ALL COAST, LLC v. SHORE OFFSHORE SERVICES, LLC ET AL. CIVIL ACTION NO. 21-258 United States District Court, E.D. Louisiana Signed May 14, 2024 Filed May 15, 2024 Dossier, Eva J., United States Magistrate Judge ORDER AND REASONS *1 Before the Court is the Motion to Enforce Prior Court Order and to Compel Document Production filed by Modern American Railroad Services, LLC and Shore Offshore Services, LLC's (collectively, “THOR Interests”) (Rec. Doc. 592). Martin Energy Services, LLC and Martin Operating Partnership LP (collectively, “Martin”) has filed an Opposition (Rec. Doc. 597) and THOR Interests have replied (Rec. Doc. 603). For the reasons below, THOR Interests' motion is granted in part and denied in part. I. Introduction As summarized by the Hon. Karen Wells Roby: This case arises from a breakaway incident involving Derrick Barge Thor (D/B Thor) and other vessels that occurred during Hurricane Zeta. R. Doc. 1. On the afternoon of October 28, 2020, the Thor, owned by Modern American Railroad Services and leased to Shore Offshore Services, was moored to the Martin dock in Port Fourchon, Louisiana. Id. The D/B Thor had a crew onboard waiting out the storm, as well as an assist tug coupled to her port side. Id. ¶¶ 7-8. As the hurricane made landfall, the D/B Thor became unmoored and was set adrift. In re Modern American Railroad Services, et al., No. 21-464, R. Doc. 1, ¶¶ 7. The D/B Thor came into contact with other vessels and property in and along the Bayou Lafourche channel. Id. ¶ 8. The resulting contact gave rise to Plaintiff All Coast's complaint against Defendants, Modern American Railroad Services, Shore Offshore Services, and Martin Energy Services. See R. Doc. 1. Additional complaints have been consolidated under this master case. All Coast, LLC v. Shore Offshore Servs., LLC, No. CV 21-258, 2023 WL 5630440, at *1 (E.D. La. Aug. 31, 2023). THOR Interests' Motion to Enforce and to Compel (Rec. Doc. 583) addresses two categories of documents. First, THOR Interests argue that Martin has withheld environmental inspection reports that are responsive to Request for Production No. 1. U.S. Magistrate Judge Roby ordered Martin to produce documents responsive to that request. This part of THOR Interests' motion, therefore, is structured as a request to enforce that prior order. Second, THOR Interests argue that Martin has withheld documents responsive to Request for Production No. 42, which seeks depictions of Dock No. 16 as it existed for a five-year period before the breakaway of D/B Thor on October 28, 2020. For the reasons below, THOR Interests' motion is granted in part and denied in part. II. Request for Production No. 1 applies to environmental reports, and Martin has not set forth any basis for reconsideration of the Court's prior ruling. Request for Production No. 1 seeks “all inspection reports ... 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.”[1] Martin objected to this request, and the Court, the Hon. Karen Roby presiding, sustained that objection in part and overruled it in part. Judge Roby ordered Martin to supplement its response “to include the requested documentation for the five years preceding the incident in controversy.”[2] This dispute relates to environmental inspection reports that Martin has withheld. *2 An “environmental inspection report” falls within the plain text of this request. Martin argues, however, that environmental inspection reports are not relevant to this litigation[3] and that discovery in this case has been “exorbitant.”[4] Judge Roby previously rejected the argument that the request is overly broad.[5] Martin, thus, essentially seeks reconsideration of Judge Roby's ruling. Reconsideration of discovery rulings is subject to Rule 54 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 54 provides that district courts “possess[ ] the inherent procedural power to reconsider, rescind, or modify an interlocutory order for cause seen by it to be sufficient.” Melancon v. Texaco, Inc., 659 F.2d 551, 552 (5th Cir. 1981). Additionally, the Fifth Circuit has held that discovery orders are interlocutory because such orders are nonfinal. Zapata v. Meslon, 750 F.3d 481, 484 (5th Cir. 2014). Under such a standard, district courts can be “more flexible, reflecting the inherent power of the rendering district court to afford such relief from interlocutory judgments as justice requires.” Austin v. Kroger Tex., L.P., 864 F.3d 326, 336-37 (5th Cir. 2017). Though this standard is lower than the threshold used for reconsideration of judgments under Rule 59, courts still “look to similar considerations as those it considers when evaluating Rule 59(e) motions.” Edwards v. Take