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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

MIAMI DIVISION

CASE NO. 20-CV-21961-DPG

VIVIAN RUGGERI, Miami, Florida

Plaintiff, December 4, 2023

vs. 4:54 p.m. to 5:15 p.m.

NCL (Bahamas) LTD, doing

business as NORWEGIAN CRUISE

LINE,

Defendant. Pages 1 to 46

______________________________________________________________

EXCERPT OF JURY TRIAL

RULE 52(c) ARGUMENTS

BEFORE THE HONORABLE DARRIN P. GAYLES

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

APPEARANCES:

FOR THE PLAINTIFF: JOHN HEYWARD HICKEY, ESQ.

LISA C. GOODMAN

HICKEY LAW FIRM

1400 Brickell Avenue, Suite 510

Miami, Florida 33131

FOR THE DEFENDANT: RICHARD J. MCALPIN, ESQ.

MATTHEW STREET, ESQ.

80 SW 8 Street

Suite 2805

Miami, Florida 33130

-andBRETT BERMAN, ESQ.

IN-HOUSE COUNSEL

NORWEGIAN CRUISE LINE

Case 1:20-cv-21961-DPG Document 180 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/07/2024 Page 1 of 46
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

2

STENOGRAPHICALLY REPORTED BY:

PATRICIA DIAZ, FCRR, RPR, FPR

Official Court Reporter

United States District Court

400 North Miami Avenue

11th Floor

Miami, Florida 33128

(305) 523-5178

Case 1:20-cv-21961-DPG Document 180 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/07/2024 Page 2 of 46
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

3

(EXCERPT OF PROCEEDINGS)

THE COURT: Any motions at this time?

MR. MCALPIN: Yes, Your Honor, I'd like to present a

Rule 52 motion, if I may.

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. MCALPIN: May it please the Court.

Now at the conclusion of the plaintiff's case-in-chief,

the defense would move for judgment on partial findings under

Rule 52(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

I'd like to take just a few moments to outline the

basis for it. We will be filing a memorandum of law, a written

memorandum of law citing all the cases and further fleshing out

the arguments, but I would like to take the opportunity to go

through the arguments now if I could, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Well, I don't know if that's necessary. I

am going to hear the arguments from both sides, and I am going

to rule. I don't know if I need a further memorandum.

MR. MCALPIN: Okay. If that's the Court's ruling

that's fine, but the basis of the argument is clear.

A couple of things I think are important to note at the

outset: Number one, is there is no claim for vicarious

liability in this case, as the Court has already indicated.

The only claims in this case are for direct negligence in

failure to warn. That is Count 1.

Direct negligence by Norwegian Cruise Line in failure

Case 1:20-cv-21961-DPG Document 180 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/07/2024 Page 3 of 46
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

4

to train. That's Count 2.

And direct negligence in failure to supervise. That's

Count 3.

There is a fundamental difference in a direct

negligence claim than there is in a vicarious liability claim.

In a vicarious liability claim the defendant is faultless; it's

without fault, but it still can be held legally liable

predicated upon the fault of its employee, acting within the

course and scope, of course.

Whereas in a direct negligence claim, like we have

here, the cruise line, Norwegian, has to be directly at fault,

as opposed to the employee being at fault. That's the

fundamental distinction which the courts have made and which

the Court has already recognized in its prior rulings.

The Court has indicated that the claim here is not

based upon negligent tender operation but, rather, on whether

Norwegian, itself, failed to warn of a dangerous condition;

whether Norwegian, itself, failed to properly train the

operator so as to warn; and whether Norwegian, itself, failed

to supervise the operator so that he could warn.

So, those are direct negligence claims, very different

theories of liability.

The plaintiff is a master of his complaint, of her

complaint in this case. She could have plead whatever she

wanted to plead. There is no vicarious liability claim here,

Case 1:20-cv-21961-DPG Document 180 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/07/2024 Page 4 of 46
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

5

so we don't have to worry about that.

What is clear also, Judge, when we talk about failure

to warn, the duty to warn is triggered by notice. That's what

triggers the duty, the notice of the dangerous condition.

If the defendant doesn't know of the dangerous

condition, there is no duty to warn, either know or should have

known. In other words, the condition exists for a sufficient

period of time to invite corrective action.

So, with those points in mind, let's look at the

evidence.

What's the evidence so far?

The evidence in this case is that the expert Keijer

clearly says there is no problem with the warnings that

Norwegian gave, and I'd like to point out the testimony in that

regard. He's indicating that the problem -- the warnings that

the Norwegian gave were just fine. The problem, in his view,

was the failure to warn within that 25 second interval that the

dangerous condition existed according to his testimony.

So on page 88 of Captain Keijer's testimony, the

question was, "You're not faulting Norwegian's warnings that

were given prior to that interval? Whatever time, you know,

the Court thinks that that interval should start to run.

"You're not faulting their warnings given before that

time. Correct?"

Answer: "No, I am not."

Case 1:20-cv-21961-DPG Document 180 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/07/2024 Page 5 of 46
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

6

Then further down in his testimony, at page 80 of his

testimony the question was asked, "And your indication, you've

said several times in your direct testimony, is that the

operator should have warned that he had 25 seconds to warn.

Right?"

Answer: "Correct."

So what is at issue here is whether Norwegian, in that

25 seconds, knew of what Keijer calls the dangerous condition,

the condition of the tender boat overtaking the wake, of the

tender boat beginning to roll, of the tender boat about to

strike the platform. That's the dangerous condition. That

existed for 25 seconds.

There is no evidence in this record at all that

Norwegian, not the crew member, but Norwegian knew about that

so-called dangerous condition in that 25 seconds, because this

is not a vicarious liability case. And moreover, there is no

indication that Norwegian could have given a warning in that

25 seconds, even if it had somehow magically known that the

tender boat was rolling dangerously or that the tender boat was

in danger of crashing into the docking platform.

So, it's a question of notice and lack of notice which

entitles us to a judgment on partial findings on the failure to

warn, and I hope that's clear because the testimony was very

clear from the expert. We don't have anything in this record

other than his admission that the general warnings were just

Case 1:20-cv-21961-DPG Document 180 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/07/2024 Page 6 of 46
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

7

fine. The general warnings were just fine. He had no

complaint with them. I took him through them in some detail.

Now, turning to the second count, failure to train, the

claim is that Norwegian, again, Norwegian, itself, as a

company, no vicarious liability, failed to properly train

Mr. Buerano.

What do we know?

We know -- and we can put the exhibit, please, that we

have in evidence, if we could get the -- we know, according to

Exhibit 24 that Norwegian had issued a certificate of tender

boat operation training. We know from the information

contained in the certificate that the gentleman was trained in

accord with the IMO/Circ 1417. We know that.

And the document, itself, indicates that the

above-named person is trained in accordance with the provision

of the recommended standards of training for the tender boat

operator. Then it goes on to say the certificate is issued in

accordance with the Circular 1417, which is the IMO circular

that Captain Keijer referenced. We know that.

We also know that Norwegian Epic is an approved

training center approved by the Bahamian Maritime Authority.

That's what we know about the training. There is nothing in

the record to dispute that.

And I asked Captain Keijer that on several occasions

and the answers were clear, and, again, on page 38 of the

Case 1:20-cv-21961-DPG Document 180 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/07/2024 Page 7 of 46
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

8

cross-examination I asked him, "Well, have you seen any

documentation to dispute that Jomar Buerano passed the training

requirements?"

Answer: "No, he passed. He passed according to the

certificate."

Then he went on to say that even though he didn't

believe the training was adequate, he doesn't know what's in

the training curriculum.

So any testimony that the training was inadequate,

number one, is not in evidence and it just doesn't make sense

because he doesn't even understand what is in the training

documents themselves.

We also know that this gentleman had been operating the

tender boat for two full seasons, 50 calls per season, 50 calls

total in this port, and there is no record evidence at all that

there had been any problem with his operation of the tender

boat. So, there is no indication that he wasn't properly

trained, which actually goes to the third count, which is the

failure to supervise count.

So, a failure to supervise comes into play only when

there is, and I'll quote, "Negligence supervision occurs when

the employer becomes aware or should have become aware of

problems with the employee that indicated his unfitness and

fails to take further corrective action like investigating

discharge or reassignment of the employee."

