, Martin began to list personnel, of which they purportedly provided four pertinent Martin terminal personnel. Id. See R. Doc. 559-1. *6 The Court sustains Martin's objection of overbreadth and undue burden, to the extent that the nine-year timeframe sought by Omnibus Interrogatory No. 23 is overbroad. However, the Court finds that the requested list of the names and contact information of responsive individuals for five years prior to the incident in controversy is discoverable. The Court further finds that finds that Martin's response to Omnibus Interrogatory No. 23 is insufficient. Interrogatory No. 1 seeks information from a one-month timeframe, not the discoverable five-year timeframe requested by Omnibus Interrogatory No. 23. The Court also finds that Martin's citation to all documents produced in the course of discovery is vague and evasive. Therefore, THOR Interests' request to compel further response to Omnibus Interrogatory No. 23 is granted to the extent that Martin must provide the list of names and contact information of responsive individuals for the five years preceding the incident in controversy. B. Discovery Seeking Information and Documents Regarding Mooring 1. Omnibus Interrogatory No. 24 THOR Interests contests the sufficiency of Martin's response to Omnibus Interrogatory No. 24, which sought to identify other mooring options. R. Doc. 559-1. More specifically, the request seeks all other mooring options that Martin considered. Id. THOR Interests asserts that Martin is therefore the only party in possession of the responsive information. Id. Martin asserts that this request assumes Martin has a duty to moor the D/B THOR or to find options for the D/B THOR to moor at, which Martin denies. R. Doc. 561. Omnibus Interrogatory No. 24 requested that Martin “list in detail all other options for mooring locations, diverting to other locations, and/or riding out the storm that you considered for the D/B THOR for Hurricane Zeta and the reasons each of those options was rejected.” R. Doc. 559-2. In response to Omnibus Interrogatory No. 24, Martin objected on the basis that the information is “more readily available from another party, namely D/B THOR.” R. Doc. 559-2. The Court sustains Martin's objection on the grounds of relevance, relying on Trade Banner, Inc. v. Carribean Steamship Co., 521 F.2d 229 (1975) (holding that the responsibility of choosing where and how to moor the vessel prior to a hurricane rests solely on the master of vessel). Therefore, THOR Interests' request to compel further response to Omnibus Interrogatory No. 24 is denied. 2. Omnibus Interrogatory No. 32 THOR Interests contests the sufficiency of Martin's response to Omnibus Interrogatory No. 32, which sought a mooring description. R. Doc. 559-1. Martin responded by deflecting attention to other parties. Id. Martin alleges that the request should be denied, because the superintendent of the D/B THOR moored to Martin dock at his sole discretion and did not perform any calculations. R. Doc. 561. Omnibus Interrogatory No. 32 sought a description of “the mooring configuration of the M/V CROSBY ENDEAVOR and/or the D/B THOR prior to the time the D/B THOR broke away from the Martin Energy Dock No. 16 in Port Fourchon and list any testing done, calculations made, and information or documents created or referenced by your employees and/or agents in connection with determining the mooring configuration used.” R. Doc. 559-2. In response to Omnibus Interrogatory No. 32, Martin objected on the basis that such “information is more readily available from other parties, namely the owners and operators of the D/B THOR and M/V CROSBY ENDEAVOR.” R. Doc. 559-2. *7 The Court sustains Martin's objection, because the vessel would have information regarding mooring. Therefore, THOR Interests' request to compel further response to Omnibus Interrogatory No. 32 is denied. 3. Omnibus Interrogatory No. 37 THOR Interests contests the sufficiency of Martin's response to Omnibus Interrogatory No. 37, which sought descriptions of surveys and investigations regarding the suitability of the mooring. R. Doc. 559-1. THOR Interests asserts Martin's assertion of attorney work-product privilege is inappropriate. Id. THOR Interests further asserts that the interrogatory seeks information that would have only existed prior to the incident, and therefore prior to Martin's retention of counsel. Id. Martin alleges that the request's text seeks inquiries made by “any person or entity” regarding the suitability of Martin's dock, and therefore includes attorney work-product. R. Doc. 561. Martin further asserts that the investigations conducted by Martin personnel, the GLPC, and USCG have been previously produced. Id. Omnibus Interrogatory No. 37 sought a description of “all