Holmes et al v. Yct. Nova et al

Filing 112

ORDER denying defendant Clark's 90 Motion to Compel, signed by Judge Robert S. Lasnik. (SWT)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

7
8

ROBERT HOLMES, et al.,

9

Plaintiffs,
Case No. C16-1422RSL

10
11

v.
YCT. NOVA, et al.,

12

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S
MOTION TO COMPEL

Defendants.

13
14

This matter comes before the Court on “Defendant Clark’s Motion to Compel

15

Supplemental Discovery Responses.” Dkt. # 90. Two months before the trial date,

16

defendant S.B. Joseph Clark reached out to plaintiffs to obtain updated discovery

17

responses, particularly regarding repairs and work that had been done on the vessel

18

M SQUARED since discovery responses were last provided. Plaintiffs promised to

19

provide updates and asked Clark to supplement his discovery responses in turn. There

20

were some delays and difficulties in plaintiffs’ attempts to obtain recent work invoices:

21

plaintiffs were out of the country and had limited connectivity, making it difficult to

22

communicate with service providers. Clark supplemented his discovery responses on

23

March 20, 2018, and filed this motion to compel on March 29, 2018, as a place holder.1

24
25
26

1

Clark requested a teleconference on March 23rd when it became clear that plaintiff’s
timetable for production would make a motion to compel virtually impossible. Plaintiffs, who
had already promised to provide or assist Clark in obtaining the documents, did not think a
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S
MOTION TO COMPEL - 1

1

With plaintiffs’ assistance and authorization, he has been able to obtain information via

2

subpoena directly from the third-party vendors.2 The portion of the motion to compel

3

seeking production of documents is therefore DENIED as moot.

4

One month before trial, Clark notified plaintiffs that, if any work had been done

5

on the M SQUARED since his expert inspected the vessel in May 2017, he wanted “to

6

reinspect the vessel to see its current condition prior to trial.” Dkt. # 91-5 at 2. Plaintiffs

7

objected, noting that “[a]ny increase in value due to further work performed at the

8

owner’s expense since that time has nothing to do with your client’s claim of a maritime

9

lien or enrichment provided by your client at an earlier time.” Dkt. # 91-11 at 1.3 Despite

10

plaintiffs’ objection, Clark made no attempt to explain how or why plaintiffs’ post-

11

recovery repairs, renovations, and/or maintenance activities are relevant.4 Instead, Clark

12

simply insists that “[t]he relevancy of the vessel’s current condition cannot be disputed.”

13

Plaintiffs have, in fact, disputed its relevance. Regardless of who has listed the service

14

records as trial exhibits, in bringing this motion to compel, Clark bears the burden of

15

showing that the requested discovery is relevant. He has not done so.

16
17
18
19
20
21

conference was necessary. Despite not having an in-person or telephonic conference, Clark filed
this motion when the production issues were not resolved by Thursday, March 29th. Although
the purposes of the meet and confer requirement were not fully achieved in this case, given the
circumstances, Clark will not be penalized for attempting to bring this matter to the Court’s
attention in a timely manner. Plaintiffs’ request for an award of fees is DENIED.
2

22

Plaintiffs also made their valuation expert available for deposition.

3

23
24
25
26

Plaintiffs also noted that the invoices of service providers Clark had requested were
both “irrelevant and disproportionate to your client’s claim.” Dkt. # 91-10 at 2. They did not,
however, object to the third-party subpoenas issued to the service providers.
4

This omission is particularly striking given that the Court previously described “[t]he
value of the yacht at the time it was returned to plaintiffs” as a key issue in this litigation. Dkt.
# 82 at 1 (emphasis added).
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S
MOTION TO COMPEL - 2

1
2

For all of the foregoing reasons, Clark’s motion to compel another inspection of
the M SQUARED is DENIED.5

3
4

Dated this 23rd day of April, 2018.

A

5

Robert S. Lasnik
United States District Judge

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

5

Clark suspects that plaintiffs’ expert has updated his report and valuation of the
M SQUARED. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(e)(2), any changes in Mr. Heasley’s report would
have had to be produced by the time plaintiff’s pretrial disclosures were due. Failure to timely
supplement would result in exclusion of the updated report.
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S
MOTION TO COMPEL - 3