Great Lakes Exploration Group LLC v. Unidentified Wrecked and (For Salvage-Right Purposes), Abandoned Sailing Vessel, The

Filing 98

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE: Plaintiff to show cause by 8/3/2006 why the Complaint should not be dismissed for failure to comply with the Court's order directing that Plaintiff provide the precise location of Defendant to the State; Plaintiff and Intervenor must file briefs, within 14 days of the entry of this order, addressing why the Complaint should not be dismissed for Plaintiff's failure to comply with the Court's order; signed by Chief Judge Robert Holmes Bell. (Chief Judge Robert Holmes Bell, kcb)

Download PDF
G r e a t Lakes Exploration Group LLC v. Unidentified Wrecked and (For Sa...bandoned Sailing Vessel, The D o c . 98 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT F O R THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN S O U T H ER N DIVISION G R E A T LAKES EXPLORATION G R O U P LLC, P l a i n ti f f , F i l e No. 1:04-CV-375 v. H O N . ROBERT HOLMES BELL T H E UNIDENTIFIED, WRECKED AND (FOR SALVAGE-RIGHT PURPOSES), ABANDONED SAILING VESSEL, ETC., De fend ant. / ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE O v e r two years ago, Plaintiff Great Lakes Exploration Group LLC filed a verified c o m p la in t in this Court seeking a declaration that it was the sole owner of Defendant, a s a l v a g e award, an injunction precluding third parties from interfering with its salvage o p e r a t i o n , and an in rem arrest warrant for the vessel. See Pl's Compl. (Docket #1). T herea fter, the Court granted the State of Michigan's (the "State") motion to intervene for the l i m it e d purpose of filing a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction and to defend the State's i n t e r e s t in and jurisdiction over its bottomlands and maritime cultural heritage. See N o v e m b e r 18, 2004 Order (Docket #14). Prior to ruling on the State's motion to dismiss, by Dockets.Justia.com s t ip u l a t io n of the parties, the Court suspended the proceedings so that the parties could exp lore resolution of their dispute. See February 9, 2005 Order (Docket #28). The parties' were unable to resolve their dispute. Therefore, the Court heard oral a r g u m e n t on the State's motion to dismiss on May 10, 2005. The Court denied the motion to the extent that it requested a more definite statement. May 10, 2005 Order (Docket #39). This denial, however, was "predicated upon Plaintiff's compliance with Intervenors' request f o r documents and exhibits and the precise location of Defendant." Id. In the interest of m a i n t a in i n g the confidentiality of Defendant's location and to avoid unnecessary disclosure o f the location of archaeological sites, the Court entered a protective order directing that any d o c u m ents containing the precise location of Defendant shall be filed under seal and m a i n t a i n e d in strict confidentiality by the parties. July 13, 2005 Order Concerning Do cum ents Filed Under Seal (Docket #43). Thereafter, the Court denied Plaintiff's motion to alter or amend the July 13, 2005 order. In the Court's denial of the motion to amend, it mad e it unmistakably clear that Plaintiff was to provide the State with Defendant's precise l o c a ti o n . Aug. 19, 2005 Mem Op. & Order at 2-3 ("The Court reemphasizes that Intervenors must be given the precise location of Defendant."). R a t h e r than disclose the precise location of Defendant, Plaintiff filed a second a m e n d e d complaint. Now, well over one year after the Court ordered Plaintiff to do so, P l a i n ti f f has yet to disclose Defendant's precise location to the State. This despite the fact th a t Plaintiff clearly recognizes that the Court ordered it to do so. See Pl.'s Br. Mot. to 2 A l t e r /A m e n d Protective Order at 2 (Docket #45) ("As the date of this Motion, the Court has n o t directed that Plaintiff disclose any information to Intervenors, other than the precise l o c a t io n of the shipwreck and debris fields.") (emphasis added). Moreover, Plaintiff's agent, S t e p h e n Libert, has unequivocally indicated in public statements that Plaintiff will not com ply with the Court's order mandating disclosure of Defendant's precise location. See e.g., Peg gy Walsh-Sarnecki, Explorer, State Square Off Over Shipwreck, DETROIT FREE PRESS, July 17, 2006 ("We can dive on it (Defendant), that doesn't require permits," Libert said. " B u t I'm not going to let the state know where the location is.") (emphasis added). For r e a s o n s best known to Plaintiff, it has apparently determined that it will intentionally and willfu lly disregard this Court's orders.1 It is incumbent on the Court to see that it's orders are en fo rc ed and complied with. Accordingly, T h e three circles encompassing approximately 2.3 square miles identified in Pl ain tif f's Second Amended Complaint do not comply with the Court's order to disclose the p r e c i s e location of Defendant. The only evidence of Defendant in the record is a photograph, t a k e n underwater, depicting a large wooden beam. See Exhibit A, Lusardi Aff. (Docket #10). P l a i n ti f f surely knows the precise location of this object within the three circles identified in t h e complaint and has, to date, willfully determined not to disclose it to the State. As the Cou rt has repeatedly said, disclosure of this location will greatly assist the State in its initial i n v e s ti g a t io n and in framing a possible answer to the complaint. See also Fathom E x p l o r a t io n , LLC v. The Unidentified Shipwrecked Vessel or Vessels, et al., 352 F. Supp. 2d 1 2 1 8 , 1226 (S.D. Ala. 2005) (directing Plaintiff to disclose "reasonably available basic i n f o r m a ti o n in its possession that might aid potential claimants in assessing the validity of t heir claims," including the precise location from which artifacts were recovered and the location of wreckage within the two nautical mile zone identified in the complaint). 3 1 I T IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff must SHOW CAUSE why the Complaint shou ld not be dismissed for failure to comply with the Court's order directing that Plaintiff p r o v i d e the precise location of Defendant to the State. I T IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff and Intervenor must file briefs, within f o u r t e en (14) days of the entry of this order, addressing why the Complaint should not be dism issed for Plaintiff's failure to comply with the Court's order. Date: July 20, 2006 /s/ Robert Holmes Bell ROBERT HOLM E S BELL C H IE F UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 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?