surveys, analyses, investigations and/or inquiries made by you, on your behalf, or by any governmental agency, by any insurance company or by any other person or entity, as well as the dates thereof, regarding the suitability of the Martin Energy Services Dock No. 16 for mooring the D/B THOR, prior to the time the D/B THOR broke away from the Martin Energy Dock No. 16 in Port Fourchon and list any calculations made and documents referenced in making each such survey, analysis, investigation, inquiry or assessment of suitability.” R. Doc. 599-2. In response to Omnibus Interrogatory No. 37, Martin objected on the basis that attorney work product taken in anticipation of litigation is not subject to disclosure. R. Doc. 599-2. Subject to this objection, Martin cited to all documents produced in their responses to Omnibus Requests for Production of Documents. Id. The Court overrules Martin's objection on the basis of attorney work product. The request specifically seeks documents made “prior to” the incident in controversy, and therefore do not fall within an attorney work product exception for this litigation. The Court further finds that Martin's citation to all documents produced in the course of discovery is vague and evasive. Therefore, THOR Interests' request to compel further response to Omnibus Interrogatory No. 37 is granted. 4. Omnibus Request for Production No. 8 THOR Interests contests the sufficiency of Martin's response to Omnibus Request for Production No. 8 on the basis that Martin failed to produce any documents responsive to this request or state that it possessed no such documents. R. Doc. 559-1. Martin alleges that the request seeks to compel production of documents that would be in THOR Interests' possession, if they existed. R. Doc. 561. Omnibus Request for Production No. 8 requested “a copy of any mooring plans and/or mooring studies and/or mooring calculations and/or mooring reports and/or mooring surveys and/or similar documents or the Martin Energy Dock No. 16 in Port Fourchon for January 1, 2016 to date. This request includes but is not limited to any such plans and studies and reports for the D/B THOR and/or the M/V CROSBY ENDEAVOR.” R. Doc. 559-3. *8 In response to Omnibus Request for Production No. 8, Martin objected on the basis that “information regarding how the D/B THOR and/or CROSBY ENDEAVOR intended to be moored are more properly directed to the owners and operators of the D/B THOR and CROSBY ENDEAVOR.” R. Doc. 559-3. The Court sustains Martin's objection on relevancy grounds. The Court notes that the vessel owner would have information regarding mooring reports. Therefore, THOR Interests' request to compel further response to Omnibus Request for Production No. 8 is denied. C. Discovery Seeking Information and Documents Regarding the Condition of Martin's Dock 1. Omnibus Interrogatory No. 30 THOR Interests contests the sufficiency of Martin's response to Omnibus Interrogatory No. 30 on the basis that Martin's refence to “documents produced herein including, but not limited to” RFP Nos. 1, 11, 12, and 14 makes its response facially deficient. R. Doc. 559-1. Martin alleges that it has already produced repair invoices and a fixed asset schedule for the dock, which describes the details of any upkeep, repairs, and significant maintenance work performed at the dock from Martin's acquisition of its lease to the present. R. Doc. 561. Omnibus Interrogatory No. 30 sought a description of “any upkeep, repair and/or maintenance work that was scheduled or performed on the Martin Energy Dock No. 16 in Port Fourchon for the period from five years before the breakaway of the D/B THOR on October 28, 2020 to the present, and include in your response a notation as to any such work planned but not completed as of October 28, 2020.” R. Doc. 559-2. In response to Omnibus Interrogatory No. 30, Martin objected on the basis of overbreadth and undue burden. R. Doc. 559-2. Subject to this objection, Martin cited to all documents produced therein, including but not limited to Requests for Production Nos. 1, 11, 12, and 14. Id. Neither Omnibus Request for Production Nos. 11, 12, or 14 nor Martin's responses were provided to the Court in this Motion. Martin asserts that their response provided repair invoices and a fixed asset schedule.