Howard v. Offshore Liftboats, LLC et al

Filing 183

Minute Order. Proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Michael North: Motion Hearing held on 2/11/2015 re 155 MOTION to Quash Plaintiff's Discovery Requests filed by Offshore Liftboats, LLC, 161 MOTION to Quash Discover y Requests filed by K & K Offshore, LLC, 167 MOTION to Quash Subpoena Duces Tecum issued to H&H Consulting Services, L.L.C. and for Protective Order filed by Offshore Liftboats, LLC. (Court Reporter Rebecca Gonzalez.) (Reference: All cases)(lag)

MINUTE ENTRY
NORTH, M.J.
FEBRUARY 11, 2015

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

CALVIN HOWARD

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

NUMBER: 13-4811
c/w 13-4811, 13-6407

OFFSHORE LIFTBOATS, LLC, ET AL.

SECTION: “E”(5)

HEARING ON MOTION

COURT RECORDER: Rebecca Gonzalez
APPEARANCES:

MOTION:
(1)
(2)
(3)

:
:

1-3 :
:
:
:
:

1-3 :

MJSTAR(00:20)

Barbara Bossetta, Jeff Peuler, Eric Allen, John Paul Massicot

OLB’s Motion to Quash Plaintiff’s Discovery Requests (Rec. doc. 155).
K&K Offshore’s Motion to Quash Plaintiff’s Discovery Requests (Rec. doc. 161).
OLB’s Motion to Quash Subpoena Duces Tecum and for Protective Order (Rec.
doc. 167).
Continued to

No opposition
Opposition

Dismissed as moot.

ORDERED

Dismissed for failure of counsel to appear.
Granted.
Denied.
Other:

OLB’s and K&K’s Motions to Quash Plaintiff’s Discovery Requests

The Rule 37 certifications appended to Defendants’ motions do not indicate
that counsel have adequately conferred regarding the specific issues raised in
those motions. Accordingly, the parties are directed to convoke a further
Rule 37(a)(1) conference to discuss the specific objections that the
Defendants have to those requests as well as any objections to any
outstanding requests for production of documents. In doing so, the parties
are to heed the guidance provided by the undersigned in open court today
regarding the significant number of requests that have propounded to date;
those that are directed to the content of documents that have already been
produced; others that are argumentative or ask for conclusions of law; and,
those that seek information that is more efficiently obtained via deposition
testimony. Any issues that cannot be resolved are to be the subject of a
separate, succinct motion.
OLB’s Motion to Quash Subpoena Duces Tecum to H&H Consulting Services,
L.L.C. and for Protective Order

OLB has failed to satisfy its burden under Rules 26 and 45. Most notably, no
privilege log was prepared as required by Rule 26 as to any specific
documents over which OLB asserts a privilege. Moreover, while the
subpoena and the verification of OLB’s counsel are directed to H&H Claims
Consultants, the motion seeks to quash/obtain a protective order as to a
subpoena issued to H&H Consulting Services, L.L.C. The relationship
between those two entities is not sufficiently established in OLB’s motion or
supporting papers. Further, the redacted exhibit attached to OLB’s motion is
addressed to an individual, as opposed to either entity, and that individual’s
affiliation with either of the two entities is unexplained. Its burden under
Rules 26 and 45 not being satisfied, OLB’s motion is denied.

There is a hearing on various other motions set before the undersigned on
February 25,2015. It is hereby ordered that the attorneys who have
appeared for depositions in this case, specifically Mr. Reich, are to be present
for that hearing, with the exception of Mr. Peuler who may have Mr. Staines
appear in his stead. The Court is to be advised of any other conflicts. Plaintiff
is directed to provide the Court with a copy of any of the depositions
appended to its motion (rec. doc. 178) that were recorded by videographic
means.
MICHAEL B. NORTH
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
2