Bell v Hercules Liftboat, LLC

Filing 116

RULING denying 60 Motion for Contempt and Motion for Sanctions. Signed by Magistrate Judge Stephen C. Riedlinger on 2/23/2012. (LSM)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

SUE BELL
CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS
NUMBER 11-332–JJB-SCR
HERCULES LIFTBOAT COMPANY, L.L.C.
RULING ON MOTION FOR CONTEMPT
Before the court is the plaintiff’s Motion for Contempt and
for Sanctions, Including Dismissal of Defendants’ Defenses and
Counterclaims.
is

the

Record document number 60.

plaintiff’s

document number 87.

Amended

[60]

Motion

Also before the court
for

Contempt.

Record

Both motions are opposed.1

Careful consideration of the plaintiff’s motion leads to the
conclusion that there is no basis for holding the defendant in
contempt.
Plaintiff complained that the defendant did not comply with
the December 8, 2011 Ruling on Motion to Compel and therefore
should be held in contempt. The ruling required defendant Hercules
Liftboat Company, LLC to supplement its answer to one interrogatory
and produce documents responsive to four requests for production,

1

Record document number 72. Defendant’s opposition applies
to both the plaintiff’s original and amended motions. Plaintiff
filed a response to the defendant’s opposition. Record document
number 90.
Defendant filed a reply to that response.
Record
document number 101.

and to do so within 7 days after the ruling.2
The evidence shows that on December 16, 2011 the defendant
sent the information and documents to the plaintiff’s attorney by
email to several of her email addresses. Plaintiff complained that
the defendant sent the email to an incorrect email address.
Defendant submitted evidence which shows that the defendant
tried to send the information and documents by facsimile and email
to

the

several

email

addresses,

attorney’s preferred email address.

including

the

plaintiff’s

The email service used by the

plaintiff’s attorney for her preferred email address failed to
deliver it, apparently because the email exceed the service’s size
limit.3

However, there is no dispute that the email sent to one of

the email addresses ([e-mail]) was received.4
Next, the plaintiff complained that one of the documents (the
list of persons terminated) was illegible because the print was too
small.

The court has examined this document - it is mostly not

legible.

Enlarging the document does not result in a completely

legible document; rather it results in document with larger blurred
print.

Nonetheless, the plaintiff was able to use the document in

her opposition to the defendant Life Insurance Company of North

2

Although the ruling is dated December 8, 2011, it was not
docketed by the clerk of court until the afternoon of December 9,
2011.
3

Record document number 72-1, Exhibits A-G.

4

Record document number 90, p. 2.
2

America’s motion for summary judgment.5

If the plaintiff needs to

use the document for another purpose, she can ask the defendant to
provide another copy of it in a larger original format.
Lastly, the plaintiff complained that the defendant did not
produce its policies and procedures, but rather produced a document
titled “Global Human Resources Manual” used by defendant Hercules
Offshore, Inc., which was not the plaintiff’s employer.
Plaintiff’s complaint is unavailing.

Her document production

requests were directed to defendant Hercules Liftboat Company, and
it produced responsive documents in compliance with the ruling.
Although the document described by the plaintiff does not bear the
name of Hercules Liftboat Company, this is not a basis for finding
that it failed to comply with the ruling.

It is apparent that by

producing the document the defendant is representing that it has
adopted the document as its own.
Plaintiff has not shown that the defendant failed to comply
with the Ruling on Motion to Compel.
Plaintiff included in her memoranda references and arguments
related to her second set of interrogatories.

Because these

discovery requests were not the subject of the plaintiff’s Motion
to Compel, there is no need to address her arguments about the

5

See record document number 73, Plaintiff Opposition to Life
Insurance Company of North America Cross Motion for Summary
Judgment Filed December 29, 2011, p. 7, referencing record document
number 74, p. 15-17.
3

defendant’s response to them.
Defendant included in its opposition memorandum a request for
sanctions pursuant to Rule 11, Fed.R.Civ.P.

Defendant’s request

does not comply with Rule 11(c)(2).
Accordingly,
Sanctions,

plaintiff’s

Including

Motion

Dismissal

Counterclaims is denied.

of

for

Contempt

Defendants’

and

for

Defenses

and

Defendant’s request for imposition of

Rule 11 sanctions included in its opposition memorandum is also
denied.
Baton Rouge, Louisiana, February 23, 2012.

STEPHEN C. RIEDLINGER
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

4