Young v. T.T. Barge Services Mile 237, LLC, No. 2:2017cv00225 - Document 28 (E.D. La. 2017)

Court Description: ORDER AND REASONS denying as moot 19 MOTION for APPEAL OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE DECISION to District Court. Signed by Judge Sarah S. Vance on 8/31/2017. (cg)

Download PDF
Young v. T.T. Barge Services Mile 237, LLC Doc. 28 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA MARCUS YOUNG CIVIL ACTION VERSUS NO. 17-225 T. T. BARGE SERVICES MILE 237, LLC SECTION “R” (3) ORD ER AN D REASON S Before the Court is plaintiff’s m otion to appeal the Magistrate J udge’s order denying his m otion to com pel. 1 For the following reasons, the Court denies the m otion as m oot. I. BACKGROU N D This case arises out of an accident on Defendant T. T. Barge Services Mile 237, LLC’s vessel, the M/ V T. T. BARGE MILE 237. 2 Plaintiff Marcus Young alleges that he was em ployed by defendant aboard the vessel when he suffered serious injuries to his ribs, his back, and other parts of his body. 3 1 2 3 R. Doc. 19. R. Doc. 1 at 2. Id. Dockets.Justia.com On J anuary 9, 20 17, plaintiff filed a seam an’s com plaint for dam ages against defendant. 4 Plaintiff filed a m otion to com pel disclosure of the personal contact inform ation of witnesses employed by defendant. 5 After a hearing, the Magistrate J udge denied plaintiff’s m otion but perm itted plaintiff to re-urge it at a later date if circum stances warrant. 6 Plaintiff now appeals the Magistrate J udge’s decision. 7 II. D ISCU SSION The Court finds that plaintiff’s m otion is m oot. Plaintiff originally requested the personal contact inform ation of four employees nam ed in defendant’s initial disclosures. 8 Defendant represents that it no longer em ploys three of those individuals, and provides docum entation showing that it has com m unicated their personal contact inform ation to plaintiff. 9 Plaintiff obtained the personal contact inform ation of the fourth individual through a deposition. 10 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Id. at 1-5. R. Doc. 11. R. Doc. 18. R. Doc. 19. R. Doc. 11-1 at 1; R. Doc. 11-3 at 1-2; R. Doc. 11-4 at 3. R. Doc. 20 at 1-2; R. Doc. 20 -1 at 3; R. Doc. 20 -2 at 3. R. Doc. 20 at 2. 2 Plaintiff argues that his m otion is not m oot because he also requests the personal contact inform ation of all other em ployees of defendant likely to have relevant inform ation about this m atter. 11 But plaintiff has not established that these unnam ed employees are covered by the relevant provision of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26. Rule 26 requires a party to provide the contact inform ation of “each individual likely to have discoverable inform ation . . . that the disclosing party m ay use to support its claim s or defenses.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1)(A)(i) (emphasis added). The Court has no inform ation to suggest that defendant m ay rely on these additional unnam ed employees. Plaintiff has therefore not shown that defendant is required to produce any contact inform ation for these individuals. See Vinzant v. United States, No. 0 6-10 561, 20 10 WL 267460 9, at *2-3 (E.D. La. 20 10 ) (finding no duty to disclose information for witnesses that governm ent did not anticipate using); 8A Wright & Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 20 53 (3d ed. 20 17) (explaining that, under Rule 26(a)(1)(A)(i), “there is no requirement to disclose anything that the disclosing party will not use”). If new information arises warranting further disclosure, the plaintiff m ay re-urge his m otion before the Magistrate J udge. 11 R. Doc. 23 at 1. 3 III. CON CLU SION Accordingly, plaintiff’s m otion is DENIED. New Orleans, Louisiana, this _31st_ _ day of August, 20 17. __ _____________________ SARAH S. VANCE UNITED STATES DISTRICT J UDGE 4

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.