Horn v. Inland Dredging Company, L.L.C.

Filing 39

ORDER granting 33 Motion to Compel. Signed by Magistrate Judge S. Allan Alexander on 9/22/14. (bnd)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
OXFORD DIVISION

DERRICK HORN

v.

PLAINTIFF

CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:14CV19-MPM-SAA

INLAND DREDGING COMPANY, LLC

DEFENDANT

ORDER
Plaintiff has moved to compel production of documents from defendant relating to the
contract under which Inland Dredging Company, LLC (“IDC”) was operating for the United
States Army Corps of Engineers (“USACE”). Docket 33-1. The discovery requests were
propounded on July 3, 2014, and defendant responded on August 1, 2014. Id. The parties have
conferred and resolved all objections to the propounded requests except for Request for
Production 15 which requests “[a]ll daily reports sent from the dredge to the USACE during this
project.” Docket 35, p. 2.
Defendant objects to Request 15 as overly broad and unduly burdensome and further
advises that the dredging project on which the alleged incident occurred began on June 81, 2009
and ended on August 8, 2011. Plaintiff’s accident occurred on October 16, 2010 “while using a
wrench to unbolt a flange from a section of rubber pipe that just happened to be on a crane
barge.” Docket 35, p. 2. Defendant asserts that during the two-year period during which the
dredging project was conducted, “hundreds, if not thousands, of daily reports were sent to the
Corps of Engineers.” Id. at 3. According to defendant, the reports primarily relate to irrelevant
information such as the work performed on the project, the area dredged, amount and

composition of material dredged, sub-contractors on the project, mechanical problems or delays
occurred, repairs made, amount of fuel used, hours worked by the crew and equipment on the
jobsite. Id.
Plaintiff has provided no explanation of how these particular documents are likely to lead
to the discovery of admissible evidence. In fact, plaintiff does not even cite Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 26(b)(1), which allows
discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party’s claim
or defense . . . . Relevant information need not be admissible at the trial if the
discovery appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible
evidence.
The general rule, particularly as to document requests, is that a
document or thing that is relevant to the claim or defense of any party may be
inspected pursuant to Rule 34 unless it is privileged, or it has been prepared in
anticipation of litigation or for trial, or it reveals facts known and opinions held
by experts, or there are special reasons why inspection would cause annoyance,
embarrassment, oppression, or an undue expense burden.
Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 2206, at (3d ed.
2010). Plaintiff offers no explanation for how the discovery of over two years of daily reports,
regarding virtually every detail of or event which occurred during the entire project, is in any
way “reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” Defendant has
demonstrated that production of over two years of daily reports will certainly cause an undue
expense burden and the majority of the documents are not in any way relevant to the claims
asserted by plaintiff. Moreover, defendant represents that it proposed to plaintiff that this
discovery dispute be resolved by producing “any reports generated during the thirty-day period
prior to the incident that reference any Corps of Engineers safety requirements, as well as any
reports that reference the incident,” but plaintiff rejected this proposal.
2

The court finds that the request as propounded is without question overbroad and
burdensome, and that defendant’s proposed resolution to the dispute eminently reasonable.
Plaintiff has not explained to the court why more reports are needed. Accordingly, plaintiff’s
Motion to Compel is granted, but only in part. No later than October 6, 2014, defendant must
produce to plaintiff copies of all daily reports which it submitted to the Corps of Engineers in the
thirty days before the incident sued upon in this action, along with any other report which refers
to or grows out of the incident.
SO ORDERED, this, the 22nd day of September, 2014.

/s/ S. Allan Alexander
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

3