Young v. T.T. Barge Services Mile 237, LLC
ORDER AND REASONS denying as moot 19 MOTION for APPEAL OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE DECISION to District Court. Signed by Judge Sarah S. Vance on 8/31/2017. (cg)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
T. T. BARGE SERVICES
MILE 237, LLC
SECTION “R” (3)
ORDER AND REASONS
Before the Court is plaintiff’s motion to appeal the Magistrate Judge’s
order denying his motion to compel. 1 For the following reasons, the Court
denies the motion as moot.
This case arises out of an accident on Defendant T. T. Barge Services
Mile 237, LLC’s vessel, the M/V T. T. BARGE MILE 237.2 Plaintiff Marcus
Young alleges that he was employed by defendant aboard the vessel when he
suffered serious injuries to his ribs, his back, and other parts of his body. 3
R. Doc. 19.
R. Doc. 1 at 2.
On January 9, 2017, plaintiff filed a seaman’s complaint for damages against
Plaintiff filed a motion to compel disclosure of the personal contact
information of witnesses employed by defendant.5 After a hearing, the
Magistrate Judge denied plaintiff’s motion but permitted plaintiff to re-urge
it at a later date if circumstances warrant.6
Plaintiff now appeals the
Magistrate Judge’s decision. 7
The Court finds that plaintiff’s motion is moot. Plaintiff originally
requested the personal contact information of four employees named in
defendant’s initial disclosures. 8 Defendant represents that it no longer
employs three of those individuals, and provides documentation showing
that it has communicated their personal contact information to plaintiff. 9
Plaintiff obtained the personal contact information of the fourth individual
through a deposition. 10
Id. at 1-5.
R. Doc. 11.
R. Doc. 18.
R. Doc. 19.
R. Doc. 11-1 at 1; R. Doc. 11-3 at 1-2; R. Doc. 11-4 at 3.
R. Doc. 20 at 1-2; R. Doc. 20-1 at 3; R. Doc. 20-2 at 3.
R. Doc. 20 at 2.
Plaintiff argues that his motion is not moot because he also requests
the personal contact information of all other employees of defendant likely
to have relevant information about this matter.11 But plaintiff has not
established that these unnamed employees are covered by the relevant
provision of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26. Rule 26 requires a party to
provide the contact information of “each individual likely to have
discoverable information . . . that the disclosing party may use to support
its claims or defenses.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1)(A)(i) (emphasis added).
The Court has no information to suggest that defendant may rely on
these additional unnamed employees. Plaintiff has therefore not shown that
defendant is required to produce any contact information for these
individuals. See Vinzant v. United States, No. 06-10561, 2010 WL 2674609,
at *2-3 (E.D. La. 2010) (finding no duty to disclose information for witnesses
that government did not anticipate using); 8A Wright & Miller, Federal
Practice and Procedure § 2053 (3d ed. 2017) (explaining that, under Rule
26(a)(1)(A)(i), “there is no requirement to disclose anything that the
disclosing party will not use”).
If new information arises warranting further disclosure, the plaintiff
may re-urge his motion before the Magistrate Judge.
R. Doc. 23 at 1.
Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion is DENIED.
New Orleans, Louisiana, this _____ day of August, 2017.
SARAH S. VANCE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT 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?