Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Trident Management Group, LLC v. GLF Construction Corp.

United States District Court, E.D. Louisiana

July 13, 2017

TRIDENT MANAGEMENT GROUP, LLC
v.
GLF CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION

         SECTION: “A” (4)

          ORDER AND REASONS

          KAREN WELLS ROBY UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.

         Before the Court is a Motion to Compel Discovery (R. Doc. 34) filed by the Plaintiff, Trident Management Group, LLC (“Plaintiff”), seeking an order from the Court compelling Defendant, GLF Construction Corporation (“Defendant”), to provide complete and supplemental responses to its First Set of Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents. The motion is opposed. R. Doc. 35. The motion was submitted on July 12, 2017 and heard with oral argument that day. For the following reason, the motion is DENIED.

         I. Background

         This action was filed in the District Court on December 13, 2016 pursuant to this Court's admiralty jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1333 and its diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1). R. Doc. 1. The Plaintiff alleges that it and the Defendant entered into a “Charter Agreement” on July 21, 2016 for the charter of the vessel/barge Alaska Solution. Id. at p. 2-3. The Defendant had previously secured a construction contract with MSC Cruises and was looking to hire the Alaska Solution as a quarters barge to house its workings during the project for MSC Cruises. Id. at p. 3. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant has breached that contract by failing to make a number of payments. Id. at p. 4-5. The Plaintiff later filed an amended complaint to include a claim against the Defendant for breaching its duty of good faith and fair dealings. R. Doc. 8.

         At this time, the Plaintiff has filed a motion to compel. R. Doc. 34. The Plaintiff originally propounded interrogatories and requests for production of documents on the Defendant on April 5, 2017. R. Doc. 34-1, p. 5. On May 11, 2017, the Defendant provided responses that the Plaintiff asserts contain boiler plate objections and limited responses. Id. at p. 6. In particular, the Plaintiff asserts that; (i) the Defendant has not properly responded to a number of “contention interrogatories” related to the Defendant's affirmative defenses; and (ii) that the Defendant has improperly objected to a number of interrogatories and request for production of documents that are related to the Plaintiff's claim of breach of duty of good faith. Id. at p. 9-21.

         The Defendant has opposed the instant motion. R. Doc. 35. The Defendant argues primarily that: (i) contention interrogatories are premature at this stage of discovery and (ii) that the Plaintiff's interrogatories and requests for production are overly broad, irrelevant, and not proportional to the needs of the case.

         II. Standard of Review

         Discovery of documents, electronically stored information, and things 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.” Id. Similarly, Rule 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). Both Rule 33 and 34 allow a party to ask interrogatories and request production to the extent of Rule 26(b). Fed.R.Civ.P. 33(a)(2); 34(a).

         Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“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 ..... ” Rule 26(b)(1) specifies that “[i]nformation within the scope of discovery need not be admissible in evidence to be discovered.” Rule 26(b)(1) also specifies that discovery must be “proportional to the needs of the case, considering the important 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.

         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.

         Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37 provides sanctions for failure to cooperate in discovery. Rule 37(a) allows a party in certain circumstances to move for an order compelling discovery from another party. 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.” 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).

         In addition to alleging that the responding party has failed to properly cooperate with discovery, a motion to compel under Rule 37(a) must also “include a certification that the movant has in good faith conferred or attempted to confer with the person or party failing to make disclosure or discovery in an effort to obtain it without court action.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 31(a)(1).

         III. ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.