In Re: In the Matter of Tara Crosby LLC

Filing 281

ORDER: IT IS ORDERED that Claimants' motion for reconsideration and clarification 273 is DENIED and that the limited discovery the Court previously allowed should proceed without further delay. Signed by Judge Barry W Ashe on 04/26/2022. (am)

Case 2:17-cv-05391-BWA-KWR Document 281 Filed 04/26/22 Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

CIVIL ACTION

IN THE MATTER OF TARA
CROSBY, LLC AND CROSBY TUGS,
LLC, AS OWNERS AND OWNERS
PRO HAC VICE OF M/V CROSBY
COMMANDER AND HER CARGO,
ENGINES, TACKLE, GEAR,
APPURTENANCES, ETC. IN REM
PETITIONING FOR EXONERATION
FROM AND/OR LIMITATION OF
LIABILITY

NO. 17-5391
SECTION M (4)

ORDER
Before the Court is a motion for reconsideration and clarification filed by claimants Robert
Pitre and Joseph Herbert (together, “Claimants”),1 in which they ask this Court to revisit its Order
modifying the scheduling order to permit petitioners Tara Crosby, LLC and Crosby Tugs, LLC
(together, “Crosby”) to take updated discovery depositions of Claimants and their treating
physicians.2 Crosby opposes the motion.3 Having considered the parties’ submissions, the record,
and the applicable law, the Court sees no reason to reconsider its previous decision allowing
Crosby certain limited discovery.
Crosby sought “a modification of the existing Scheduling Order … to allow [it] to conduct
limited discovery directed toward the issues of damages, medical care, need and expenses in
advance of the July 25, 2022, trial of this matter.”4 In particular, Crosby requested that it be
allowed to propound written discovery and take depositions of Claimants and their treating

1

R. Doc. 273.
R. Doc. 271.
3
R. Doc. 278.
4
R. Doc. 270 at 1.
2

1

Case 2:17-cv-05391-BWA-KWR Document 281 Filed 04/26/22 Page 2 of 2

physicians on certain, limited issues relating to Claimants’ current conditions and activities,5
representing that this limited discovery is “necessary to resolve issues related to maintenance and
cure, damages, disability, [and] intervening accidents,” which matters could not have been
addressed in prior depositions.6
In its Order, the Court specifically found that Crosby had shown good cause to modify the
scheduling order to permit the limited discovery and depositions it requested.7 The Court also
found that that the proposed discovery would not be unreasonably cumulative or duplicative, and
that the burden of the updated discovery did not outweigh its likely benefit.8 While a district
court’s interlocutory order can be reconsidered at any time before entry of judgment, see Austin v.
Kroger Tex., L.P., 864 F.3d 326, 336 (5th Cir. 2017), the Court is convinced that its previous
decision is correct. Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Claimants’ motion for reconsideration and clarification (R. Doc.
273) is DENIED and that the limited discovery the Court previously allowed should proceed
without further delay.
New Orleans, Louisiana, this 26th day of April, 2022.
________________________________
BARRY W. ASHE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

5

R. Docs. 270 at 1-2; 270-1 at 1. Specifically, Crosby sought to propound written discovery and take
depositions of (1) Claimants “to determine their current condition and facts which might pertain to the nature of
ongoing treatment (if any), existence of physical restrictions (if any), employment and any related matters,” and
medical expenses; (2) Claimants’ treating physicians to determine “the Claimants’ current activities, current
physical/mental condition, any future surgeries, any employment or physical restrictions, any intervening
accidents/injuries, and the extent, if any, of paid and unpaid medical treatment.” R. Doc. 270 at 1-2.
6
R. Doc. 270-1 at 1.
7
R. Doc. 271 at 3.
8
Id.

2