Western Towboat Company v. Vigor Marine LLC

Filing 46

ORDER granting Plaintiff's 23 Motion to Compel. Within fourteen (14) days of the date of entry of this Order, Defendant shall produce to Plaintiff the documents requested therein. Signed by Judge Ricardo S. Martinez. (PM)

1
2
3
4
5
6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14

WESTERN TOWBOAT COMPANY,
Plaintiff,

No. C20-0416-RSM
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF
WESTERN TOWBOAT COMPANY’S
MOTION TO COMPEL

v.
VIGOR MARINE, LLC,
Defendant.

15
16

I.

INTRODUCTION

17

This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff Western Towboat Company (Western)’s

18

unopposed Motion to Compel. Dkt. #23. On March 11, 2021, parties stipulated to extend the

19

time for Defendant Vigor Marine, LCC (“Vigor”) to file its response. Dkt. #26. However, as

20
21
22
23

of the date of this Order, Vigor has filed no response to Western’s Motion to Compel.
II.

BACKGROUND

The Court need not set forth a complete background of this case for purposes of

24

resolving Western’s motion. This admiralty and maritime action arises out of the sinking of

25

Vigor’s Drydock YFD 70 (“Drydock”) on or about October 26, 2016 in the Monterey Bay

26

Marine Sanctuary. Dkt. #1. After the Drydock’s sinking, Vigor claims it took immediate action

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF WESTERN TOWBOAT COMPANY’S MOTION TO
COMPEL - 1

1

to minimize its exposure to penalties levied by National Oceanic and Atmospheric

2

Administration (“NOAA”) under the National Marine Sanctuaries Act. Specifically, Vigor

3
4

claims that it arranged for a survey and worked with NOAA to identify the location of the
Drydock and assess the damage to the environment caused by the sinking. Dkt. #15 at ¶¶ 45.

5
6
7

On March 16, 2020, Western filed this action against Vigor alleging breach of maritime
contract and seeking a declaratory judgment that Western was not responsible for the sinking

8

of the Drydock in the Marine Sanctuary. Dkt. #1 at ¶¶ 17-26. On May 20, 2020, Vigor

9

answered the complaint with counterclaims, including a claim that Western was unjustly

10

enriched by Vigor’s expenditures incurred to reduce or minimize the amount of the NOAA

11
12
13
14

penalty assessment. Dkt. #15 at ¶¶ 40-45. On March 1, 2021, Western filed this unopposed
motion seeking to compel production of documents related to Vigor’s counterclaim for unjust
enrichment in connection with its work with NOAA. Dkt. #23.
III.

15
16

DISCUSSION

A. Legal Standard

17

“Parties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to

18

any party’s claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case, considering the

19
20
21
22

importance of the issues at stake in the action, the amount in controversy, the parties’ relative
access to relevant information, the parties’ resources, the importance of the discovery in
resolving the issues, and whether the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs

23

its likely benefit.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). Information within this scope of discovery need

24

not be admissible in evidence to be discoverable. Id. “District courts have broad discretion in

25

determining relevancy for discovery purposes.” Surfvivor Media, Inc. v. Survivor Prods., 406

26

F.3d 625, 635 (9th Cir. 2005) (citing Hallett v. Morgan, 296 F.3d 732, 751 (9th Cir. 2002)).

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF WESTERN TOWBOAT COMPANY’S MOTION TO
COMPEL - 2

1

If requested discovery is not answered, the requesting party may move for an order compelling

2

such discovery. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(1). The party that resists discovery has the burden to

3
4

show why the discovery request should be denied. Blankenship v. Hearst Corp., 519 F.2d 418,
429 (9th Cir. 1975).

5
B. Western’s Motion to Compel

6

Western’s motion to compel seeks production of documents related to Vigor’s unjust

7
8

enrichment counterclaim. Dkt. #23. Specifically, Western requests production of (1) any

9

documents related to the investigation it conducted with NOAA; (2) communications with

10

NOAA and/or with Drydock owner Amaya Curiel regarding the Drydock’s sinking, including

11
12
13
14

the ROV expedition Vigor conducted in July 2018; (3) communications related to the survey
Vigor participated in, including instant messages and chats; (4) any post-incident reports,
investigations, analysis or other evaluations that Vigor conducted related to the Drydock

15

sinking; (5) all photographs, videos, or digital or motion pictures relevant to this action; (6) all

16

documents that support or relate to Vigor’s counterclaims. Dkt. #23 at 4-10. Given that Vigor

17

has failed to file a response, Western’s motion is unopposed.

18
19
20
21
22

Under this district’s local rules, a party’s failure to file an opposition to a motion may
be construed as an admission that the motion has merit. Local Rules W.D. Wash. LCR 7(b)(2).
Having considered Western’s motion, the Court finds that the requested documents may
reasonably lead to information relevant to Vigor’s unjust enrichment counterclaim. Given

23

Vigor’s failure to respond to the instant motion, it has not met its burden to show why any of

24

these requests should be denied. Blankenship, 519 F.2d at 429. Accordingly, the Court

25

GRANTS Western’s motion.

26

//

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF WESTERN TOWBOAT COMPANY’S MOTION TO
COMPEL - 3

1
2
3
4

IV.

CONCLUSION

Having reviewed Plaintiff’s motion, the exhibit attached thereto, and the remainder of
the record, the Court hereby finds and ORDERS that Plaintiff Western Towboat Company’s
Motion to Compel, Dkt. #23, is GRANTED. Within fourteen (14) days of the date of entry of

5
6

this Order, Defendant shall produce to Plaintiff the documents requested therein.

7
8

Dated this 13th day of May, 2021.

9
10
11
12

A

RICARDO S. MARTINEZ
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF WESTERN TOWBOAT COMPANY’S MOTION TO
COMPEL - 4