Fo' Records, Inc., Civ. A. No. 19-12130, 2020 WL 3832606, at *11 & n.2 (E.D. La. July 8, 2020). These considerations include “(1) an intervening change in the controlling law, (2) the availability of new evidence not previously available, or (3) a manifest error in law or fact.” Henry v. New Orleans La. Saints, LLC, No. 15-5971, 2016 WL3524107, at *2 (E.D. La. June 28, 2016). Cristea v. ArborPro, Inc., No. CV 23-2768, 2024 WL 1435108, at *1–2 (E.D. La. Apr. 3, 2024). The description from Martin of the environmental investigation reports suggests that they may not be relevant. THOR Interests contend, however, that the Martin Area Manager's deposition testimony confirms that the reports include information relative to the integrity of the surface of the dock.[6] Although this testimony is not dispositive as to the nature of the reports, it supports their production. The undersigned will not revisit the prior ruling on this request. Martin emphasizes that it has already been subject to “nearly 600 Requests for Admission[ ] and 80 Requests for Production.”[7] But there is no evidence that Request for Production No. 1 (on which Judge Roby already ruled) implicates these concerns. Martin has identified no specific grounds supporting reconsideration of the prior ruling,[8] and the reports must be produced. III. Martin has confirmed that it has produced all photographs responsive to Request for Production No. 42. Request for Production No. 42 seeks “all drawings, plans, specifications diagrams, photos, videos, and other depictions of Dock No. 16 as it existed for the period from five (5) years before the breakaway of the D/B Thor on October 28, 2020.”[9] THOR Interests maintain that Martin may be withholding responsive documents and has waived its objections because they are untimely. *3 Whether good cause exists to excuse untimely objections is subject to a fact-intensive case-by-case analysis. See Enron Corp. Sav. Plan v. Hewitt Assocs., LLC, 258 F.R.D. 149, 156–57 (S.D. Tex. 2009) (“Acknowledging the harshness of a waiver sanction, courts have reserved the sanction for those cases where the offending party committed unjustified delay in responding to discovery. Minor procedural violations, good faith attempts at compliance, and other such mitigating circumstances militate against finding waiver.”); see also Salman v. Balderas, No. CV 18-10966, 2019 WL 11005040, at *3 (E.D. La. Aug. 2, 2019) (citing id.). In this case, Martin has supplemented its response to Request for Production No. 42 “to remove the previously stated objections ....”)[10] Waiver, therefore, is not at issue. The substance of Martin's supplemental response indicates that certain photographs have been produced and that a deponent (Robbie Plaisance) has confirmed that “he does not have any additional photographs on his computer which have not already been produced as a result of losing his office building and files in Hurricane IDA.”[11] THOR Interests contend, however, that deposition testimony indicates that responsive documents were emailed to a Houston office such that additional copies may exist. The Court agrees that the deposition testimony indicates that copies of responsive documents may have been emailed to Houston such that they remain available. Martin confirmed at oral argument, however, that it has undertaken another review of potentially responsive documents and confirmed that no additional responsive documents exist. This issue is thus moot. IV. Conclusion For the above reasons, IT IS ORDERED that Modern American Railroad Services, LLC and Shore Offshore Services, LLC's Motion to Enforce Prior Court Order and to Compel Document Production is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. IT IS ORDERED that Martin Energy Services, LLC and Martin Operating Partnership LP produce environmental investigation reports for a five-year period preceding the “Incident” (as defined in the discovery requests) on or before May 16, 2024.[12] IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the motion is DENIED AS MOOT in all other respects. New Orleans, Louisiana, this 14th day of May, 2024. Footnotes [1] Rec. Doc. 592-5, p. 1. [2] Rec. Doc. 582, p. 20. [3] Rec. Doc. 597, p. 7. [4] Rec. Doc. 597, p. 8. [5] Rec. Doc. 583, p. 16. [6] R. Doc. 603, p. 3. Martin's position that there was no deficiency in surface integrity presents an argument on the merits. Rec. Doc. 597, pp. 3-4. [7] Rec. Doc. 597. [8] Martin's disagreement with that ruling, Rec. Doc. 597, p. 4, is insufficient to warrant reconsideration. [9] Doc. 597-6. [10] Rec. Doc. 597-6, p. 1. [11] Rec. Doc. 597-6, p. 2. [12] Counsel confirmed during oral argument that this deadline is feasible.