Case 1:20-cv-21961-DPG Document 180 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/07/2024 Page 8 of 46
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

9

For that, I would cite the Court to Cruz versus

Advanced Stores. It appears at 842 F.Supp.2d 1359. It's a

case out of the Southern District of Florida, 2012.

Also standing for the same proposition is Doe versus

NCL. It's a 2016 Lexis citation 150817. It's a Judge Ungaro

case, if I'm not mistaken, 2016 standing for the same

proposition.

In order to prevail in a negligent supervision claim,

the employer must know of some improper action of the employee

and failed to take proper steps to correct it, investigate or

discharge. We don't have any of that evidence in this case.

There is nothing to suggest that this operator was incompetent,

that anybody complained about him, that he had had a problem

docking or maneuvering the tender boat in the two seasons that

he had been operating it.

So in the failure to supervise claim, there is nothing

to support that claim. So all in all, Judge, on any of the

claims, we're entitled to judgment on the pleadings because

there has been an utter failure of proof given the way this

case has been plead, given the fact that the plaintiff was the

master of the complaint.

They have not plead or alleged in the complaint

vicarious liability of Norwegian for the actions of the tender

operator. So as to the first claim, there must be notice of

the dangerous condition in order to trigger the duty to warn.

Case 1:20-cv-21961-DPG Document 180 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/07/2024 Page 9 of 46
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

10

We don't have that here.

The information we have as to training is that the man

was properly trained. He was experienced. There were no

problems with him. The evidence we have as to the supervision,

similar, no problems, no mishaps, no complaints.

So there could be no evidence that the Court could

find, I would respectfully submit, based on this record to move

the case forward at all after this period of time.

Thank you, Judge.

THE COURT: All right. Your response?

MR. HICKEY: May it please the Court.

First, duty to warn, there has been a plethora of

evidence here, a mountain of evidence that this crew member,

Buerano, knew or should have known that he was creating or in

the words of their own expert who's sitting in the courtroom

today, that he approached a dangerous situation.

Of course, he knew about that danger because that's a

basic danger, and that's the testimony of Captain Keijer,

K-E-I-J-E-R, Keijer.

The testimony is that he, anyone who, anyone with the

basic knowledge of seamanship knows that if you pull up to a

vertical surface like this wall here or the cruise ship, and

you slow down abruptly, you are going to create wake, and the

wake is going to reverberate off that vertical surface. That's

the dangerous condition he knew or should have known about and,

Case 1:20-cv-21961-DPG Document 180 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/07/2024 Page 10 of 46
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

11

of course, he had a duty to warn.

All the evidence here is that he did not warn. None of

the two warned.

Now, Mr. McAlpin says, oh, but look at this, one

statement of Captain Keijer. I mean, Captain Keijer was on the

stand for, I don't know, a day. And Captain Keijer said, well,

yeah, I have no quarrel with your warnings back in the cabin

that you show on your TV screen to passengers ad nauseam. I

have no problem with saying, you know, when you get on board,

watch your step when you are stepping down the steps. That has

no relevance here, but he has no problem with that warning.

And then the other warning is, don't stand up when it's

going. And, again, that's not relevant here, and Captain

Keijer had no problem with that.

What Captain Keijer did testify, at length, is that

there is a failure to warn. This person knew or should have

known that he was coming up to and creating a dangerous

condition or because rule number five of the international

rules, which is recognized under the IMO, which is the

International Maritime Organization, all the regulation, the

IMO COLREGS, C-O-L-R-E-G-S, it's collision regulations, which

has recognized, the cruise lines knows about this, the cruise

line acknowledges these, you got to maintain a proper lookout.

Rule number five, you got to maintain a proper lookout.

You gotta watch where you're going. You gotta have, in the

Case 1:20-cv-21961-DPG Document 180 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/07/2024 Page 11 of 46
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

12

words of Captain Keijer, situational awareness.

So Captain Keijer said that he has no problem with

those warnings, those written warnings, those videos, but what

he does have a problem with is the fact that there was no

warning as that tender approached the cruise ship, and

Mr. McAlpin is talking about the testimony about the 25 seconds

or something like 84 feet.

Captain Keijer actually clarified that on redirect that

actually if he knew that he was -- you know, he's the one --

Buerano, Buerano, the NCL employee, is the one who knew that he

was making -- that he was in a hurry at the end of the day.

It's 5:30. They're late. So, he was going fast. He was doing

the 6 or 7 knots. He came to an abrupt slowdown, and it was

really before that, before that that Buerano, before the

25 seconds that Buerano knew or should have known that this was

an emergency, this was going to create a bad situation here.

He needed to warn the passengers, and he did not.

There is a mountain of evidence about that in this

record, and there is a mountain of evidence and they have --

and the cruise line has conceded that there was no warning

about the crash or the rolling, and he could have. He had the

PA.

By the way, the assistant had access to the PA. The

testimony from the plaintiff is that they were both up there.

They were joking around the entire time on that one mile that

Case 1:20-cv-21961-DPG Document 180 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/07/2024 Page 12 of 46
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

13

they're going out to the cruise ship. They were joking around

the entire time. They had the opportunity to get on that PA,

and they didn't.

THE COURT: My understanding of what the defense is

arguing here is essentially -- well, they are saying that the

tender operator did not operate the tender boat negligently,

but my understanding of the argument that I just heard is that

even if he did, because of the way the complaint is plead to

show that NCL is directly negligent, you'd have to show that

they were aware that this guy was going to do what he did, that

he would come in too fast, misjudge everything and crash into

the platform.

That -- for the negligent operation or the failure to

warn, that's what I understood them to be arguing, and there is

a reason why he probably said five times in his opening about

you being the master of your complaint and how it's plead.

So why wouldn't it -- why would -- what did the

evidence show why NCL should be -- why were they negligent for

the operation of -- for the tender operator's operation of the

of the tender?

MR. HICKEY: But we say in the complaint, in the count

for failure to warn, that they are negligent for the failure of

the tender operator to warn. In fact, there is a paragraph in

there. I thought we were past this issue -- I don't have it

with me -- but there is -- absolutely, we are not required to

Case 1:20-cv-21961-DPG Document 180 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/07/2024 Page 13 of 46
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

14

show, oh, well, the cruise line should have known that this guy

was going to do this at this particular time.

No, the failure to warn -- Mr. McAlpin doesn't like

this. They have been arguing this over and over. It just runs

counter to the complaint. We do plead that this guy -- there

is a failure to warn because this guy didn't warn at this time,

and he is the employee of the cruise line.

That's -- it's not -- you know, they're saying that we

can't allege or prove or travel under anything else other than

the warning, supervision and training. Fine. But under the

warning, and we'll get you the language, I think it's paragraph

24, but I did this a long time ago in the complaint, and we

have -- yeah, it's paragraph 24. NCL is -- this is reading

from the complaint, Your Honor.

Docket Entry 1, paragraph 24, "NCL is vicariously

liable and responsible for the negligent acts of its shipboard

crew members who were employees and/or actual agents of the

defendant, see Franza versus Royal Caribbean Cruise Line. This

ultimately is based on the fact that the crew members are

employees of the cruise line. Therefore, under respondeat

superior the cruise line is liable for the negligence of all

crew members working aboard its ships."

And then one of the paragraphs after that or one of

the -- excuse me, one of the counts after that is the failure

to warn.

Case 1:20-cv-21961-DPG Document 180 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/07/2024 Page 14 of 46
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

15

That is -- excuse me, that is in the failure to warn

count and so, you know, I don't know why they're saying --

well, I do know why, but it's a little disingenuous for an

attorney to stand up here and argue, gee, it's not vicarious

liability because there is failure to warn. That allegation is

right there. It's paragraph 24 of the complaint.

As far as the -- so that's an answer to Your Honor's

question.

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. HICKEY: I think I addressed all the other things

but on the training -- I'm trying to read my notes, sorry,

Judge. The training certificate, and this is on the other two

counts, their training certificate, it's a certificate signed

by an NCL officer. As I said in a question in November, it's

an inside job and that's the fact.