[2] R. Doc. 561. Request for Production No. 1 requested that Martin “produce the logs, daily reports, notes, inspection logs, inspection reports, maintenance records, or other similar documents for the Martin Energy Dock No. 16 in Port Fourchon for October 1 – 31, 2020.” R. Doc. 559-3. In response to Request for Production No. 1, Martin cited to GLPC Inspection dated October 5, 2020, USCG Vessel/Facility Inspection dated October 26, 2020, Fixed Facility Reports, Inspections and Safety Meeting Sign-In Sheets attached as MARTIN 00001-00029. Id. The Court sustains Martin's objection to Omnibus Interrogatory No. 30 of overbreadth and undue burden, on the basis that the approximately nine-year timeframe requested is overbroad. However, the Court finds that providing the requested detailed descriptions of upkeep, repair, or maintenance for the five years prior to the incident in controversy is not unduly burdensome or overbroad. *9 The Court further finds that Martin's response to Omnibus Interrogatory No. 30 is insufficient and non-responsive. Martin's response failed to provide the requested detailed description of any upkeep, repair, or maintenance scheduled or performed on the Martin Energy Dock No. 16 from five years before October 28, 2020. More specifically, the documents produced do not include sufficient detail or back-up documentation to provide the description requested by Omnibus Interrogatory No. 30. Therefore, THOR Interests' request to compel further response to Omnibus Interrogatory No. 30 is granted to the extent that Martin must provide the requested detailed description of any upkeep, repair, or maintenance scheduled or performed on the Martin Energy Dock No. 16 from five years before the incident in controversy. 2. Omnibus Interrogatory No. 31 THOR Interests contests the sufficiency of Martin's response to Omnibus Interrogatory No. 31 on the basis Martin failed to supplement its answer with a definitive statement regarding whether any supplies, materials, or parts were on order for the dock. R. Doc. 559-1. Martin alleges that it still has no knowledge of any documents warranting any supplemental response at this time. R. Doc. 561. Omnibus Interrogatory No. 31 sought a description of “any supplies, materials, and/or parts on order for the Martin Energy Dock No. 16 in Port Fourchon but not yet provided to the Martin Energy Dock No. 16 in Port Fourchon as of October 28, 2020.” R. Doc. 559-2. In response to Omnibus Interrogatory No. 31, Martin objected on the basis of overbreadth, undue burden, vagueness, and ambiguity as to the terms “any supplies, materials, and/or parts.” R. Doc. 559-2. Subject to this objection, Martin stated that there were “none to Martin's knowledge at the present time.” Id. The Court overrules Martin's objections of overbreadth, undue burden, vagueness, and ambiguity. The Court finds that the text of Omnibus Interrogatory No. 31 is clear and that the balancing test under Rule 26(b)(1) supports the production of such information. The Court further finds that Martin's response to Omnibus Interrogatory No. 31 is incomplete. Namely, Martin failed to supplement its response with a definitive statement regarding whether any supplies, materials, or parts were on order as of October 28, 2020. Therefore, THOR Interests' request to compel further response to Omnibus Interrogatory No. 31 is granted. 3. Omnibus Request for Production No. 9 THOR Interests contests the sufficiency of Martin's response to Omnibus Request for Production No. 9 on the basis that Martin's production of the 2012 drawing in response to this request is incomplete. R. Doc. 559-1. Martin alleges that it has already produced responsive drawings and photos, and that THOR Interests already possesses the responsive photos included in GLPC's discovery responses. R. Doc. 561. Omnibus Request for Production No. 9 sought “a copy of any drawing, plan, specification, diagram, photo, video, or other depiction of the Martin Energy Dock No. 16 in Port Fourchon as it existed on October 28, 2020 or at any time before or since.” R. Doc. 559-3. In response to Omnibus Request for Production No. 9, Martin cited to the documents produced in Response to Interrogatory No. 1, as well as the Martin Dock No.16 drawing dated July 9, 2012, attached as MARTIN 00716. R. Doc. 559-3. The Court finds that the drawing submitted by Martin is sufficient to satisfy the request for “any” drawing. The request does not specify that “all” drawings were requested. Therefore, THOR Interests' request to compel further response to Omnibus Request for Production No. 9 is denied. 