Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_09-cv-02668/USCOURTS-casd-3_09-cv-02668-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 340
Nature of Suit: Marine Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 46:688 Jones Act

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1 09-cv-2668 L NLS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GAVIN EPPARD,

Plaintiff,

v.

WOODS HOLE OCEANOGRAPHIC

INSTITUTION

Defendants.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil No. 09-2668 L (NLS)

(1) ORDER DENYING IN PART AND

GRANTING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITIONS

AND INSPECTION;

(2) ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S

CROSS MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE

ORDER

[Docket Nos. 15, 16 & 18.]

INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff has filed a seaman’s personal injury suit under the Jones Act, for injuries suffered while

working aboard Defendant’s research vessel, the R/V Atlantis (“Vessel”). [Doc. No. 16 at 1.] The

Vessel was scheduled to arrive in San Diego on April 25, 2010, and will depart on May 14, 2010. [Id. at

2.] On April 22, 2010, Plaintiff filed an ex parte Motion to Compel an inspection of the Vessel on May

3, 2010, and also take depositions between May 3-5, 2010, of crew members, most notably Sean Kelley,

with whom Plaintiff was working when the injury occurred. [Id. at 3.] On the same day, defense

counsel informed the Court that she would attempt to resolve the issue with counsel for the Plaintiff, and

if there was no agreement, she would file an Opposition. The parties did not reach an agreement and on

April 27, 2010, Defendant filed not only an Opposition but also a cross motion for a protective order to

prevent Plaintiff from taking depositions between May 3-5, 2010, or inspecting the Vessel on May 3,

Case 3:09-cv-02668-L-NLS Document 21 Filed 04/30/10 Page 1 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2 09-cv-2668 L NLS

2010. [Doc. No. 18.] On April 28, 2010, Plaintiff filed a Reply. [Doc. No. 20.] Upon review of the

parties’ papers, exhibits, and supporting declarations, the Court DENIES IN PART and GRANTS IN

PART the ex parte motion to compel and GRANTS the cross-motion for a protective order.

RELEVANT PROCEDURE

The Court held an ENE in this case on March 22, 2010. [Doc. No. 12.] The case did not settle

and the parties stated they were scheduled to engage in mediation on April 26, 2010. The Court issued a

Rule 26 Compliance Order, providing a deadline of April 26, 2010, for lodging the parties’ Joint

Discovery Plan, and May 7, 2010, for the parties’ Case Management Conference. [Doc. No. 13.] 

Thereafter, the parties’ mediation was postponed because Plaintiff was going to raise his lifetime

medical cost claim by 1.4 million based on a recent recommendation by his doctor that he receive a

costly “narcotic pump” for pain relief. On April 16, 2010, Plaintiff sent notice to Defendant requesting

depositions be scheduled for crew members on May 3, 4 and 5, 2010. [Doc. No. 16, Exhibit 2.] 

Plaintiff also sent notice to Defendant requesting inspection of the Vessel on May 3, 2010. [Id. at

Exhibit 3.] Defendant refused these requests precipitating Plaintiff’s current motion for Court

intervention. 

The parties have timely filed their Joint Discovery Plan. [Doc. No. 17.] Among other things,

they have agreed to a fact discovery cut off date of October 15, 2010 and an expert discovery cut off

date of December 31, 2010. [Id. at 3.]

PARTIES’ ARGUMENTS

Plaintiff asserts: (1) Sean Kelley must be deposed on May 3 because that is the only date when

he is certain where Mr. Kelley will be since he leaves San Diego “sometime after May 3, 2010;" (2)

other crew members’ depositions must be taken between May 3-5 because this is the only time “they

may be in San Diego;” (3) the Vessel must be inspected on May 3, 2010 because it will not return to San

Diego until August 2010 which will prejudice the discovery process; and (4) he should not have to bear

the burden of costs to fly to San Francisco in June 2010 when the Vessel will be in port at that location.

Defense counsel argues: (1) upon arrival in San Diego, the Vessel will be dry docked as the U.S.

Navy, who owns the ship, carries out an inspection (Plaintiff has offered evidence to show this should

take 2 days, April 29 and 30, 2010); (2) this means Defendant will have very little time to fly national

Case 3:09-cv-02668-L-NLS Document 21 Filed 04/30/10 Page 2 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3 09-cv-2668 L NLS

counsel to San Diego from Massachusetts and meet with and interview its employees prior to the

depositions; (3) Sean Kelley, in particular, has indicated that he will leave San Diego on May 1, 2010 to

travel to Boston for medical reasons and will be available for deposition in May near his home on the

East Coast; (4) Kelley will return to the Vessel when it is in San Francisco on June 10, 2010 and may be

deposed at that time ; (5) Plaintiff has not given 30 days notice for the Vessel inspection as required by

Rule 34; (6) Plaintiff has not subpoenaed any of the employees he wishes to depose as he should under

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45 (Plaintiff states notice of depositions is sufficient for employees of

Defendant under maritime law custom and practice in California); and (7) even if proper service has

been effected on the deponents, it is “patently unreasonable” because Defendant’s counsel is in

Massachusetts, preparation time is limited and the deponents need to attend to their personal and

professional obligations after they arrive.

DISCUSSION 

A. Inspection of the Vessel

First, the Court notes Defendant’s Motion for Protective Order to prevent the Vessel inspection

only applies to the date of May 3. Otherwise, it appears Defendant would be amenable to inspection of

the Vessel by Plaintiff if such inspection could take place a fair amount of time after May 3 to allow for

“time to review the scheduled April 30, 2010 automatic disclosures to assist [Defendant] with

understanding the nature and background facts of Plaintiff’s injury, or to retain experts to inspect the

Vessel along with Plaintiff’s experts.” [Doc. No. 18 at 6.] 

Second, Plaintiff makes a convincing argument with regard to the financial and logistical

hardship that would occur if Plaintiff had to travel to San Francisco for the Vessel inspection. He claims

it would increase his costs by “at least $5,000 to $10,000.” Plaintiff’s costs would include expenses for

board and travel for at least “one expert, two assistants, his counsel, a San Diego based professional

photographer and himself.” Plaintiff is also the caretaker of his two children while his wife works and

he would need to arrange childcare for a longer period of time if the inspection took place out of town. 

As for waiting until August, when the Vessel returns to San Diego, the Court is reluctant to postpone the

course of discovery until that time in the interests of efficiency. Furthermore, it should not have come

as a complete surprise to Defendant that Plaintiff would want to inspect the Vessel during the time that it

Case 3:09-cv-02668-L-NLS Document 21 Filed 04/30/10 Page 3 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

4 09-cv-2668 L NLS

is in San Diego. After the mediation fell through, Plaintiff raised the possibility of imminent inspection

in an e-mail dated April 12, 2010, wherein he stated, “I suggest we move the mediation a few days or a

week to allow us to do Eppard’s deposition, the vessel inspection and whatever else we need to do so

that the parties are fully informed about the basic facts of the claim.” [Doc. No. 20, Exhibit 2.] In

another e-mail dated April 16, 2010, Plaintiff requests inspection of the Vessel between April 25-May

14, 2010. [Id. at Exhibit 3.]

Thus, the Court believes a fair resolution of this matter would be to allow Plaintiff to inspect the

Vessel prior to its departure from San Diego on May 14, 2010, at a time most convenient for all

concerned. The Court encourages the parties to cooperate fully in this matter.

B. Depositions 

Unlike the financial and logistical burden of traveling to San Francisco for the Vessel inspection,

the out-of-town deposition of Sean Kelley only requires Plaintiff’s counsel’s presence. Furthermore,

there is nothing to suggest other crew members will leave San Diego after May 3. In this situation the

balancing of prejudice and interests does not clearly favor Plaintiff’s position that Kelley’s and other

crew members’ depositions must take place on exactly May 3, 2010. This case is in the early stages of

discovery, Plaintiff knows with certainty where Sean Kelley will be available to be deposed after May 3,

and in June, and May 3 would leave very little time for Defendant and deponents to prepare for the

several depositions noticed by Plaintiff. The Court encourages the parties to reach an agreement as to

deposition dates for the proposed deponents who will remain in San Diego prior to the departure of the

Vessel on May 14, 2010. Plaintiff has asked the Court to order a U.S. Marshall to deliver subpoenas to

the deponents in the secured area where the Vessel is docked. This should not be necessary if the parties

agree to cooperate on mutually acceptable dates other than May 3.

CONCLUSION

Based on the above considerations, the Court hereby ORDERS:

1. Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel depositions and inspection of the Vessel on May 3, 2010, is

DENIED.

2. Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel inspection of the Vessel and take depositions of available

crew members while at port in San Diego prior to May 14, 2010, is GRANTED. 

Case 3:09-cv-02668-L-NLS Document 21 Filed 04/30/10 Page 4 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

5 09-cv-2668 L NLS

3. Defendant’s Motion for Protective Order to prevent inspection and depositions on May 3,

2010, is GRANTED.

4. Pursuant to a mutually agreed upon date and time by the parties, Plaintiff shall have

access to inspect the Vessel prior to its departure from San Diego on May 14, 2010.

5. Pursuant to a mutually agreed upon date and time, the parties shall participate in the

taking of depositions of crew members present in San Diego, prior to May 14, 2010.

6. The deposition of Sean Kelley shall be taken pursuant to a mutually agreed upon date and

time on or before June 30, 2010.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: April 30, 2010.

Hon. Nita L. Stormes

U.S. Magistrate Judge

United States District Court

Case 3:09-cv-02668-L-NLS Document 21 Filed 04/30/10 Page 5 of 5