There were five -- Captain Keijer testified very

clearly about the five grounds on which he held that the

training and supervision were inadequate in this case. Here

they are.

Number one, all of the errors that this AB, Buerano,

this able-bodied seaman, second lowest on the cruise ship, all

of the errors he made in his approach to the cruise ship,

number one; in his abruptly slowing down, number two; in his

failure to abort or turn away and re approach, number three; in

his not holding off, you know, not staying away from the cruise

Case 1:20-cv-21961-DPG Document 180 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/07/2024 Page 15 of 46
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

16

ship and the platform while all of this wake, whether it's his

wake or the wake of another boat dies down; and then in his

charging -- oh, and then, in his turn 90 degrees, so that he's

creating more wake and getting sideways with the wake that's

there, which is how you go from side to side very violently, in

the words of Ms. Ruggeri.

So all those ways, all those errors, which I asked the

captain, "Are these errors basic or are these complicated?"

This is only something an educated mariner would know.

He said, "They are basic. These are basic errors."

So, all of these errors is the one -- the first piece

of evidence that this gentleman was neither well trained nor

well supervised. And by the way, as far as supervision, there

was none. There was no officer on board the tender at the time

and, in fact, not only was there no officer, the assistant who

was with him, his name I am going to forget, Michael Ligue is

an uncertified seaman. He is not even certified to run this

boat.

So not only is he not an officer, he is not a graduate

of a maritime academy, but he is not even certified to run this

boat.

So, the first piece of evidence is that -- is all of

these errors, the first piece of evidence on the lack of

supervision and training.

The second piece of evidence he testified to was that

Case 1:20-cv-21961-DPG Document 180 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/07/2024 Page 16 of 46
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

17

Buerano, afterwards -- and this is the testimony in evidence.

Buerano afterwards reviewed the video of the incident, and this

is later on in the quiet of his own cabin or whatever, and said

he -- Buerano testified he didn't do anything wrong and

wouldn't change a thing. And that's the second piece of

evidence that Captain Keijer cited as to why this gentleman is

not properly trained.

If he says I didn't do anything wrong when a tender

boat collides with a platform and then rolls from side to side

shaking up 200 passengers, that person is not trained well.

The third piece of evidence is that through the

deposition of the corporate representative, he said -- the

corporate representative for this company testified that a

Captain Hansen, the vice president of nautical and port

operations for this company told the corporate representative

that he reviewed the video and he called this excellent

seamanship, excellent seamanship.

So, when somebody is rushing, they abruptly stop. They

create the rollers. They don't turn away. They charge right

in. They turn the boat at 90 degrees. It crashes with the

platform, which is essentially the cruise ship, so it's two

ships colliding, and it rolls. That's excellent seamanship.

Those are the standards. That's the standard for this

corporation. And that's the third piece of evidence of

negligent supervision and training here.

Case 1:20-cv-21961-DPG Document 180 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/07/2024 Page 17 of 46
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

18

The fourth piece of evidence is that there is no

documentation of the demonstration of competence by this seaman

Buerano. We agreed and the testimony is there is two types of

aspects of training. One is knowledge, and two is ability;

knowledge and ability. The knowledge has to do with the test,

which I am going to talk about in a minute.

The ability has to do with your going out with someone

who is a master mariner and training with him or her on a

particular day to do particular things just like you do when

you take your test for the driver's license or when you are a

pilot and you go up with other pilots and you do takeoffs and

landings and you log them and you record them and you make a

document about them.

There is none in this case, none that's been produced.

We've asked. We don't have it. No documentation of

these demonstrations, no checklists, no logs, no listing of on

this date this person took Buerano out and showed him how to

dock or how to put it in reverse or how to turn it around 360

or 180, nothing like that, or how to handle this boat in rough

waves or wake, nothing. So that's the fourth piece of evidence

that Captain Keijer testified about on the stand supporting

negligence in training and supervision.

So this Mr. -- before I get to number five, Mr. McAlpin

just got up there and said that that there is nothing -- what

was it, in the argument just now, that -- let me try to find

Case 1:20-cv-21961-DPG Document 180 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/07/2024 Page 18 of 46
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

19

it.

Oh, he doesn't know what's in the curriculum. That's

what this defendant is doing. So, this is kind of like the boy

who shoots both of his parents dead and goes before the Court

and asks for mercy because he is an orphan.

They don't have a curriculum, and then they fault the

plaintiff for not putting evidence on of a curriculum, and if

they try to cook something up now, it's too late. There is no

curriculum, and that's the point.

And the fifth, the fifth piece of evidence that Captain

Keijer testified about as evidence in this case that there is

negligent training and supervision is the written test itself.

And I don't have it on the screen, but the written test itself,

there is three aspects of this test and you can't make this

stuff up.

Well, first of all, first of all, before we get to the

format of the test, the subject matter, there is nothing on

this test to indicate that he, Buerano, is taught about docking

in wake and prevention of your wake, prevention of creating too

much wake in an area like this. That's the first thing.

There is nothing about docking and there is nothing

about warning. There is nothing about warning in this

situation, in the test, but the third aspect of the test, this

written test, which is in evidence, is that -- and maybe if we

can get the test, I might have it here and we can show it on

Case 1:20-cv-21961-DPG Document 180 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/07/2024 Page 19 of 46
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

20

the -- we can show it on the ELMO.

The third aspect of the test is that everyone passes,

and it's guaranteed that everyone passes.

I need to find the test because I want to show that.

Do you have a copy there of the test?

I thought I have it here.

This is the training test. This is the final test. We

have been provided this as the only evidence of any curriculum

or training in this, other than that they follow the circular

that they said -- that they objected to, Judge.

We tried -- we offered the circular into evidence.

They objected to the circular itself. We'll see if that

continues throughout the remainder of this trial, but this is

the only evidence, and let's go to the next page.

THE COURT: I'm sorry, this is Joint Exhibit 16?

MR. HICKEY: Yes, sir. Yes, Your Honor.

On the very next page, it has the test procedures.

Captain Keijer testified about this.

The test should take about, approximately, one hour to

complete. However, the facilitator may extend this time if

needed, so there really is no time limit.

Number two, passing score for the test is 75 percent,

but look at this, if a student fails the test, allow them to

retake the test once. What if he fails again?

Well, the next bullet point comes into play. If a

Case 1:20-cv-21961-DPG Document 180 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/07/2024 Page 20 of 46
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

21

student fails the test twice, review information with the

student verbally and determine competency.

There is no test. There is no time limit and there is

no passing or failing. You just take it twice, and then you

talk to your supervisor, and if he says okay, he or she, goes

sign off, and it's an inside job.

So, Captain Keijer testified to those five grounds on

which he comes to the conclusion that there is negligent

supervision and training of this seaman in this case.

THE COURT: I just want to be clear. Are you saying

that there is no test or that the test isn't -- well, why don't

you explain to me?

Are you saying that there is no written or verbal test?

MR. HICKEY: This is the test. Thank you.

This is the test. It's not valid because everybody

passes. That's the first. It struck me when I read these test

procedures word for word. I go, wow, it's like no matter what,

you're going to pass.

So that's the first thing, and there is testimony about

that, but the second two things that Captain Keijer testified

about is there is no real question designed to, designed to

test knowledge of docking procedures and no real question about

how to handle in wake in this particular situation.

So, it fails. The test itself fails for those two

reasons.

Case 1:20-cv-21961-DPG Document 180 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/07/2024 Page 21 of 46
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

22

And, you know, the fact that they don't have a log that

they have ever produced to us -- and we have asked. And

there's intimations through questions of Captain Keijer, what

if we, ha ha, funny, funny, found one, because I have seen

everything, you know, in courtrooms, but they say there is

none.

You know, there is no log of what -- of how this person

was trained, what they did, when they it, and you have two

people admitting -- that's the standard. That's the NCL

standard right there. That's okay. Under their training

regimen that's okay. What happened here was A-OK.

So, there are five grounds for the negligent training

and supervision. That's in the evidence, and I submit it's a

mountain of evidence.

THE COURT: So, Mr. McAlpin in his argument said that

to show a failure to supervise that NCL would have to become --

would have had to be aware of a problem.

Do you agree with that or disagree with that?

