Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-00963/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-00963-2/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 - 07CV963

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LUZVIMINDA DATIN,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 07CV963 JLS (BGS)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

OBJECTIONS TO AND APPEAL

OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S

ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF

TIME TO COMPLETE

DISCOVERY AND LEAVE TO

DESIGNATE AN ADDITIONAL

WITNESS

(Doc. No. 119.) 

vs.

M/V SEA QUEST, INC., TRADITION

MARINER, LLC, F/V PROUD HERITAGE,

and DOES 1–20,

Defendant.

Presently before the Court is Plaintiff Luzviminda Datin’s (Plaintiff) objections to and appeal

of magistrate judge’s September 29, 2010, written order on Plaintiff’s motion for extension of time

to complete discovery and leave to designate an additional witness. (Doc. No. 119.) Also before the

Court is Defendant M/V Sea Quest, Inc.’s (Defendant) response in opposition. (Doc. No. 120.) For

the reasons stated below, Plaintiff’s objections are DENIED.

BACKGROUND 

Plaintiff brought this maritime action as personal representative of the estate of Michael J.

Datin (Datin) on May 25, 2007. Datin is Plaintiff’s husband. (Doc. No. 1 (Compl.).) The allegations

arise out of Datin’s application for and employment aboard Defendant’s tuna fishing vessel, the M/V

Proud Heritage (the Vessel). (Compl.) Specifically, Datin was employed by Defendant as chief

Case 3:07-cv-00963-AJB-BGS Document 121 Filed 11/08/10 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 - 07CV963

engineer aboard the Vessel on three different voyages from 2004–2005, Trips T-111, T-112, and T113. Plaintiff alleges that, during these voyages, Datin suffered from illness or injury and Defendant

did not provide adequate medical care aboard the Vessel or on shore. (See Id. ¶ 11–13.) Datin died

on September 9, 2005, from liver failure. (Id. ¶ 12.) Plaintiff’s Complaint alleges four causes of

action: (1) wrongful death and survival claim for willful or arbitrary failure to pay maintenance and

cure; (2) survival claim for statutory wages; (3) wrongful death and survival claim for negligence

under the Jones Act; and (4) wrongful death and survival claim for unseaworthiness. (See generally

id.) 

On January 9, 2009, Defendant filed a motion for leave to file an amended answer to add three

affirmative defenses (Doc. No. 37) and a motion for summary judgment. (Doc. No. 38.) Before the

Court could rule on the motions, the parties grappled with discovery disputes. (Doc. Nos. 39, 47, 48,

52, & 60.) After significant delays, Defendant’s motions were withdrawn (Doc. Nos. 64 & 65) and

then resubmitted on November 12, 2009. (Doc. Nos. 69 & 71.)

After resubmission, Plaintiff motioned to continue the hearing date on the motions so that it

could perform discovery necessary to oppose. (Doc. No. 75.) On December 9, 2009, the Court

granted an additional forty-five days for Plaintiffs “to file motions to compel witnesses . . . and to

depose witnesses” prior to filing its oppositions. (Doc. No. 81.) Nearly a year and a half after the

motions were first filed, the Court granted Defendant leave to amend three affirmative defenses and

granted in part and denied in part Defendant’s motion for summary judgement. (Doc. No. 106.) 

On June 30, 2010, the parties filed a motion to reopen discovery. (Doc. No. 112.) As part of

this motion, Plaintiff requested to depose nine witnesses and supplementally depose three witnesses.

(Id. at 3, Doc. No. 116 (Order) at 2.) Plaintiff argued that the additional depositions would be required

in order to properly respond to the new affirmative defenses. On September 29, 2010, Magistrate

Judge Skomal denied Plaintiff’s requests. (Order at 2.) Plaintiff objected soon thereafter. 

ANALYSIS

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A), this Court reviews Magistrate Judge Skomal’s order

under a “clearly erroneous or contrary to law” standard. See also Hoar v. Sara Lee Corp., 900 F.2d

522, 525 (2d Cir. 1990) (“Matters concerning discovery generally are considered ‘nondispositive’ of

Case 3:07-cv-00963-AJB-BGS Document 121 Filed 11/08/10 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 - 07CV963

the litigation.”). “The ‘clearly erroneous’ standard applies to factual findings and discretionary

decisions made in connection with non-dispositive pretrial discovery matters.” FDIC v. Fidelity &

Deposit Co. of Md., 196 F.R.D. 375, 378 (S.D. Cal. 2000). “Clearly erroneous” review is

“significantly deferential, requiring ‘a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been

committed.’” Concrete Pipe & Prods. v. Constr. Laborers Pension Trust, 508 U.S. 602, 623 (1993).

On the other hand, “contrary to law” review “permits independent review of purely legal

determinations by the magistrate judge.” Fidelity, 196 F.R.D. at 378 (citing, inter alia, Computer

Econs., Inc. v. Gartner Grp, Inc., 50 F. Supp. 2d 980, 983 (S.D. Cal. 1999)).

