Donahue et al v. Republic National Distributing Company, LLC et al
Filing
239
ORDER AND REASONS: Denying 224 Second MOTION to Compel Discovery. Oral argument set for 10/24/2018, is Cancelled. Signed by Magistrate Judge Janis van Meerveld on 10/23/2018.(ajn)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
JOSHUA DONAHUE, ET AL.
*
*
*
VERSUS
*
*
REPUBLIC NATIONAL DISTRIBUTING *
COMPANY, LLC, ET AL.
*
*
*********************************** *
CIVIL ACTION NO. 16-13948
SECTION: “H”(1)
JUDGE JANE TRICHE MILAZZO
MAGISTRATE JUDGE
JANIS VAN MEERVELD
ORDER AND REASONS
Before the Court is the plaintiff’s Second Motion to Compel responses to Discovery. (Rec.
Doc. 224). For the following reasons, the Motion is DENIED. Oral argument set for October 24,
2018, is cancelled.
Background
Plaintiff Joshua Donahue was employed as a journeyman electrician for American
ManPower Services in connection with the installation of a multi-level conveyer system at the
liquor distribution warehouse of Republic National Distributing Company (“Republic”). He was
struck in the forehead by an unguarded industrial fan on July 29, 2015. He alleges that he sustained
injuries to his cervical and lumbar spine, radiating arm pain, a fractured skull, deep lacerations,
and traumatic brain injury. On June 8, 2016, Donahue and his wife, Angela Bolton, filed this
lawsuit against Republic in state court. The lawsuit was removed to this court on August 15, 2016.
Among the numerous defendants that have been joined along the way is Darana Hybrid, Inc.
(“Darana”)—the alleged electrical subcontractor on the project. Darana moved for summary
judgment, asserting that it was immune from suit as Donahue’s statutory employer. On August 30,
2018, the district judge granted the motion and dismissed plaintiffs’ claims against Darana with
prejudice.
Presently before the Court is plaintiffs’ Second Motion to Compel. 1 Plaintiffs seek an order
compelling Darana to respond to their Requests for Production of Documents and produce
contracts, agreements, work orders, and other documents pertaining to Darana’s financial
involvement in the construction of the multi-level conveyor system at the Republic warehouse.
They complain that they also requested the documents in a notice of deposition of Darana’s
corporate representative, but that Darana has never produced the documents. Recognizing that
Darana has been dismissed on summary judgment, plaintiffs argue that the records remain relevant
because the order is subject to a pending motion for reconsideration and submit that the documents
are “plainly relevant even in the event that Darana’s dismissal remains law of the case.” They say
the documents “will provide a clearer understanding of the complex system of contracts and
subcontracts that comprise the Republic project.”
Darana opposes. It submits that the documents sought are irrelevant and that, moreover,
since Darana has been dismissed, the plaintiffs’ motion is procedurally improper and should be
dismissed. Noting that a subpoena would be the appropriate vehicle to seek documents from a nonparty like Darana, Darana nonetheless addresses the merits of plaintiffs’ request “in an effort to
seek judicial efficiency.” Darana points out that it has responded to plaintiffs’ discovery requests
and that plaintiffs have already had the opportunity to depose Darana’s owner and representatives.
Darana insists that the plaintiffs have already been provided with all of the contracts and
agreements associated with the Republic project that are under Darana’s control. Darana adds that
plaintiffs have deposed all individuals who would have been able to (and did) explain those
contracts. Darana argues that the information sought by plaintiffs is sensitive financial information,
1
The plaintiffs filed a motion to compel Darana and Republic to respond to their discovery requests on March 15,
2017. (Rec. Doc. 17). Plaintiffs’ counsel subsequently notified the court that Darana and Republic had provided
responses, and the motion was dismissed as moot, without prejudice to plaintiffs’ ability to challenge the sufficiency
of defendants’ responses. (Rec. Doc. 24)
and that payments or expenses made or incurred by Darana do not provide any information relevant
to the negligence of any party. Darana adds that the district court previously determined at oral
argument on the motion for summary judgment that the parties had been able to conduct ample
discovery.
Law and Analysis
1. Scope of Discovery
The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provide that “parties may obtain discovery regarding
any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party's claim or defense and proportional to the
needs of the case.” Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 26(b)(1). Of note, with the 2015 amendment to Rule 26, it
is now clear that “[i]nformation within this scope of discovery need not be admissible in evidence
to be discoverable.” Id. In assessing proportionality of discovery, the following should be
considered: “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. The advisory committee comments to the 2015 amendment to
Rule 26 make clear that the parties and the court have a collective responsibility to ensure that
discovery is proportional. The party claiming it would suffer an undue burden or expense is
typically in the best position to explain why, while the party claiming the information sought is
important to resolve the issues in the case should be able “to explain the ways in which the
underlying information bears on the issues as that party understands them.” Id. advisory committee
comments to 2015 amendment. “The court’s responsibility, using all the information provided by
the parties, is to consider these and all the other factors in reaching a case-specific determination
of the appropriate scope of discovery.” Id.
2. Plaintiffs’ Requests to Darana
As Darana has done, the Court sets aside the issue of whether plaintiffs’ present motion is
procedurally proper. Darana is correct that as a non-party, plaintiffs must now proceed by subpoena
to obtain documents from Darana. However, that will not be necessary here because the documents
sought by plaintiffs in this motion are not relevant to this litigation. Plaintiffs have not sufficiently
stated how work orders, ledgers, invoices, balance sheets, and receipts are relevant to plaintiffs’
claims or the defenses of any other party. Accordingly, the court will not compel production of the
records plaintiffs now seek.
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, the plaintiff’s Second Motion to Compel responses to Discovery
(Rec. Doc. 224) is denied.
New Orleans, Louisiana, this 23rd day of October, 2018.
Janis van Meerveld
United States Magistrate Judge
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?