MR. HICKEY: No, absolutely not. NCL knew -- and this

is also in the evidence, NCL knew that tendering is dangerous.

They knew that. They knew that their prior accidents -- and we

have supplied evidence about some prior accidents in regard to

tender.

THE COURT: But not involving Mr. Buerano?

MR. HICKEY: Correct. That has nothing to do,

Case 1:20-cv-21961-DPG Document 180 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/07/2024 Page 22 of 46
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

23

completely irrelevant.

Of course, they always say, oh, ha ha, funny, funny,

even though they have not provided us his, you know, his

personnel file with his valuations, of course, well, you can't

show that he has done this improperly at other times. That has

nothing to do with it. They know that tendering is dangerous,

number one.

Number two, that you need to train. They know you need

to train. There is even testimony, and it's in evidence, from

the corporate representative that says, well, we follow the

dictates of the IMO Circular 1417. Why is that?

Because -- and that's in regard to training people on

tenders. That's because you've got all these people, in this

case 200 people, of various ages, actually mostly older,

they're in seats where they don't have armrests, they are bench

seats.

There is no seatbelts. There is no handrails and you

have 200 of these people and you are carrying them across these

waters. Of course you want to be careful. There is a specific

training regiment. They know if you don't train accidents will

happen.

THE COURT: Okay. Anything else?

MR. HICKEY: Let me look at my notes. I think that's

it, but let me look at my notes.

THE COURT: Regarding that last point you made, there

Case 1:20-cv-21961-DPG Document 180 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/07/2024 Page 23 of 46
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

24

are no negligent design claims. Correct?

MR. HICKEY: Correct.

THE COURT: This is a tender. It doesn't have

seatbelts. It doesn't have the rails, any of those things. I

guess I am just making an observation. That's not a claim

here.

MR. HICKEY: That's right, and I am not faulting -- I

am not standing here faulting NCL for not having seatbelts,

shoulder harnesses, rails to hold on to -- they could -- rails

to hold on to, armrests, etcetera, but if you don't -- and, of

course, what are they going to say, Hickey, you have to prove

that we had knowledge that there is no armrests on the seats.

Of course not. We know that there are no armrests on the

seats.

If you do run your cruise line like that, if you do

have 200 people on at a time, if you do have in October of a

year right when the kids are at school, mostly old people, if

you don't have -- if you don't at least have rails, you have

armrests, you have something to hold on to, if you provide only

bench seats and there is an argument over and my client swears

up and down, this ain't the one; they must have changed it out.

If you are going to have bench seats, a bunch, 200

older people on bench seats, you better train your drivers,

NCL. You better train them not to do what the guy did.

And hats off to NCL, Judge. We got it on video, and

Case 1:20-cv-21961-DPG Document 180 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/07/2024 Page 24 of 46
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

25

they are still denying they did anything wrong.

THE COURT: Well, I guess the point is, had the claims

been negligent operation or negligent design, I think perhaps

the decision would have been easier to make from the Court's

perspective, but that's not what we are dealing with.

MR. HICKEY: No, no, no, but what I'm saying -- I get

where Your Honor is going on that, but I would never -- if I

had to do this all over again, I wouldn't replead it for

negligent design. Here's why. Because we all know the

standard is reasonable care under the circumstances, right?

We hear these over and over in these maritime cases,

reasonable care under the circumstances. And at first, years

ago, like 20 years ago when the defense lawyers were insisting

on that, I fought them. And then I realized, that's a great

statement, "reasonable care under the circumstances."

Let's look at the circumstances here. The

circumstances here are, you've got 200 people on bench seats

which don't have anything, any armrest or other thing to hold

on to. They know that. Those are the circumstances.

If you do that, you know you got to have training over

and over and over.

THE COURT: So, with regard to the failure to warn, I

just want to make sure I am clear.

Is it the failure to warn about conditions generally

when transporting someone on a tender or is it specifically a

Case 1:20-cv-21961-DPG Document 180 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/07/2024 Page 25 of 46
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

failure to warn that a tender boat could hit the dock and roll

back and forth?

It's the failure to warn to what?

MR. HICKEY: It's the latter. It's the failure to tell

these folks, these 200 people on that boat, on that day, hey,

we're coming in. We're coming in to this platform. There's a

vertical surface, actually it's not the platform. The platform

is above the water but seven feet beyond it is the cruise ship.

We're coming in here. I created rollers or Mr. Harested says,

Captain Harested, whatever you want to call him, says, those

are rollers from some other vessel. Fine, I don't care where

they're from.

That's your duty to -- when you are operating a boat

with 200 people, you better watch out. So, the failure to warn

is, we're coming up. You know, actually, if he were honest, if

Buerano was honest, he would say, I went too fast because we

were in a hurry, because we were late and I went too fast and I

slowed down and I messed up, folks. I slowed down too close to

that cruise ship. That big vertical surface is going to throw

those wakes and those rollers back on me, so hang on tight,

everybody, I messed up.

Or how about, hang on tight, everybody, I'm going to

turn and I am going to go away from the cruise ship and let it

all settle down and come back. So, it's in regard to this

situation, Judge.

Case 1:20-cv-21961-DPG Document 180 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/07/2024 Page 26 of 46
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

27

THE COURT: Okay. Just a moment.

All right. Anything else in reply?

MR. MCALPIN: Yes, Your Honor, briefly, if I might.

Counsel still clings to the notion that we are trying

this case predicated upon a vicarious liability theory, still

clings to that. That's why I made it so clear, and I apologize

if I was repetitive at opening. That's why I made it that

clear that the plaintiff is the master of the complaint.

We know how he has plead the complaint. The Court's

given us clarity in Docket Entry 115. The Court has given us

clarity, and what the Court has said is that, "This case shall

proceed to a bench trial on plaintiff's claims for negligent

failure to warn, negligent training of personnel, and negligent

supervision of personnel.

"The Court notes, however, that the complaint only

pleads these counts in the context of defendant's failure to

warn plaintiff of dangerous sea conditions, failure to train

its employees of dangerous sea conditions, and failure to

supervise its employees to ensure they are giving proper

warnings about dangerous sea conditions.

"While plaintiff may present evidence regarding the

operator of the tender vessel, plaintiff may not proceed or

recover on a negligent operation claim against defendant.

"The ultimate inquiry is whether defendant failed to

warn plaintiff of the dangerous conditions which caused her

Case 1:20-cv-21961-DPG Document 180 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/07/2024 Page 27 of 46
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

28

injuries."

And that is very helpful to us because that gives us

clarity when we're trying to interpret this 22 page, 67 count

complaint, which has everything but the kitchen sink thrown

into it.

Now, the courts have said, Judge, that direct and

vicarious liability claims are very different concepts, which

you can't intermingle. You can't mix them up. That's Holland

versus Carnival, which is -- which appears at 50 F.4th 1088,

Eleventh Circuit, back in October of last year.

That case, the Holland versus Carnival case, also says

not only that you can't mash, you can't, you know, make a

hybrid out of a direct versus a vicarious liability, but it

says, "Thus, a ship owner's actual or constructive knowledge of

the hazardous condition arises as part of a duty element in a

claim seeking to hold the ship owner directly liable for its

own negligence."

That's what I alluded to before.

Then we can look at the Britt versus Carnival case,

where the Court is relying upon a case called Yusko versus NCL,

which is a case I know very well because I tried that case and

argued it on appeal. The Britt court is arguing about Yusko

and says, "Thus, Yusko contemplates, and this Court agrees,

that claims stemming from negligent maintenance of a ship's

premises or failure to warn will be made out under a direct

Case 1:20-cv-21961-DPG Document 180 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/07/2024 Page 28 of 46
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

29

liability theories which requires notice," which requires

notice.

So first things first. It's a direct liability claim

under those three counts. Direct liability claims require

notice, and even now counsel is talking about the fault of

Buerano in doing X, Y and Z and all of this other stuff, which

is irrelevant given the way the complaint has been illegally

set up and the way the case proceeded all up until trial.

So we don't have notice, and counsel just admitted,

based on the Court's question, that the dangerous condition

that he is complaining we didn't warn about, that dangerous

condition was the condition that was existing according to

their theory, in that 25 seconds, not general sea conditions

because Keijer says we did a good job with that.

