Leonard et al v. Board of Supervisors of Louisiana State University and Agricultural and Mechanical College et al
Filing
152
RULING denying 132 Motion to Compel Discovery Responses and for Attorney's Fees Directed to Defendant Lockheed Martin Corporation. Signed by Magistrate Judge Stephen C. Riedlinger on 09/17/2014. (NLT)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
ROYCE LEONARD, ET AL
CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS
NUMBER 13-565-JJB-SCR
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF
LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY
AGRICULTURAL & MECHANICAL
COLLEGE, ET AL
RULING ON MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY
Before the court is the Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Discovery
Responses and for Attorney’s Fees Directed to Defendant Lockheed
Martin Corporation.
Record document number 132.
The motion is
opposed.1
All of the parties’ memoranda, arguments and exhibits have
been
considered,
although
not
all
of
them
are
specifically
addressed in this ruling.
This motion is denied essentially for the reasons stated in
the defendant Lockheed Martin’s opposition memoranda.
Defendant
objected
part,
to
the
plaintiffs’
discovery
requests,
in
as
overbroad, unreasonably burdensome, and not reasonably calculated
to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence because the
“plaintiffs have provided no information or documents regarding
alleged exposure(s) ... to/or the alleged product(s), if any, for
1
Record document number 141.
Plaintiffs filed a reply
memorandum.
Record document number 150.
Defendant filed a
surreply memorandum. Record document number 151.
which plaintiffs contend Lockheed Martin may be responsible.”
Defendant argued that without some factual basis to conclude that
the decedent, Royce Leonard, was actually exposed to an asbestoscontaining
component
of
an
aircraft
it
manufactured,
the
plaintiffs’ discovery requests are nothing more than a classic
fishing expedition.
The deadline for the parties to complete their fact discovery
was August 29, 2014.2
At least by then, the plaintiffs should have
some evidence of the decedent’s exposure to an asbestos-containing
component in one of the defendant’s aircraft, or at least his
exposure to a component for which they have a reasonable factual
basis
to
believe
contained
asbestos.
Given
the
defendant’s
objection, the plaintiffs would be expected to come forward with
such
evidence.
But
no
such
evidence
plaintiffs’ motion or supporting memoranda.
is
mentioned
in
the
Absent such evidence,
the plaintiffs’ argument that the information sought is relevant to
their claims and/or will lead to the discovery of admissible
evidence is factually unsupported and wholly unpersuasive.
Plaintiffs
alleged
in
their
First
Amending
Petition
for
Damages that Royce Leonard served in the U.S. Air Force as a pilot
and training officer, and that he flew the AT-6, T-28, T-33, T-34,
F-80/P-80, T-37 and B-25 aircraft.
2
Plaintiffs alleged, “[u]pon
Record document number 69, Scheduling Order, p. 1, item A.
The case was removed to this court on August 27, 2013, but Royce
Leonard was not deposed before he died on February 9, 2014.
2
information
and
belief,”
that
the
T-33
and
F-80/P-80
were
manufactured by defendant Lockheed Martin and “contained asbestos
components that led to his exposure to asbestos and ultimately the
development of Mesothelioma.”
the
actual
facts
which
But the plaintiffs did not allege
support
their
belief.
Nor
have
the
plaintiffs since come forward with the information they alleged
they already have, or any other facts, to support the allegation
that serving as a flight officer and T-33 and F-80/P-80 pilot
exposed Royce Leonard to asbestos.
Review of the plaintiffs’
discovery responses, particularly Beverly Leonard’s answers and
objections to the defendant’s interrogatories (which were neither
signed nor verified by her and therefore do not comply with Rule
33(b), Fed.R.Civ.P.), and their August 29, 2014 supplemental Rule
26(a) disclosures, support the conclusion that they have no factual
basis
for
their
claim
against
defendant
Lockheed
Martin.
Plaintiffs are essentially asking the court to approve overbroad
discovery, and hoping that something will turn up to support their
claim against defendant Lockheed Martin.
Defendant
also
argued
that
the
plaintiffs’
failed
to
sufficiently comply with the requirement of Rule 37(a)(1) to confer
in an effort to obtain the discovery without court action.
The
communications between counsel for the plaintiffs and for defendant
Lockheed Martin, along with the September 10, 2014 affidavit of
3
counsel for the defendant,3 do not support finding that there was
a good faith effort to resolve this dispute without court action.
Rather, it appears that the plaintiffs felt sure enough about their
position that they were going to file a motion to compel discovery
unless they got what they wanted from the defendant.4
Accordingly,
the
Plaintiff’s
Motion
to
Compel
Discovery
Responses and for Attorney’s Fees Directed to Defendant Lockheed
Martin Corporation is denied.
Baton Rouge, Louisiana, September 17, 2014.
STEPHEN C. RIEDLINGER
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
3
Record document number 141-1.
4
See record document number 144-5, August 14, 2014 letter
from counsel for the plaintiffs to counsel for defendant.
4
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?