In this case, Judge Skomal’s discovery order involved “factual findings and discretionary

decisions made in connection with non-dispositive pretrial discovery matters.” Id. The Court,

therefore, will review under the “clearly erroneous” standard.

Judge Skomal first denied Plaintiff’s request to depose Ariel Villanueva, Marino Aguilar, Tony

Joane, Nole Fernandez, Sergio Munoz, John Gomes, William C. Armstrong, and Josephine Russo.

The group is composed of Datin’s crewmates, and their testimony is allegedly necessary for Plaintiff

to respond to Defendant’s affirmative defenses. Judge Skomal’s reasons for denying depositions were

thorough. (Doc. No. 115 at 17–18, 20–21.) And it ultimately boiled down to considerations of

probative value, expense, and prior opportunity. 

Judge Skomal found additional depositions to be of limited probative value because the

“record is replete” with the facts Plaintiff wishes to establish through deposition. (Id. at 21.)

Additional discovery would be cumulative. (Id. at 18.) Moreover, the depositions would cost an

exorbitant amount of time and money. (Id. at 13.)

Least important, but most contentious, is Judge Skomal’s finding that Plaintiff had prior

opportunity to perform the depositions and failed to do so. As noted above, Plaintiff requested a

continuance on Defendant’s motions for summary judgment and motion to amend affirmative

defenses. (Doc. No. 75.) Plaintiff requested a forty-five day extension so that it could “motion to

compel attendance of key witnesses for deposition, depose witnesses with information relevant to

Plaintiff’s opposition to Defendant’s Motions and obtain the transcripts of the depositions.” (Id. at

1–2.) The Court granted Plaintiff’s request. (Doc. No. 81.) 

Case 3:07-cv-00963-AJB-BGS Document 121 Filed 11/08/10 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 - 07CV963

During this forty-five day period, Plaintiff had the opportunity to depose Datin’s

crewmates—the very crewmates Plaintiff wishes to depose now. Plaintiff argues that, given the cost

associated with finding and deposing the crewmates, it was unreasonable to depose witnesses relevant

to affirmative defenses not guaranteed to be allowed. (Doc. 119 at 13.) But now that the affirmative

defenses have been added, the depositions are relevant. (Id.) 

The Court finds this line of reasoning unconvincing. Plaintiff was given forty-five days to

depose witnesses necessary to oppose the motion for summary judgment and motion for leave to

amend. The depositions of the crewmates that are relevant now were also relevant during the fortyfive day period. There is considerable overlap between the arguments made in Defendant’s motion

for summary judgment and the amended affirmative defenses. (See Doc. 75 at 7.) To have performed

discovery in preparation to oppose Defendant’s motion for summary judgment would be to have

performed discovery on the affirmative defenses. Plaintiff made the strategic decision not to depose

the crewmates.

With this in mind, the Court returns to Judge Skomal’s order. The Court can find no clear

error in Judge Skomal’s finding that additional depositions would be cumulative in nature. Moreover,

the Court agrees that significant prejudice would be suffered by all parties if Plaintiff pursued

deposing Datin’s crewmates. And both of these findings stand in the shadow of Plaintiff’s decision

not to perform the depositions when given the chance. Judge Skomal’s Order evinces no clear error,

and Plaintiff’s objection on this matter is DENIED. 

Judge Skomal also denied Plaintiff’s request to take supplemental depositions of Manuel Silva,

Jack Gibson, and Matt Freitas. Judge Skomal performed “an extensive review of the deposition

transcripts,” and found that “90-percent of the issues on these affirmative defenses are covered.”

(Doc. No. 115 at 42.) Plaintiff provides no argument against this finding, and the Court can find no

clear error. Any objection to this portion of the order is DENIED. 

Judge Skomal’s third and final order denied without prejudice Plaintiff’s request to depose

Jose Santos. Judge Skomal took Plaintiff’s request under submission, “in order to provide Plaintiff’s

counsel with the opportunity to locate Mr. Santos and provide the Court with a date and location for

Mr. Santos’ deposition.” (Order at 2.) The Court requested this information so that it could “balance

Case 3:07-cv-00963-AJB-BGS Document 121 Filed 11/08/10 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 - 07CV963

the burden and expense” of additional discovery against its benefit. (Id.) Plaintiff failed to provide

the requested information, and Judge Skomal denied Plaintiff’s request without prejudice. (Id.) Given

Plaintiff’s failure to provide the requested information, and the denial without prejudice, this Court

cannot find that Judge Skomal’s ruling was made in clear error. Plaintiff’s objection is DENIED.

CONCLUSION

Having found no clear error in Magistrate Judge Skomal’s Order, Plaintiff’s objection to and

appeal of magistrate judge’s September 29, 2010, written order is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: November 8, 2010

Honorable Janis L. Sammartino

United States District Judge

Case 3:07-cv-00963-AJB-BGS Document 121 Filed 11/08/10 Page 5 of 5