Counsel has just admitted he's not complaining about

that. He is complaining about the failure to warn in those 25

seconds.

Norwegian had no knowledge of that dangerous condition

even if you believe it existed.

Moreover, Norwegian had no opportunity, it didn't

exist, for a period of time where Norwegian would invite

corrective action, in other words, an opportunity to provide

the warning.

So on those counts it just simply fails, Judge. On the

negligent training, what we have in evidence is a certificate

Case 1:20-cv-21961-DPG Document 180 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/07/2024 Page 29 of 46
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

30

that's been unchallenged, that has been unimpeached, if you

will, indicating that the man is trained in accordance with the

IMO circular, which is the industry standard, and that he was

trained by a certified training company.

THE COURT: But Mr. Keijer did say that there was no

training regarding boat handling or maneuvering because of a

wake. He said there is no verification regarding the tender

operator's skills regarding handling a wake or how to approach

a wake. I mean, he said that there was some training, but he

said that it was deficient, and if, in fact, NCL hired him to,

in part, dock tenders, I mean, if there is no indication in the

record of any training from that plaintiff's expert at this

stage of the litigation, why isn't that enough?

MR. MCALPIN: Because Captain Keijer on

cross-examination admitted he didn't know what the training

curriculum consisted of. He had no idea. All he was able to

say is that what we have is that certification and proof that

the person was trained in accordance with the recommended

training standards, the circular, IMO Circular 1417. That's

what we have.

Those are the recommended standards. Those are the

standards which are accepted in the industry, which Captain

Keijer admitted. He has no idea what the specific curriculum

that NCL used other than it's been approved by the Bahamian

Maritime Authority, and that it complies with the circular and

Case 1:20-cv-21961-DPG Document 180 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/07/2024 Page 30 of 46
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

31

that it was done by a certified trainer. That's what we know.

He doesn't know what module number three is. He

doesn't know what module number four is. He doesn't know what

module number eight is. What we do know is we have a

certificate proving that he was trained in accordance with the

industry standards, and Keijer can't dispute that. I

questioned him on that.

He says, yes, that's what the certificate says, that's

what the certificate says, Mr. McAlpin.

THE COURT: But that doesn't -- does being trained

according to industry standards, that's not dispositive of the

issue of negligence, though, is it?

MR. MCALPIN: I would say you are correct. It's

certainly evidence of it. It's certainly evidence of it but

there is no --

THE COURT: It's favorable evidence for a defendant but

I don't think it's dispositive.

MR. MCALPIN: Yeah, I would say strong evidence. I

would say strong evidence, but again, Judge, whether or not he

was trained on wake management, whether he was trained on how

to handle this situation is only part of the story, and he is

speculating on that.

The other part of the story is we know he has done over

two seasons, 400 transits, okay, and there has never been a

problem. That's also pretty strong evidence that the man knows

Case 1:20-cv-21961-DPG Document 180 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/07/2024 Page 31 of 46
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

32

how to drive a boat, isn't it?

So, again, we can't put any kind of reliable weight on

that testimony when he's saying, I don't think he was properly

trained on wake management, but I don't know because I haven't

seen the training modules. But what I do know is we have a

certificate that says he was properly trained in accordance

with the industry standards.

That's what we have on this record as it stands today.

Lastly, Judge, on the supervision part, I would ask the

Court to look at the two cases I cited. They specifically

stand for the proposition that the employer has to know that

the employee is doing something improper, inappropriate and

that the employer doesn't take corrective action, discharge or

investigate the situation.

We don't have any of that evidence in this case at all.

THE COURT: I am getting a lot of stuff up here.

MR. MCALPIN: There is a lot.

THE COURT: Can you tell me the two cases you are

citing regarding that count?

MR. MCALPIN: Yes, Your Honor.

To make it easier, I would like the opportunity to file

the written motion. It's already prepared on the point.

So, the two cases I would cite to the Court on the

supervision standard, the elements on the supervision are Doe

versus NCL, 2016 District Court Lexis, 150817. It's a Southern

Case 1:20-cv-21961-DPG Document 180 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/07/2024 Page 32 of 46
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

33

District of Florida case, 2016, and if the Court wants the case

number --

THE COURT: Yes, please.

MR. MCALPIN: The case number is 1:16-CV-23733-UU. I

think that's Judge Ungaro.

THE COURT: Yes. What's the date on that order?

MR. MCALPIN: October 27, 2016.

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. MCALPIN: Then we have Cruz versus Advanced Stores

Co., 842 F.Supp.2d, 1356, Southern District of Florida, 2012.

THE COURT: Okay. Why don't we take a few minutes?

I will look at those two cases and come back and see

where we are.

MR. MCALPIN: Okay, Judge. Thank you.

THE COURT: We haven't had a break in a while. Why

don't we just take 15 minutes?

(Recess.)

MR. MCALPIN: Thank you, Your Honor.

THE COURT: All right.

For the negligent supervision count, the two cases

cited by the defense, one was an order resolving a motion to

dismiss. That was the Judge Ungaro case.

The other case was an order resolving a motion for

summary judgment. That was from Judge Zloch. They both talked

about for negligent supervision that plaintiff would have to

Case 1:20-cv-21961-DPG Document 180 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/07/2024 Page 33 of 46
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

34

show that the employer received actual or constructive notice

of an employee's unfitness and that the employer did not

investigate or take corrective action such as discharge or

reassignment.

First, I wanted to see that if the plaintiff agreed

that that is the law. Do you disagree that that is the law

regarding that claim?

MR. HICKEY: We do. We do agree.

THE COURT: Okay. So, my understanding from your

argument and the evidence was basically that there was no one

there physically to supervise the tender operator and his

assistant and that you would not -- well, that's what I

understood it to be, but is there any evidence of actual, I

mean, such that the employer would have had actual or

constructive notice of prior unfitness?

MR. HICKEY: There is not.

THE COURT: Anything else you want to add?

MR. MCALPIN: No, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Having considered everything, as to

Counts 1 and 2, I do find at this stage of the litigation there

is sufficient evidence to proceed, but I will grant the motion

for directed verdict as to the third count dealing with

negligent supervision. I think it fails as a matter of law.

Well, there is insufficient evidence based on the

elements.

Case 1:20-cv-21961-DPG Document 180 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/07/2024 Page 34 of 46
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

35

Are you ready to call your next witness?

MR. MCALPIN: Sure, Your Honor. What we would like to

do at this point is publish to the Court some of the materials

that are in evidence, namely the long safety video, the tender

specific tender safety video and then the audio warning after

that. I'd like to publish that for the Court, and then we can

go into the video deposition of the operator. It's about an

hour.

That probably should take us through the end of the

day, depending at what time the Court wants to stop.

MR. HICKEY: May I ask a question, Your Honor?

Are the videos that counsel plans on showing the videos

he already has shown?

I don't know the answer because I know he has shown

videos and played back -- in his cross of Keijer, played

back -- he has shown transcripts. He played back the videos.

I don't know how many times we are doing this. I don't

know.

THE COURT: Well, if it's something -- if I think it's

something cumulative, well, you can make an objection and then

I will take it up, but for now, we will let them present their

case and we will see where they are.

MR. MCALPIN: And the answer to the question is, no, we

haven't published these videos in their entirety yet.

THE COURT: Okay.

Case 1:20-cv-21961-DPG Document 180 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/07/2024 Page 35 of 46
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

36

MR. MCALPIN: Your Honor, before we start, again, we

have a hard start for Dr. Hommen at 1 o'clock tomorrow. I

think the Court indicated that we are beginning court tomorrow

at 1 o'clock.

THE COURT: Yes.

MR. MCALPIN: We have Dr. Hommen and the medical

assistant coming at 1 o'clock tomorrow. Okay.

THE COURT: All right.

MR. MCALPIN: Very well.

THE COURT: And today we need to leave around 5:00 so

we have another hour.

MR. HICKEY: Judge, could I ask counsel to identify the

exhibit numbers of what he is about to show before he does

that.

MR. MCALPIN: Exhibit 32-1. It's Joint Exhibit 32-1,

32-3, and 32-4.