4. Omnibus Request for Production No. 31 THOR Interests contests the sufficiency of Martin's response to Omnibus Request for Production No. 31 on the basis that Martin's production only reflects eighteen months prior to the incident rather than the full inspection file requested. R. Doc. 559-1. Martin alleges that it has produced all documents in its possession, and that THOR Interests is already in possession of the inspection reports provided by GLPC and USCG. R. Doc. 561. Martin further asserts that the request lacks appropriate limits in scope and duration. Id. *10 Omnibus Request for Production No. 31 sought “a copy of the inspection file, including but not limited to all inspection reports, for the Martin Energy Dock No. 16 in Port Fourchon.” R. Doc. 559-3. In response to Omnibus Request for Production No. 31, Martin objected on the basis of overbreadth, undue burden, and “not limited in scope and/or time.” R. Doc. 559-3. Subject to this objection, Martin cited to all documents produced therein. Id. The Court sustains Martin's objection of overbreadth since the request does not specify a timeframe and therefore includes documents beyond the scope of this litigation. Martin asserts that the bollards were constructed in 1984, but Martin did not begin its lease of the dock until 2011. Therefore, THOR Interests' request to compel further response to Omnibus Request for Production No. 31 is denied. 5. THOR Interests Request for Production No. 1 THOR Interests contests the sufficiency of Martin's response to THOR Interests Request for Production No. 1 on the basis Martin failed to produce responsive records any earlier than 2019. R. Doc. 559-1. THOR Interests asserts some of these missing responsive records have been produced by other parties in this litigation. Id. Martin asserts that inspection reports and surveys conducted by GLPC and USCG have already been produced. R. Doc. 561. Martin alleges that the requested ten years of monthly inspections are unduly burdensome and beyond the scope of this litigation, especially those that fall prior to Martin's commencement of their lease. Id. THOR Interests Request for Production No. 1 sought production and identification “by bates number copies of all inspection reports, surveys, maintenance logs, complaints, testing results, repair certificates, and any other type of documentation relating to surveys, inspections, testing, maintenance, repairs, replacements, renewals, modifications, improvements, decommissions, or any other type of work performed on Dock No. 16 and/or the Bollards within the ten (10) calendar years before the Incident.” R. Doc. 559-4. In response to THOR Interests Request for Production No. 1, Martin objected on the basis of overbreadth, undue burden, and “not subject to lead to admissible evidence and beyond the scope which is subject matter of this litigation.” R. Doc. 559-4. Subject to this objection, Martin cited to “the inspection reports and surveys conducted by GLPC and USCG [that] have been previously produced.” Id. Martin also cited to MARTIN 00938-00977, which was not provided or described to the Court in this Motion. The Court sustains Martin's objection on the basis of overbreadth and undue burden, since documentation from ten years prior to the incident in controversy goes beyond the scope of this litigation. However, the Court finds that such documentation for the five years preceding the incident in controversy is relevant and discoverable. Therefore, THOR Interests' request to compel Martin to supplement its response to THOR Interests Request for Production No. 1 is granted in part, to the extent that Martin must supplement its response to include the requested documentation for the five years preceding the incident in controversy. D. Discovery Seeking Martin's Communications 1. Omnibus Request for Production No. 28 *11 THOR Interests contests the sufficiency of Martin's response to Omnibus Request for Production No. 28 on the basis Martin's general reference to “documents produced” is deficient. R. Doc. 559-1. Martin alleges that the very nature of the requested communications already places them in THOR Interests' possession, and that Martin has already provided the responsive documents. R. Doc. 561. Namely, Martin asserts that it has already produced invoices, bills of lading, meter and yard tickets, emails, declarations of inspections, and descriptions of conversations between Martin personnel and D/B THOR personnel. Id. Omnibus Request for Production No. 28 sought “a copy of each communication, including electronic communications, between and among you and any of your employees, and/or contractors, and/or agents and/or the D/B THOR, and/or the M/V CROSBY ENDEAVOR, and/or any other party to this litigation for the period October 1 - 31, 2020. This request specifically includes but is not limited to communications related to the safety, mooring, movements, and plans for the D/B THOR.” R. Doc. 559-3. In response to Omnibus Request for Production No. 28, Martin objected on the grounds of overbreadth and undue burden. R. Doc. 559-3. Subject to this objection, Martin cited to all documents produced therein. Id. The Court sustains Martin's objection on the basis of overbreadth and undue burden, on the grounds that a request for all communication between Martin's employees, contractors, and agents for the entirety of October 2020 is overbroad. However, the Court finds that communications from October 25-28 are discoverable. Therefore, THOR Interests' request to compel further response to Omnibus Request for Production No. 28 is granted to the extent that Martin must supplement its response with its responsive communications from October 25-28, 2020. 