Matthews et al v. Island Operating Company, Inc.
Filing
52
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER AFFIRMING AND ADOPTING 45 THE MAGISTRATE JUDGESORDER GRANTING 34 PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO COMPEL AND OVERRULING 48 DEFENDANTS OBJECTIONS. (copy to counsel via CM/ECF) (nmm)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
STEVEN AARON MATTHEWS and
VANESSA MATTHEWS, his wife,
Plaintiffs,
v.
Civil Action No. 5:18CV97
(STAMP)
ISLAND OPERATING COMPANY, INC.,
a Louisiana corporation,
Defendant.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
AFFIRMING AND ADOPTING THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL
AND OVERRULING DEFENDANT’S OBJECTIONS
I.
Procedural History
The plaintiffs in the above-styled civil action filed a motion
to compel.
ECF No. 34.
This motion specifically seeks to compel
the defendant, Island Operating Company, Inc. (“Island Operating”),
to
provide
full
and
complete
responses
to:
(1)
Request
for
Production No. 6 of Plaintiffs’ First Set of Combined Discovery
(Occupational Safety and Health Administration report redacted
information); (2) Interrogatory Nos. 1, 2, and 3 of Plaintiffs’
Second
Set
of
Combined
Discovery
(information
related
to
declaration of Angelle Guilbeau (“Guilbeau”); and (3) Requests for
Production No. 1 and 2 of Plaintiffs’ Second Set of Combined
Discovery (information related to Guilbeau’s declaration). ECF No.
34 at 2.
This matter was referred to the Honorable James P.
Mazzone, United States Magistrate Judge.
ECF No. 39.
Magistrate
Judge Mazzone entered an order granting the plaintiffs’ motion to
compel.
ECF No. 45.
The defendant then filed objections to the
magistrate judge’s order.
ECF No. 48.
For the following reasons,
the magistrate judge’s order is affirmed and adopted and the
defendant’s objections are overruled.
II.
Background
The plaintiffs filed this motion to compel the defendant to
provide full and complete responses to: (1) Request for Production
No. 6 of Plaintiffs’ First Set of Combined Discovery (Occupational
Safety and Health Administration report redacted information); (2)
Interrogatory Nos. 1, 2, and 3 of Plaintiffs’ Second Set of
Combined Discovery (information related to Angelle Guilbeau’s
declaration); and (3) Requests for Production No. 1 and 2 of
Plaintiffs’ Second Set of Combined Discovery (information related
to Guilbeau’s declaration). ECF No. 34 at 2. The plaintiffs argue
that the defendant’s responses and answers are deficient.
Id.
at 3. Specifically, the plaintiffs contend that the defendant: (1)
has failed to address Request for Production No. 6; (2) has failed
to supplement Interrogatory No. 1 and that the defendant has
indicated that it has no information responsive to the request; (3)
has provided a broad objection to providing information pertaining
to Interrogatory Nos. 2 and 3; and (4) has provided no privilege
log,
and
has
failed
to
make
2
any
legitimate
claim
as
to
attorney-client privilege or work product, to protect information
pertaining to Requests for Production Nos. 1 and 2.
In
response,
responses
to
the
each
defendant
of
the
production of documents.
argues
that
interrogatories
ECF No. 37 at 2, 8.
it
and
Id. at 3-8.
has
provided
requests
for
The defendant also
asserts that the Guilbeau Declaration and un-redacted Occupational
Safety and Health Administration documents are not proper subjects
of discovery since the defendant does not possess those documents.
Id. at 6, 8.
Moreover, the defendant argues that Guilbeau’s
contact information, substance of communications with Guilbeau, and
documents that relate to those communications are irrelevant since
her declaration was used in response to a motion to remand; and
therefore, it cannot be used substantively in this case.
In reply, plaintiffs argue that the defendant opened the door
to
discovery
on
Guilbeau
when
the
defendant
relied
on
her
declaration to prove the amount in controversy requirement was met.
ECF No. 38 at 2.
Moreover, the plaintiffs assert that the
defendant never claimed attorney-client privilege or work product
doctrine
to
protect
information
regarding
the
substance
of
communications with Guilbeau and documents that relate to those
communications.
Id.
at
3.
Even
if
the
defendant
asserted
protection under the attorney-client privilege, the plaintiffs
contend that the defendant does not meet the elements to use the
privilege.
Id. at 4-5.
3
On December 19, 2018, Magistrate Judge Mazzone issued an order
granting the plaintiffs' motion to compel.
ECF No. 45.
On December 21, 2018, the defendant filed objections to the
order.
ECF No. 48.
obligation
to
Island Operating believes that it has no
provide
information
associated
with
Angelle
Guilbeau’s declaration since the requests pertain to the yet
unfiled private cause of action for allegedly impermissible conduct
associated with procurement of the declaration, not the personal
injury case at hand.
that
it
preserves
Id. at 1-6.
