In Re: In the Matter of Tara Crosby LLC

Filing 297

ORDER: denying 291 Motion to Modify Scheduling Order, as stated herein. Signed by Judge Barry W Ashe on 06/01/2022. (am)

Case 2:17-cv-05391-BWA-KWR Document 297 Filed 06/01/22 Page 1 of 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

CIVIL ACTION

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

NO. 17-5391
SECTION M (4)

ORDER
Before the Court is a motion by claimants Robert Pitre and Joseph Hebert (together,
“Claimants”) to modify the scheduling order to allow them to re-depose Monty Savoy, Crosby
Tugs LLC’s corporate representative.1 Claimants argue that re-deposing Savoy is necessary
because Savoy deferred his answers to certain questions until the Coast Guard’s report of the
incident was released.2 Claimants also argue that allowing the deposition will not delay the trial
and is equitable because petitioners Tara Crosby, LLC and Crosby Tugs, LLC (together, “Crosby”)
will be deposing them for a third time.3 Crosby responds in opposition arguing that the Coast
Guard report was available in 2018, and Claimants have not explained why they waited until now
to seek to re-depose Savoy.4 Further, Crosby argues that the Coast Guard report is inadmissible at
trial and any testimony regarding post-accident investigation is irrelevant.5

1

R. Doc. 291.
R. Doc. 291-1 at 1-2.
3
Id. at 2-3.
4
R. Doc. 293 at 3.
5
Id. at 2-3.
2

Case 2:17-cv-05391-BWA-KWR Document 297 Filed 06/01/22 Page 2 of 3

In reply, Claimants argue that they seek to ask Savoy factual questions about the role the
Coast Guard report played in Crosby’s investigation of the accident.6 They also argue that
discovery is broader than admissibility so they should be allowed to ask questions that could result
in information bearing upon the cause of the sinking even if the Coast Guard report is
inadmissible.7 Further, Claimants argue that there was no “meaningful delay” in their request to
re-depose Savoy because they only received the report in May 2021 in response to their Freedom
of Information Act requests.8
Under Rule 16(b)(4) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a scheduling order “may be
modified only for good cause and with the judge’s consent.” Good cause “requires a showing that
the relevant scheduling order deadline cannot reasonably be met despite the diligence of the party
needing the extension.” Garza v. Webb Cnty., 296 F.R.D. 511, 513 (S.D. Tex. 2014) (citing S&W
Enters., L.L.C. v. Southtrust Bank of Ala., NA, 315 F.3d 533, 535 (5th Cir. 2003)). Furthermore,
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure require leave of court for a party to take a deposition of a
deponent who has already been deposed in a case, unless the parties have stipulated otherwise.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(a)(2)(A)(ii). A court may limit discovery, including the number of depositions
taken, if it is: (1) unreasonably cumulative or duplicative or can be obtained from some other
source that is more convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive; (2) the person seeking the
discovery has had ample opportunity to obtain the same information by discovery in the action; or
(3) the burden or expense of taking the discovery outweighs its likely benefit. Kansas City S. Ry.
Co. v. Nichols Constr. Co., LLC, 2008 WL 11351311, at *2 (E.D. La. Oct. 2, 2008) (citing Fed. R.
Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(C)). Some courts have determined that a “good cause” standard also applies when

6

R. Doc. 296 at 2.
Id. at 3.
8
Id. at 3-4.
7

Case 2:17-cv-05391-BWA-KWR Document 297 Filed 06/01/22 Page 3 of 3

determining whether to reopen or retake a deposition. See Kleppinger v. Tex. Dep't of Transp.,
283 F.R.D. 330, 335 n.7 (S.D. Tex. 2012) (collecting cases). “The Trial Court has, and must have,
of course, a wide and flexible discretion in the daily guidance of a case through the preparatory
stages looking toward the climax of a trial.” Mitchell v. Johnson, 274 F.2d 394, 401 (5th Cir.
1960).
Having considered the parties’ memoranda, the record, and the applicable law,
IT IS ORDERED that Claimants’ motion to amend the scheduling order to allow for a
second deposition of Savoy (R. Doc. 291) is DENIED. Claimants have not shown good cause for
reopening discovery to re-depose Savoy at this late juncture considering that the Coast Guard
report has been available for nearly four years, and available to Claimants for over a year.
New Orleans, Louisiana, this 1st day of June, 2022.

________________________________
BARRY W. ASHE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE