Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-02468/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-02468-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 340
Nature of Suit: Marine Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 46:30505-30510 Exoneration, Limitation of Liability

---

1 

16CV2468 JM-LL 

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

In the matter of the Complaint of 

HORNBLOWER FLEET, LLC owner, 

and HORNBLOWER YACHTS, LLC dba 

HORNBLOWER CRUISES AND 

EVENTS, owner pro hac vice for 

exoneration of, or limitation of, liability, 

 Plaintiffs, 

and Related Claims. 

 Case No.: 16CV2468-JM-LL 

ORDER DENYING CLAIMANTS’ 

MOTION FOR DETERMINATION 

OF DISCOVERY DISPUTE 

[ECF No. 200] 

Currently before the Court is Claimants Ana Helvie and Kyle Helvie’s (“Helvie 

Claimants”) Motion for Determination of Discovery Dispute [ECF No. 200 (“Mot.”)], 

Plaintiffs Hornblower Fleet, LLC and Hornblower Yachts, LLC’s Opposition to 

Claimants’ Motion [ECF No. 204 (“Opp.”)], and the Helvie Claimants’ Reply [ECF No. 

211 (“Reply”)]. 

For the reasons set forth below, the Court DENIES the Helvie Claimants’ Motion 

for Determination of Discovery Dispute. 

/// 

/// 

Case 3:16-cv-02468-JM-LL Document 214 Filed 01/16/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 6
2 

16CV2468 JM-LL 

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

RELEVANT BACKGROUND

The instant dispute arises from the Helvie Claimants’ “Fourth Request for 

Production.” 

In their Motion, the Helvie Claimants allege that “[o]n or about October 18, 2018” 

they served their “Fourth Request for Production” on Plaintiffs. Mot. at 2. The “Fourth 

Request for Production” contained requests “related to Plaintiff’s financial condition” 

including “requests for documents such as balance sheets, ledgers, accounts, income 

statements, and the like.” Id. at 5. The Helvie Claimants allege this discovery is “relevant 

and necessary for this case because Claimants need to discover Plaintiffs financial 

condition in advance of trial and establish that Plaintiffs can withstand a judgment that 

includes punitive damages.” Id. The Helvie Claimants allege Plaintiffs “never responded, 

objected, or moved for a protective order” to their “Fourth Request for Production.” Id. at 

2. Instead, the Helvie Claimants allege that “[d]uring the Court’s Motion Conference on 

December 13, 2018, Plaintiffs alleged that they did respond but could not provide proof of 

service for their responses.” Id. 

In their Opposition, Plaintiffs argue the Helvie Claimants served a first iteration of 

their “Fourth Request for Production” on May 4, 2018. Opp, Ex. 1. Plaintiff’s responded 

to this first iteration on June 4, 2018. Opp., Ex. 2. Plaintiffs allege the Helvie Claimants 

subsequently served a second iteration of their “Fourth Request for Production” on October 

19, 2018. Opp., Ex. 3. Plaintiffs argue the second iteration of the Helvie Claimants’ 

“Fourth Request for Production” was untimely, because Plaintiffs’ responses would have 

been due after the fact discovery deadline. Opp. at 4-6. 

In their Reply, the Helvie Claimants concede that prior to their October 19, 2018 

“Fourth Request for Production,” they “propounded similar requests for production in June 

2018.” Id. at 2. With respect to their October 19, 2018 “Fourth Request for Production,” 

the Helvie Claimants argue that while Plaintiffs’ argument is “essentially” that the 

“discovery was filed two days late vis a vis the discovery deadline[,]” the fact discovery 

deadline should nevertheless be “retroactively continued in the present matter until 

Case 3:16-cv-02468-JM-LL Document 214 Filed 01/16/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 6
3 

16CV2468 JM-LL 

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

November 19, 2018[.]” Id. at 2, 5. In support, the Helvie Claimants argue they were 

“diligent at attempting to obtain the records” sought by the Fourth Request “for months” 

and were “forced” to serve this discovery only after Plaintiffs “cancelled” a noticed 

deposition of an employee who “Claimants believed would have information concerning 

the sales and financial information of Hornblower[.]” Id. at 2-4. 

On December 13, 2018, counsel for the Parties in the action contacted the Court for 

the first time regarding the Helvie Claimants’ request to file a Motion to Compel. ECF 

No. 197. On December 14, 2018, the Court issued a briefing schedule. Id. In accordance 

with the schedule, the Helvie Claimants and Plaintiffs filed a motion, opposition, and reply. 

See ECF Nos. 200, 204 and 211. On January 2, 2019, Claimant Susan Pendergast filed a 

joinder to the Helvie Claimants’ motion. ECF No. 202. 

ANALYSIS 

1. The Second Iteration Of The Helvie Claimants’ “Fourth Request for 

Production” Was Untimely 

 The discovery cutoff in this matter was November 16, 2018. ECF No. 153 at 1. 

Under the Court’s Scheduling Order, “all discovery under Rules 30-36 of the Federal Rules 

of Civil Procedure . . . must be initiated a sufficient period of time in advance of the cutoff date, so that it may be completed by the cut-off date[.]” ECF No. 96 at 1-2 (emphasis 

in original). 

 The second iteration of the Helvie Claimants’ “Fourth Request for Production” was 

served on October 19, 2018. Opp., Ex. 1. Under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 34, the 

deadline for Plaintiffs to respond was November 19, 2018, which fell after the fact 

discovery deadline. Under the Court’s Scheduling Order, the second iteration of the Helvie 

Claimants’ “Fourth Request for Production” was therefore untimely. See Walters v. Target 

Corp., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 192348, at *3 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 9, 2018) (denying motion to 

compel responses to requests for admission that were served two days late, holding that 

“[c]lose enough is not good enough.”). See also Brown v. Deputy #1, 2014 U.S. Dist. 

Case 3:16-cv-02468-JM-LL Document 214 Filed 01/16/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 6
4 

16CV2468 JM-LL 

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

LEXIS 27713, at *21 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 4, 2014) (quashing subpoenas where responses would 

have been due on date falling after discovery deadline). 

2. The Helvie Claimants Have Not Shown Good Cause To Retroactively Modify 

The Scheduling Order

 The Helvie Claimants argue the fact discovery deadline in this case should be 

“retroactively continued” until “November 19, 2018” thereby making their “Fourth 

Request for Production” timely. Reply at 5. Under the Court’s Scheduling Order, the 

deadline to complete fact discovery “will not be modified except for good cause shown.” 

ECF No. 96 at 4. The standard for good cause “primarily considers the diligence of the 

party seeking the modification.” See Walters, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 192348, at *3 (citing 

Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992). 

 In support of their request, the Helvie Claimants argue that: (1) “Claimants 

attempted for several months to work with Hornblower and come to an agreement without 

involving the Court”; (2) “[i]t became clear to Claimants that no agreement between 

Hornblower and claimants would be had”; and (3) “Claimants were forced to serve 

discovery” after Plaintiffs “unilaterally” cancelled the deposition of one of Plaintiffs’ 

employees on October 17, which the Helvie Claimants allege was done “in an attempt to 

avoid discovery on the matters contained in the fourth request for production.” Reply at 

3-4. 

 The Helvie Claimants’ explanations do not justify their lengthy delay in raising this 

matter before the Court or their belated request—made for the first time in their Reply—

to extend the fact discovery deadline almost two months after the deadline already passed. 

 In their Reply, the Helvie Claimants concede they propounded “similar requests” to 

their October 19, 2018 “Fourth Request for Production” in June and allege Plaintiffs 

Case 3:16-cv-02468-JM-LL Document 214 Filed 01/16/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 6
5 

16CV2468 JM-LL 

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

“provided no responsive document[s].” Reply at 2.1

 The Helvie Claimants also concede 

that after meet and confer sessions, “[i]t became clear to Claimants that no agreement 

between Hornblower and claimants would be had[.]” Id. at 2. At this point, the Helvie 

Claimants were aware of an ongoing discovery dispute between the Parties that had 

purportedly reached an impasse, but nevertheless failed to bring this matter to the Court’s 

attention. 

At the time the dispute arose, Judge Adler’s Chamber Rules required discovery 

disputes to be submitted “within 45 days of the date upon which the event given rise to the 

dispute occurred” and that “[f]or written discovery, the event given rise to the discovery 

dispute is the service of the response.” Magistrate Judge Adler’s Civil Chamber Rules, 

Case Management and Discovery Disputes, Rule C. 

 Instead of abiding by this deadline, the Helvie Claimants allege they waited to 

determine whether they could obtain the requested information from one of Plaintiffs’ 

witnesses at a deposition. Reply at 2-3. According to the Helvie Claimants, Plaintiffs then 

“cancelled the deposition unilaterally” on October 17. Reply at 3. Despite their awareness 

of the Parties’ dispute and Judge Adler’s Chamber Rules, the Helvie Claimants again failed 

to raise this matter before the Court. 

 The Helvie Claimants argue instead that they were “forced to serve” a second 

iteration of their “Fourth Request for Production” as a result of Plaintiffs canceling this 

deposition. Reply at 4. The second iteration of the Helvie Claimants “Fourth Request for 

Production,” if timely, would have been due on November 19. Yet the Helvie Claimants 

did not raise this matter to the Court’s attention until December 13 and did not request a 

retroactive modification of the scheduling order until their January 11, 2019 Reply. See 

ECF Nos. 197 and 211. 

                                               

1

 The certificate of service attached to Plaintiffs’ Opposition indicates the first iteration of 

the Helvie Claimants’ “Fourth Request for Production” was actually served on May 4, 

2018. Opp, Ex. 1. 

Case 3:16-cv-02468-JM-LL Document 214 Filed 01/16/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 6
6 

16CV2468 JM-LL 

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

 Here, the Helvie Claimants’ lack of diligence precludes a finding of good cause to 

modify the Court’s Scheduling Order. See Joe Hand Promotions, Inc. v. Kurti, 2015 U.S. 

Dist. LEXIS 165164, at *7-8 (S.D. Cal. Dec. 9, 2015) (defendants were not diligent by 

waiting until after the discovery cutoff to raise discovery dispute with the court thereby 

precluding finding of good cause to modify scheduling order). See also In re Ameranth 

Cases, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 61753, at *17-18 (S.D. Cal. Apr. 11, 2018) (declining to 

consider discovery dispute filed after deadline set in Chamber Rules, noting that requesting 

supplementation to older discovery requests does not “restart” the clock on when discovery 

disputes must be raised). 

CONCLUSION 

For the above reasons, the Court DENIES the Helvie Claimants’ Motion for 

Determination of Discovery Dispute. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: January 16, 2019 

Case 3:16-cv-02468-JM-LL Document 214 Filed 01/16/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 6 of 6