2. Omnibus Request for Production No. 33 THOR Interests contests the sufficiency of Martin's response to Omnibus Request for Production No. 33 on the basis Martin's response fails to provide the requested documents. R. Doc. 559-1. Namely, THOR Interests asserts that Martin failed to provide a definitive statement on any communications Martin had regarding how the D/B THOR was going to be secured and brought into port and in advance of Hurricane Zeta. Id. Martin alleges that it has not supplemented its response because it has no documents in its possession related to the specific request. R. Doc. 561. Omnibus Request for Production No. 33 sought “a copy of each communication, including electronic communications, between you and the U.S. Coast Guard and/or the Army Corps of Engineers and/or any Port Commission and/or any other such entity or person regarding how the D/B THOR was going to be brought into port and secured in advance of any storm for the period October 1 - 31, 2020.” R. Doc. 559-3. In response to Omnibus Request for Production No. 33, Martin alleged that they have requested such information and would provide such documents upon receipt, if any existed. R. Doc. 559-3. THOR Interests alleged that no such supplementation was ever provided. R. Doc. 559-1. Martin asserted that they have no such documents in their possession, although they cited to MARTIN 00236-239 which was not provided or described to the Court in this Motion. R. Doc. 561. The Court finds that the request to compel further responses to Omnibus Request for Production No. 33 is denied, on the basis that Martin's response was adequate. E. Discovery Seeking Information Regarding Prior Moorings at Martin's Dock 1. THOR Interests' Interrogatory No. 11 THOR Interests' Interrogatory No. 11 was not initially at issue in THOR Interests' Motion to Compel. R. Doc. 559. However, a copy of this interrogatory was provided to this Court by counsel for THOR Interests' at the January 24, 2024 hearing on this matter. This interrogatory was discussed in lieu of THOR Interests' Interrogatory No. 23, which was submitted in response to Martin's response to THOR Interests' Interrogatory No. 11. See R. Doc. 561. *12 THOR Interests does not appear to contest the sufficiency of Martin's response to THOR Interests' Interrogatory No. 11, and instead asserts that this response supports its allegation that Martin's response to THOR Interests' Interrogatory No. 23 is insufficient. R. Doc. 559-1. Martin alleges that THOR Interests' Interrogatory No. 11 is unduly burdensome. R. Doc. 561. Namely, Martin asserts that it would require Martin to review over a decade of invoices to submit documents that are not relevant to the issue of either the condition or suitability of the dock at the time of the hurricane. Id. THOR Interests' Interrogatory No. 11 requested that Martin “identify each and every vessel with a comparable breadth, length, draft, and tonnage to D/B THOR that moored at Dock No. 16 from the time the Bollards were put into service up until 26 October 2020 (i.e., any vessels over 300 feet in length and/or over 12,000 gross tons).” Id. In response to THOR Interests' Interrogatory No. 11, Martin objected on the basis of overbreadth, undue burden, and “not subject to lead to admissible evidence.” R. Doc. 561. Subject to this objection, Martin asserted that “the heavy lift derrick barge D/B EPIC HEDRON has been moored at Dock No. 16 without issue prior to 2012 when Bollinger had control over the dock space.” Id. Martin alleges that they do not possess any documentation of the D/B EPIC HEDRON's alleged mooring, which they assert occurred over 12 years ago in non-hurricane conditions. Id. The Court sustains Martin's objection, on the basis that such a request is unduly burdensome and seeks irrelevant information. The bollards were purportedly constructed in 1984, and Martin's lease of the dock began in 2011. Therefore, THOR Interests' request to compel further response to THOR Interests' Interrogatory No. 11 is denied. 