(Video was played in open court.)

THE COURT: Okay. This is 32-3.

MR. MCALPIN: This is 32-4.

(Video was played in open court.)

MR. MCALPIN: For the next video we would like to show

the video deposition of Jomar Buerano.

THE COURT: And just so I'm clear, the videos you just

showed, that was 32-1, 3 and 4.

MR. MCALPIN: Yes.

Case 1:20-cv-21961-DPG Document 180 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/07/2024 Page 36 of 46
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

37

This is the videotaped deposition of Jomar Buerano.

(The videotaped deposition of Jomar Buerano was played

in open court.)

THE COURT: I'm sorry, can we pause this for a second?

How much more time do we have on the video?

MR. MCALPIN: Twenty minutes, Your Honor.

THE COURT: All right. Why don't we pick it up

tomorrow from here?

MR. MCALPIN: Yes, sir.

THE COURT: We will recess for the day.

We have a hearing tomorrow morning, but I think I

already told you we will start at 1 o'clock tomorrow.

MR. MCALPIN: Yes, you did.

THE COURT: We will resume then.

MR. HICKEY: Judge, should we take everything home

tonight?

THE COURT: You can leave it here. If you want to lock

it in the rooms, you can do that.

I'm expecting several lawyers tomorrow morning, so we

will need you to clear the tables.

MR. HICKEY: We will clear the table.

THE COURT: Okay. But, again, if you need to use the

rooms in the back, Rehan will lock those up.

MR. MCALPIN: Your Honor, I should point out for the

record, the exhibits that were shown, Exhibit Number 1 that was

Case 1:20-cv-21961-DPG Document 180 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/07/2024 Page 37 of 46
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

38

shown of the deposition is Exhibit 24 in evidence.

Exhibit Number 2 that was shown, the test, is

Exhibit 16.006, which is in evidence.

Exhibit Number 3, which is the SMS, the Safety

Management System, is Exhibit 16.01 through 16.05, and

Exhibit 4 is joint Exhibit 71 in evidence.

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. MCALPIN: Thank you.

THE COURT: All right. Thank you.

(Proceedings were adjourned at 5:15 p.m.)

Case 1:20-cv-21961-DPG Document 180 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/07/2024 Page 38 of 46
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

39

C E R T I F I C A T E

I hereby certify that the foregoing is an

accurate transcription of the proceedings in the

above-entitled matter.

December 14, 2023 /s/Patricia Diaz _____

DATE PATRICIA DIAZ, FCRR, RPR, FPR

Official Court Reporter

United States District Court

400 North Miami Avenue, 11th Floor

Miami, Florida 33128

(305) 523-5178

Case 1:20-cv-21961-DPG Document 180 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/07/2024 Page 39 of 46
/

