Marquette Transportation Company Gulf-Inland LLC

Filing 67

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO COMPEL ; denying 66 Motion to Compel. Plaintiff's objections to Defendant's Requests for Production are SUSTAINED and Defendant Marquette's Motion to Compel is DENIED without prejudice. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Jason B. Libby) Parties notified.(lcayce, 2)

United States District Court
Southern District of Texas

ENTERED
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI DIVISION
JOHN BORDAS,
Plaintiff,
VS.
MARQUETTE TRANSPORTATION
COMPANY GULF-INLAND LLC, et al,
Defendants.

§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

December 09, 2015
David J. Bradley, Clerk

CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:14-CV-163

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO COMPEL
Pending is Defendant Marquette Transportation Company’s Opposed Motion to
Compel Production of Plaintiff John Bordas’ Social Media Accounts. (D.E. 66).

The

Court has considered the motion, exhibits and applicable law and finds a response from
Plaintiff is unnecessary at this time as the motion is DENIED without prejudice for the
reasons set forth below.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1) provides that parties may obtain
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.”
This case involves John Bordas’ maritime personal injury claims for injuries he
sustained while working aboard the M/V St. Joseph. Defendant Marquette seeks the
Court to compel Plaintiff to produce a complete, un-redacted and unedited digital copy of
Plaintiff’s Facebook page and LinkedIn account. The specific requests are set forth in the
1/3

motion which were originally propounded in Marquette’s Requests for Production. (D.E.
66, p. 2). Plaintiff objected to the requests for production. According to Marquette, Mr.
Bordas has alleged permanent injuries that render him “wholly incapacitated from work.”
(D.E. 66, p. 5).

In connection with this motion, Marquette has submitted publically

accessible portions of Mr. Bordas’ Facebook account. (D.E. 66-2). In these submissions,
which include photographs, Mr. Bordas is standing with the assistance of, or in close
proximity to, a walker.

One of the photographs appears to have been taken at an

amusement park. (D.E. 66-2).

In the submitted social media postings, Mr. Bordas

references his back surgery, his efforts to walk and traveling to Corpus Christi for job
interviews. Marquette’s exhibits are not the type of evidence indicating Mr. Bordas has
been caught malingering, faking, or exaggerating his injuries. The impression left by the
submitted portions of Mr. Bordas’ social media account is that he is attempting to cope
with his injuries, recover from his back surgery and get on with his life. However, to the
extent Mr. Bordas is claiming an inability to work, evidence of his job interviews is
relevant to those claims.
The undersigned views Defendant Marquette’s request for production of
Plaintiff’s social media accounts as overly broad and unnecessarily intrusive into the
personal and private affairs of Mr. Bordas.

Therefore, Plaintiff’s objections to

Defendant’s Requests for Production are SUSTAINED and Defendant Marquette’s
Motion to Compel is DENIED without prejudice.
Defendant Marquette has made a showing that Mr. Bordas’ social media accounts
may include some discoverable information, especially in regard to his search for
2/3

employment. The parties are directed to confer and attempt to resolve this discovery
dispute. If the parties are unable to reach a resolution, Defendant Marquette may re-file a
motion to compel to which Plaintiff shall file a response within seven days.
ORDERED this 9th day of December, 2015.

___________________________________
Jason B. Libby
United States Magistrate Judge

3/3