2. THOR Interests' Interrogatory No. 23 THOR Interests contests the sufficiency of Martin's response to THOR Interests' Interrogatory No. 23 on the basis that Martin's response fails to provide responsive information that Martin included in its response to THOR Interests' Interrogatory No. 11. R. Doc. 559-1. Martin objected to further response for the same reasons provided in its response to THOR Interests' Interrogatory No. 11. R. Doc. 561. THOR Interests' Interrogatory No. 23 requested that Martin “identify each and every date(s) when the D/B EPIC HEDRON was moored at Dock No. 16.” R. Doc. 559-5. Martin's complete response to THOR Interests' Interrogatory No. 23 was not provided to the Court in this Motion, but the portion that was provided states that Martin objected on the grounds of relevance. R. Doc. 559-5. More specifically, Martin asserted that as written, the request sought “irrelevant materials, is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and is excessively and unnecessarily broad[.]” Id. The Court sustains Martin's objection, on the basis that the request is overly burdensome and irrelevant. The Court finds that the requested discovery is not temporally limited and therefore not relevant. Therefore, THOR Interests' request to compel further response to THOR Interests' Interrogatory No. 23 is denied. F. Discovery Seeking Martin's Severe Weather Plans 1. Omnibus Request for Production No. 7 Finally, THOR Interests contests the sufficiency of Martin's response to Omnibus Request for Production No. 7 on the basis that Martin failed to produce the hurricane plan in effect prior to May 2020. R. Doc. 559-1. More specifically, THOR Interests assert that at least one prior version of Martin's hurricane plan was in effect during the responsive time period. Id. Martin asserts that it produced its 72-page Hurricane Plan in effect in 2020 at the time of the Hurricane Zeta. R. Doc. 561. Martin asserts that this request is overly broad and seeks irrelevant information unimportant to the issues at stake in this action. Id. *13 Omnibus Request for Production No. 7 sought “a copy of each of your severe weather and/or hurricane plans for 2016 to date.” R. Doc. 559-3. In response to Omnibus Request for Production No. 7, Martin objected on the basis of overbreadth, undue burden, and “not subject to lead to admissible evidence.” R. Doc. 559-3. Subject to this objection, Martin cited to MARTIN 00644-00715, which purportedly contained Martin's Hurricane Preparedness Plan in effect on May 2020. Id. The Court sustains Martin's objection, on the basis that hurricane plans in effect for 2016 are irrelevant. However, the Court finds that severe weather and/or hurricane plans in effect for 2018 and 2019 are relevant, since the incident in controversy occurred in 2020. Therefore, THOR Interests' request to compel further response to Omnibus Request for Production No. 7 is granted for the reasons assigned above. IV. Conclusion Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Limitation Petitioners' Motion to Compel (R. Doc. 559) is GRANTED in PART and DENIED in PART. IT IS GRANTED to the extent that Martin is required to produce supplemental responses to Omnibus Interrogatory Nos. 11, 13, 14, 23, 30, 31, and 37; Omnibus Request for Production Nos. 7 and 28; and THOR Interests' Request for Production No. 1 as described above. IT IS DENIED as to Omnibus Interrogatory Nos. 15, 24, and 32; Omnibus Request for Production Nos. 8, 9, 31, 33; and THOR Interests' Interrogatory Nos. 11 and 23 for the reasons assigned above. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Martin shall assign and provide Bates stamps for all discovery responses it produced in this litigation. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that THOR Interests and Martin shall reach an agreement regarding supplemental discovery responses associated with the fixed fee schedule produced by Martin.[3] IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the agreement regarding the fixed fee schedule shall be reached no later than January 31, 2024 or resolved through a discovery conference between the parties and this Court. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Martin shall supplement its responses no later than 14 days from the signing of this order. New Orleans, Louisiana, this 6th day of March 2024. Footnotes [1] Although THOR Interests does not appear to contest the sufficiency of Martin's response to Omnibus Interrogatory No. 1, the Court notes that it would overrule Martin's objection on the basis that the balancing test under Rule 26(b)(1) supports the production of such information. [2] Regarding the fixed asset schedule produced by Martin, at oral argument the Court ordered the parties to confer and reach an agreement regarding which line-items in the fixed asset schedule are relevant to THOR Interests' claims, which the Court will compel Martin to supplement pursuant to this Motion. See. R. Doc. 559-6. [3] On February 5, 2024, the Court received correspondence from the parties asserting that the parties had reached the requested agreement. In this correspondence, THOR Interests asserts that the remaining contested line items will be addressed by Martin in a supplement to THOR Interests' RFP No. 1. See Exhibit 1.