/s/Patricia [1] - 39:9

1

1 [9] - 1:9, 3:24,

14:15, 34:20, 36:2,

36:4, 36:7, 37:12,

37:25

1088 [1] - 28:9

115 [1] - 27:10

11th [2] - 2:4, 39:11

1356 [1] - 33:10

1359 [1] - 9:2

14 [1] - 39:9

1400 [1] - 1:16

1417 [4] - 7:13, 7:18,

23:11, 30:19

15 [1] - 33:16

150817 [2] - 9:5,

32:25

16 [1] - 20:15

16.006 [1] - 38:3

16.01 [1] - 38:5

16.05 [1] - 38:5

180 [1] - 18:19

1:16-CV-23733-UU

[1] - 33:4

2

2 [3] - 4:1, 34:20,

38:2

20 [1] - 25:13

20-CV-21961-DPG

[1] - 1:2

200 [8] - 17:10,

23:14, 23:18, 24:16,

24:22, 25:17, 26:5,

26:14

2012 [2] - 9:3, 33:10

2016 [5] - 9:5, 9:6,

32:25, 33:1, 33:7

2023 [2] - 1:5, 39:9

22 [1] - 28:3

24 [6] - 7:10, 14:12,

14:13, 14:15, 15:6,

38:1

25 [10] - 5:17, 6:4,

6:8, 6:12, 6:15, 6:18,

12:6, 12:15, 29:13,

29:16

27 [1] - 33:7

2805 [1] - 1:20

3

3 [3] - 4:3, 36:24,

38:4

305 [2] - 2:5, 39:12

32-1 [3] - 36:15,

36:24

32-3 [2] - 36:16,

36:18

32-4 [2] - 36:16,

36:19

33128 [2] - 2:4, 39:11

33130 [1] - 1:20

33131 [1] - 1:17

360 [1] - 18:18

38 [1] - 7:25

4

4 [3] - 1:5, 36:24,

38:6

400 [3] - 2:3, 31:24,

39:11

4:54 [1] - 1:6

5

50 [3] - 8:14, 28:9

510 [1] - 1:16

52 [1] - 3:4

52(c [2] - 1:11, 3:9

523-5178 [2] - 2:5,

39:12

5:00 [1] - 36:10

5:15 [2] - 1:6, 38:10

5:30 [1] - 12:12

6

6 [1] - 12:13

67 [1] - 28:3

7

7 [1] - 12:13

71 [1] - 38:6

75 [1] - 20:22

8

8 [1] - 1:19

80 [2] - 1:19, 6:1

84 [1] - 12:7

842 [2] - 9:2, 33:10

88 [1] - 5:19

9

90 [2] - 16:3, 17:20

A

A-OK [1] - 22:11

AB [1] - 15:20

ability [3] - 18:4,

18:5, 18:7

able [2] - 15:21,

30:16

able-bodied [1] -

15:21

aboard [1] - 14:22

abort [1] - 15:24

above-entitled [1] -

39:5

above-named [1] -

7:15

abrupt [1] - 12:13

abruptly [3] - 10:23,

15:23, 17:18

absolutely [2] -

13:25, 22:19

academy [1] - 16:20

accepted [1] - 30:22

access [1] - 12:23

accidents [3] -

22:21, 22:22, 23:20

accord [1] - 7:13

accordance [6] -

7:15, 7:18, 30:2,

30:18, 31:5, 32:6

according [5] - 5:18,

7:9, 8:4, 29:12, 31:11

accurate [1] - 39:4

acknowledges [1] -

11:23

acting [1] - 4:8

action [6] - 5:8, 8:24,

9:9, 29:22, 32:13,

34:3

actions [1] - 9:23

acts [1] - 14:16

actual [5] - 14:17,

28:14, 34:1, 34:13,

34:14

ad [1] - 11:8

add [1] - 34:17

addressed [1] -

15:10

adequate [1] - 8:7

adjourned [1] -

38:10

admission [1] - 6:25

admitted [4] - 29:9,

29:15, 30:15, 30:23

admitting [1] - 22:9

Advanced[2] - 9:2,

33:9

afterwards [2] - 17:1,

17:2

agents [1] - 14:17

ages [1] - 23:14

ago [3] - 14:12,

25:13

agree [2] - 22:18,

34:8

agreed [2] - 18:3,

34:5

agrees [1] - 28:23

ain't [1] - 24:21

allegation [1] - 15:5

allege [1] - 14:9

alleged [1] - 9:22

allow [1] - 20:23

alluded [1] - 28:18

answer[6] - 5:25,

6:6, 8:4, 15:7, 35:14,

35:23

answers [1] - 7:25

apologize [1] - 27:6

appeal [1] - 28:22

APPEARANCES[1] -

1:13

approach [3] - 15:22,

15:24, 30:8

approached [2] -

10:16, 12:5

approved [3] - 7:20,

7:21, 30:24

area [1] - 19:20

argue [1] - 15:4

argued [1] - 28:22

arguing [4] - 13:5,

13:14, 14:4, 28:22

argument [6] - 3:19,

13:7, 18:25, 22:15,

24:20, 34:10

ARGUMENTS[1] -

1:11

arguments [3] -

3:13, 3:14, 3:16

arises [1] - 28:15

armrest[1] - 25:18

armrests [5] - 23:15,

24:10, 24:12, 24:13,

24:19

aspect [2] - 19:23,

20:2

aspects [2] - 18:4,

19:14

assistant [4] - 12:23,

16:15, 34:12, 36:7

attorney [1] - 15:4

audio [1] - 35:5

Authority [2] - 7:21,

30:25

Avenue [3] - 1:16,

2:3, 39:11

aware [4] - 8:22,

13:10, 22:17

awareness [1] - 12:1

B

bad [1] - 12:16

1

Bahamas [1] - 1:7

Bahamian [2] - 7:21,

30:24

based [5] - 4:16,

10:7, 14:19, 29:10,

34:24

basic [5] - 10:18,

10:21, 16:8, 16:10

basis [2] - 3:11, 3:19

become [2] - 8:22,

22:16

becomes [1] - 8:22

BEFORE [1] - 1:12

beginning [2] - 6:10,

36:3

bench [6] - 23:15,

24:20, 24:22, 24:23,

25:17, 27:12

BERMAN [1] - 1:21

better[3] - 24:23,

24:24, 26:14

beyond [1] - 26:8

big [1] - 26:19

board [2] - 11:9,

16:14

boat [22] - 6:9, 6:10,

6:19, 7:11, 7:16, 8:14,

8:17, 9:14, 13:6, 16:2,

16:18, 16:21, 17:9,

17:20, 18:19, 26:1,

26:5, 26:13, 30:6,

32:1

bodied [1] - 15:21

boy [1] - 19:3

break [1] - 33:15

BRETT [1] - 1:21

Brickell [1] - 1:16

briefly [1] - 27:3

Britt [2] - 28:19,

28:22

Buerano [20] - 7:6,

8:2, 10:14, 12:10,

12:14, 12:15, 15:20,

17:1, 17:2, 17:4, 18:3,

18:17, 19:18, 22:24,

26:16, 29:6, 36:22,

37:1, 37:2

bullet [1] - 20:25

bunch [1] - 24:22

business [1] - 1:7

BY [1] - 2:1

C

cabin [2] - 11:7, 17:3

captain [1] - 16:8

Captain [24] - 5:19,

7:19, 7:24, 10:18,

11:5, 11:6, 11:13,

11:15, 12:1, 12:2,

Case 1:20-cv-21961-DPG Document 180 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/07/2024 Page 40 of 46
12:8, 15:16, 17:6,