Island Operating further states
attorney-client
privilege
and
work
product
objections that may apply to plaintiffs’ requests for Island
Operating to produce all email, texts, letters or other forms of
communication between representatives, employees, attorneys or
others on behalf of Island Operating and Angelle Guilbeau regarding
Steven Matthews and/or the declaration.
III.
Id. at 6-7.
Applicable Law
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a), a district court
may refer to a magistrate judge “a pretrial matter not dispositive
of a party’s claim or defense.”
Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a).
The
parties may file objections to the magistrate judge’s order, and
the magistrate judge’s ruling may be reversed only on a finding
that the order is “clearly erroneous or is contrary to law.”
R. Civ. P. 72(a); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
Fed.
“A finding is ‘clearly
erroneous’ when although there is evidence to support it, the
4
reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with a definite and
firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.”
United States
v. United States Gypsum Co., 333 U.S. 354, 68 S. Ct. 525, 92 L.Ed.
746 (1948). In light of the broad discretion given to a magistrate
judge in the resolution of nondispositive discovery disputes, the
court should only overrule a magistrate judge’s determination if
this discretion is abused.
Detection Sys., Inc. v. Pittway Corp.,
96 F.R.D. 152, 154 (W.D. N.Y. 1982); Shoop v. Hott, No. 5:08CV188,
2010 WL 5067567, at *2 (N.D. W. Va. Dec. 6, 2010).
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1) permits parties to
“obtain
discovery
regarding
any
nonprivileged
matter
that
is
relevant to any party’s claim or defense and proportional to the
needs of the case.”
Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1).
In considering
proportionality, courts must consider: (1) “the importance of the
issues at stake in the action;” (2) “the amount in controversy;”
(3) “the parties’ relative access to relevant information”; (4)
“the parties’ resources;” (5) “the importance of the discovery in
resolving the issues;” and (6) “whether the burden or expense of
the
proposed
discovery
outweighs
its
likely
benefit.”
Id.
“Information within this scope of discovery need not be admissible
in evidence to be discoverable.”
Id.
Courts may forbid certain
disclosures or discovery “to protect a party or person from
annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense.”
Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)(1).
5
IV.
Discussion
The plaintiffs filed this motion to compel the defendant to
provide full and complete responses to: (1) Request for Production
No. 6 of Plaintiffs’ First Set of Combined Discovery (Occupational
Safety and Health Administration report redacted information); (2)
Interrogatory Nos. 1, 2, and 3 of Plaintiffs’ Second Set of
Combined Discovery (information related to Angelle Guilbeau’s
declaration); and (3) Requests for Production No. 1 and 2 of
Plaintiffs’ Second Set of Combined Discovery (information related
to Guilbeau’s declaration).
ECF No. 34 at 2.
Magistrate Judge
Mazzone granted the plaintiffs’ motion to compel.
Magistrate
Judge
Mazzone
granted
the
ECF No. 45.
motion
to
compel,
deferring a ruling upon the issue involving OSHA documents until
the parties, after working towards a resolution, advise the Court
that such a ruling is necessary.
Id. at 1.
Magistrate Judge
Mazzone concluded that Angelle Guilbeau’s contact information is
reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible
evidence inasmuch as the information will permit plaintiffs to
conduct discovery regarding the issue of damages; therefore, the
plaintiffs’ motion to compel such information was granted.
at 2.
Id.
The magistrate judge directed the defendant to revisit its
discovery
answers
and
supplement
them
consistent
with
the
discussions captured on the record at the hearing pertaining to the
plaintiffs’ motion. Id. The magistrate judge specifically ordered
6
the
defendant
to
determine
if
there
is
any
evidence
of
communications between anyone, including attorneys, on behalf of
Island Operating, and anyone, including Mr. Van Volkenburg, counsel
for Stone Energy in Eller v. Stone Energy Corporation, Civil Action
No. 5:17CV153, and Wine v. Stone Energy Corporation, Civil Action
No. 5:18CV98, regarding the declaration of Angelle Guilbeau.
Id.
The defendant was then ordered to advise plaintiffs accordingly.
Id.
This Court finds no clear error in the magistrate judge’s
conclusion, and thus, affirms and adopts the magistrate judge’s
order granting the plaintiffs’ motion to compel (ECF No. 45).
V.
For
the
foregoing
Conclusion
reasons,
the
magistrate
judge’s
order
granting the plaintiffs’ motion to compel (ECF No. 45) is AFFIRMED
and ADOPTED.
Accordingly, defendant Island Operating Company,
Inc.’s objections to the magistrate judge’s order (ECF No. 48) are
OVERRULED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
The Clerk is DIRECTED to transmit a copy of this order to
counsel of record herein.
DATED:
January 24, 2019
/s/ Frederick P. Stamp, Jr.
FREDERICK P. STAMP, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
7
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?