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