LLOG Exploration Company, L.L.C. v. Signet Maritime Corporation, Inc.

Filing 61

ORDER AND REASONS granting 49 Motion in Limine. FURTHER ORDERED that Signet be awarded reasonable costs and attorney's fees in connection with this motion. The issue of attorney's fees is hereby referred to the magistrate judge. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 11/3/2015. (NEF: Mag.(3)) (mmm)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
LLOG EXPLORATION COMPANY, L.L.C.,
Plaintiff

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

NO. 14-2791

SIGNET MARITIME CORPORATION, INC.,
Defendant

SECTION: “E” (3)

ORDER AND REASONS
Before the Court is Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff Signet Maritime Corporation’s
(“Signet”) Motion in Limine to Exclude Evidence Responsive to Interrogatories and for
Attorney’s Fees.1 Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant LLOG Exploration Company, L.L.C.
(“LLOG”), opposes the motion.2 The Court has considered the arguments of counsel and
the applicable law. For the reasons that follow, the Motion in Limine is GRANTED.
BACKGROUND
In the present motion in limine, Signet seeks to exclude “from trial any evidence
responsive to Signet’s Interrogatories served on [LLOG] on July 9, 2015, and for
attorneys’ fees pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(d).”3 Signet maintains that
LLOG failed to respond to its Interrogatory No. 2, which requested “any and all
representations, statements, declarations, or admission[s] of fault alleged to have been
made by Signet which [LLOG] might attempt to make known to the Judge or jury during
trial of this cause.”4 Signet notes that LLOG’s response was originally due on August 11,
2015, but LLOG failed to provide a response by the deadline. 5 Signet then granted LLOG

R. Doc. 49.
R. Doc. 51.
3 R. Doc. 49 at 1.
4 R. Doc. 49-1 at 1, 2.
5 R. Doc. 49-1 at 3; R. Doc. 49-3 at 1–2.
1

2

1

a 10-day extension.6 According to Signet, LLOG did not provide an answer to
Interrogatory No. 2 by the extended deadline, nor has LLOG provided an answer at any
time thereafter “despite numerous requests from Signet for a response.”7 As such, Signet
has filed the present motion in limine, seeking sanctions under Rule 37 of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure.8 In particular, Signet argues that the Court, under Rule 37,
should preclude LLOG from offering any evidence or argument at trial that is responsive
to Signet’s Interrogatory No. 2.9 Signet also argues it is entitled to attorney’s fees under
Rule 37.10
In response, LLOG contends Signet, through its motion in limine, is “improperly
and tardily moving to compel discovery responses and/or to seek sanctions for failure to
respond to discovery.”11 LLOG claims Signet’s motion in limine is, in fact, a motion to
compel “cloaked in other garb,” which was filed after the close of discovery, and thus
should be denied.12
LAW AND ANALYSIS
In this case, it is clear that LLOG failed to respond to Signet’s Interrogatory No. 2.
LLOG even admits that, to date, it has never provided a response to Interrogatory No. 2.13
LLOG’s failure to respond is inexcusable.
Rule 37(d) permits the district court to impose sanctions on a party who, “after
properly being served with interrogatories under Rule 33 or a request for inspection under
Rule 34, fails to serve its answers, objections, or written response.” 14 Such sanction may
R. Doc. 49-1 at 3; R. Doc. 49-3 at 1–2.
R. Doc. 49-1 at 3.
8 R. Doc. 49-1 at 2.
9 See R. Doc. 49-1 at 2, 5.
10 R. Doc. 49-1 at 2.
11 R. Doc. 51 at 1.
12 R. Doc. 51 at 1, 4–5.
13 R. Doc. 51 at 3–4.
14 FED. R. CIV. P. 37(d)(1)(A)(2).
6
7

2

include an order “prohibiting the disobedient party from supporting or opposing
designated claims or defenses, or from introducing designated matters in evidence.”15
Further, the district court “must require the party failing to act, the attorney advising that
party, or both to pay the reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, caused by the
failure, unless the failure was substantially justified or other circumstances make an
award of expenses unjust.”16
In light of LLOG’s failure to respond to Signet’s Interrogatory No. 2, the Court finds
it appropriate to grant Signet’s motion in limine. However, the Court will defer a ruling
until trial on whether specific testimony, documents, and other evidence should have
been produced in response to Interrogatory No. 2 and, thus, are excluded.
Accordingly;
IT IS ORDERED that Signet’s Motion in Limine to Exclude Evidence Responsive
to Interrogatories and for Attorney’s Fees is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Signet be awarded reasonable costs and
attorney’s fees in connection with this motion. The issue of attorney’s fees is hereby
referred to the magistrate judge.
New Orleans, Louisiana, this 3rd day of November, 2015.
_______ ________________________
SUSIE MORGAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

15
16

FED. R. CIV. P. 37(d)(3), (b)(2)(A)(ii).
FED. R. CIV. P. 37(d)(3).
3