17:14, 18:21, 19:10,

20:18, 21:7, 21:20,

22:3, 26:10, 30:14,

30:22

care [4] - 25:10,

25:12, 25:15, 26:11

careful [1] - 23:19

Caribbean [1] -

14:18

Carnival [3] - 28:9,

28:11, 28:19

carrying [1] - 23:18

CASE[1] - 1:2

case [32] - 3:7, 3:22,

3:23, 4:24, 5:12, 6:16,

9:3, 9:6, 9:11, 9:20,

10:8, 15:18, 18:14,

19:11, 21:9, 23:14,

27:5, 27:11, 28:11,

28:19, 28:20, 28:21,

29:8, 32:15, 33:1,

33:4, 33:22, 33:23,

35:22

case-in-chief [1] -

3:7

cases [7] - 3:12,

25:11, 32:10, 32:18,

32:23, 33:12, 33:20

caused [1] - 27:25

center[1] - 7:21

certainly [2] - 31:14

certificate [12] -

7:10, 7:12, 7:17, 8:5,

15:12, 15:13, 29:25,

31:5, 31:8, 31:9, 32:6

certification [1] -

30:17

certified [4] - 16:17,

16:20, 30:4, 31:1

certify [1] - 39:3

change [1] - 17:5

changed [1] - 24:21

charge [1] - 17:19

charging [1] - 16:3

checklists [1] -

18:16

chief [1] - 3:7

Circuit [1] - 28:10

Circular[3] - 7:18,

23:11, 30:19

circular[7] - 7:18,

20:9, 20:11, 20:12,

30:3, 30:19, 30:25

circumstances [6] -

25:10, 25:12, 25:15,

25:16, 25:17, 25:19

citation [1] - 9:5

cite [2] - 9:1, 32:23

cited [3] - 17:6,

32:10, 33:21

citing [2] - 3:12,

32:19

Civil [1] - 3:9

claim [17] - 3:21, 4:5,

4:6, 4:10, 4:15, 4:25,

7:4, 9:8, 9:16, 9:17,

9:24, 24:5, 27:23,

28:16, 29:3, 34:7

claims [9] - 3:23,

4:21, 9:18, 24:1, 25:2,

27:12, 28:7, 28:24,

29:4

clarified [1] - 12:8

clarity [3] - 27:10,

27:11, 28:3

clear[12] - 3:19, 5:2,

6:23, 6:24, 7:25,

21:10, 25:23, 27:6,

27:8, 36:23, 37:20,

37:21

clearly [2] - 5:13,

15:17

client [1] - 24:20

clings [2] - 27:4,

27:6

close [1] - 26:18

Co [1] - 33:10

collides [1] - 17:9

colliding [1] - 17:22

collision [1] - 11:21

COLREGS [2] -

11:21

coming [6] - 11:17,

26:6, 26:9, 26:15,

36:7

company [4] - 7:5,

17:13, 17:15, 30:4

competence [1] -

18:2

competency [1] -

21:2

complained [1] -

9:13

complaining [3] -

29:11, 29:15, 29:16

complaint [17] -

4:23, 4:24, 7:2, 9:21,

9:22, 13:8, 13:16,

13:21, 14:5, 14:12,

14:14, 15:6, 27:8,

27:9, 27:15, 28:4,

29:7

complaints [1] - 10:5

complete [1] - 20:20

completely [1] - 23:1

complicated [1] -

16:8

complies [1] - 30:25

conceded [1] - 12:20

concepts [1] - 28:7

conclusion [2] - 3:7,

21:8

condition [17] - 4:17,

5:4, 5:6, 5:7, 5:18,

6:8, 6:9, 6:11, 6:15,

9:25, 10:25, 11:18,

28:15, 29:10, 29:12,

29:18

conditions [6] -

25:24, 27:17, 27:18,

27:20, 27:25, 29:13

considered [1] -

34:19

consisted [1] - 30:16

constructive [3] -

28:14, 34:1, 34:15

contained [1] - 7:12

contemplates [1] -

28:23

context [1] - 27:16

continues [1] - 20:13

cook [1] - 19:8

copy [1] - 20:5

corporate [4] -

17:12, 17:13, 17:15,

23:10

corporation [1] -

17:24

Correct [1] - 6:6

correct [6] - 5:24,

9:10, 22:25, 24:1,

24:2, 31:13

corrective [5] - 5:8,

8:24, 29:22, 32:13,

34:3

counsel [6] - 27:4,

29:5, 29:9, 29:15,

35:12, 36:12

COUNSEL [1] - 1:22

count [9] - 7:3, 8:18,

8:19, 13:21, 15:2,

28:3, 32:19, 33:20,

34:22

Count [3] - 3:24, 4:1,

4:3

counter[1] - 14:5

Counts [1] - 34:20

counts [5] - 14:24,

15:13, 27:16, 29:4,

29:24

couple [1] - 3:20

course [9] - 4:9,

10:17, 11:1, 23:2,

23:4, 23:19, 24:11,

24:13

court [5] - 28:22,

36:3, 36:17, 36:20,

37:3

Court [26] - 2:2, 2:3,

3:6, 3:22, 4:14, 4:15,

5:22, 9:1, 10:6, 10:11,

19:4, 27:10, 27:11,

27:15, 28:20, 28:23,

32:10, 32:23, 32:25,

33:1, 35:3, 35:6,

35:10, 36:3, 39:10,

39:10

COURT [46] - 1:1,

3:2, 3:5, 3:15, 10:10,

13:4, 15:9, 20:15,

21:10, 22:15, 22:24,

23:22, 23:25, 24:3,

25:2, 25:22, 27:1,

30:5, 31:10, 31:16,

32:16, 32:18, 33:3,

33:6, 33:8, 33:11,

33:15, 33:19, 34:9,

34:17, 34:19, 35:19,

35:25, 36:5, 36:8,

36:10, 36:18, 36:23,

37:4, 37:7, 37:10,

37:14, 37:17, 37:22,

38:7, 38:9

Court's [4] - 3:18,

25:4, 27:9, 29:10

courtroom [1] -

10:15

courtrooms [1] -

22:5

courts [2] - 4:13,

28:6

crash [2] - 12:21,

13:11

crashes [1] - 17:20

crashing [1] - 6:20

create [3] - 10:23,

12:16, 17:19

created [1] - 26:9

creating [4] - 10:14,

11:17, 16:4, 19:19

crew [5] - 6:14,

10:13, 14:17, 14:19,

14:22

cross [3] - 8:1,

30:15, 35:15

cross-examination

[2] - 8:1, 30:15

CRUISE [2] - 1:7,

1:22

Cruise [2] - 3:25,

14:18

cruise [19] - 4:11,

10:22, 11:22, 12:5,

12:20, 13:1, 14:1,

14:7, 14:20, 14:21,

15:21, 15:22, 15:25,

17:21, 24:15, 26:8,

26:19, 26:23

Cruz [2] - 9:1, 33:9

2

cumulative [1] -

35:20

curriculum [8] - 8:8,

19:2, 19:6, 19:7, 19:9,

20:8, 30:16, 30:23

D

danger[3] - 6:20,

10:17, 10:18

dangerous [20] -

4:17, 5:4, 5:5, 5:18,

6:8, 6:11, 6:15, 9:25,

10:16, 10:25, 11:17,

22:20, 23:6, 27:17,

27:18, 27:20, 27:25,

29:10, 29:11, 29:18

dangerously [1] -

6:19

DARRIN [1] - 1:12

date [2] - 18:17, 33:6

DATE[1] - 39:9

dead [1] - 19:4

dealing [2] - 25:5,

34:22

December[2] - 1:5,

39:9

decision [1] - 25:4

defendant [8] - 1:9,

4:6, 5:5, 14:18, 19:3,

27:23, 27:24, 31:16

DEFENDANT[1] -

1:18

defendant's [1] -

27:16

defense [4] - 3:8,

13:4, 25:13, 33:21

deficient [1] - 30:10

degrees [2] - 16:3,

17:20

demonstration [1] -

18:2

demonstrations [1] -

18:16

denying [1] - 25:1

deposition [6] -

17:12, 35:7, 36:22,

37:1, 37:2, 38:1

design [3] - 24:1,

25:3, 25:9

designed [2] - 21:21

detail [1] - 7:2

determine [1] - 21:2

Diaz [1] - 39:9

DIAZ [2] - 2:2, 39:9

dictates [1] - 23:11

dies [1] - 16:2

difference [1] - 4:4

different [2] - 4:21,

28:7

Case 1:20-cv-21961-DPG Document 180 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/07/2024 Page 41 of 46
direct [12] - 3:23,

3:25, 4:2, 4:4, 4:10,

4:21, 6:3, 28:6, 28:13,

28:25, 29:3, 29:4

directed [1] - 34:22

directly [3] - 4:11,

13:9, 28:16

disagree [2] - 22:18,

34:6

discharge [4] - 8:25,

9:11, 32:13, 34:3

disingenuous [1] -

15:3

dismiss [1] - 33:22

dispositive [2] -

31:11, 31:17

dispute [3] - 7:23,

8:2, 31:6

distinction [1] - 4:13

District [6] - 2:3, 9:3,

32:25, 33:1, 33:10,

39:10

DISTRICT [3] - 1:1,

1:1, 1:12

DIVISION [1] - 1:2

dock [3] - 18:18,

26:1, 30:11

Docket [2] - 14:15,

27:10

docking [5] - 6:20,

9:14, 19:18, 19:21,

21:22

document [2] - 7:14,

18:13

documentation [3] -

8:2, 18:2, 18:15

documents [1] - 8:12

Doe [2] - 9:4, 32:24

done [3] - 23:5, 31:1,

31:23

down [9] - 6:1,

10:23, 11:10, 15:23,

16:2, 24:21, 26:18,

26:24

Dr [2] - 36:2, 36:6

drive [1] - 32:1

driver's [1] - 18:10

drivers [1] - 24:23

duty [8] - 5:3, 5:4,

5:6, 9:25, 10:12, 11:1,

26:13, 28:15

E

easier[2] - 25:4,

32:21

educated [1] - 16:9

eight [1] - 31:4

either[1] - 5:6

element [1] - 28:15

elements [2] - 32:24,

34:25

Eleventh [1] - 28:10

ELMO [1] - 20:1

emergency [1] -

12:16

employee [8] - 4:8,

4:12, 8:23, 8:25, 9:9,

12:10, 14:7, 32:12

employee's [1] -

34:2

employees [4] -

14:17, 14:20, 27:18,

27:19

employer[7] - 8:22,

9:9, 32:11, 32:13,

34:1, 34:2, 34:14

end [2] - 12:11, 35:9

ensure [1] - 27:19

entire [2] - 12:25,

13:2

entirety [1] - 35:24

entitled [2] - 9:18,

39:5

entitles [1] - 6:22

Entry [2] - 14:15,

27:10

Epic [1] - 7:20

errors [7] - 15:20,

15:22, 16:7, 16:8,

16:10, 16:11, 16:23

ESQ [4] - 1:15, 1:18,

1:19, 1:21

essentially [2] -

13:5, 17:21

etcetera [1] - 24:10

evidence [55] - 5:10,

5:11, 5:12, 6:13, 7:9,

8:10, 8:15, 9:11, 10:4,

10:6, 10:13, 11:2,

12:18, 12:19, 13:18,

16:12, 16:22, 16:23,

16:25, 17:1, 17:6,

17:11, 17:24, 18:1,

18:20, 19:7, 19:10,

19:11, 19:24, 20:8,

20:11, 20:14, 22:13,

22:14, 22:20, 22:22,

23:9, 27:21, 29:25,

31:14, 31:16, 31:18,

31:19, 31:25, 32:15,

34:10, 34:13, 34:21,

34:24, 35:4, 38:1,

38:3, 38:6

examination [2] -

8:1, 30:15

excellent [3] - 17:16,

17:17, 17:22

EXCERPT [2] - 1:11,

3:1

excuse [2] - 14:24,

15:1

exhibit [2] - 7:8,

36:13

Exhibit [12] - 7:10,

20:15, 36:15, 37:25,

38:1, 38:2, 38:3, 38:4,

38:5, 38:6

exhibits [1] - 37:25

exist [1] - 29:21

existed [3] - 5:18,

6:12, 29:19

existing [1] - 29:12

exists [1] - 5:7

expecting [1] - 37:19

experienced [1] -

10:3

expert [4] - 5:12,

6:24, 10:15, 30:12

explain [1] - 21:12

extend [1] - 20:20

F

F.4th [1] - 28:9

F.Supp.2d [2] - 9:2,

33:10

facilitator[1] - 20:20

fact [8] - 9:20, 12:4,

13:23, 14:19, 15:15,

16:15, 22:1, 30:10

failed [6] - 4:17,

4:18, 4:19, 7:5, 9:10,

27:24

failing [1] - 21:4

fails [8] - 8:24, 20:23,

20:24, 21:1, 21:24,

29:24, 34:23

failure [34] - 3:24,

3:25, 4:2, 5:2, 5:17,

6:22, 7:3, 8:19, 8:20,

9:16, 9:19, 11:16,

13:13, 13:22, 14:3,

14:6, 14:24, 15:1,

15:5, 15:24, 22:16,

25:22, 25:24, 26:1,

26:3, 26:4, 26:14,

27:13, 27:16, 27:17,

27:18, 28:25, 29:16

far[3] - 5:11, 15:7,

16:13

fast [4] - 12:12,

13:11, 26:16, 26:17

fault [6] - 4:7, 4:8,

4:11, 4:12, 19:6, 29:5

faulting [4] - 5:20,

5:23, 24:7, 24:8

faultless [1] - 4:6

favorable [1] - 31:16

FCRR [2] - 2:2, 39:9

Federal [1] - 3:9

feet [2] - 12:7, 26:8

few [2] - 3:10, 33:11

fifth [2] - 19:10

file [2] - 23:4, 32:21

filing [1] - 3:11

final [1] - 20:7

findings [2] - 3:8,

6:22

fine [6] - 3:19, 5:16,

7:1, 14:10, 26:11

FIRM [1] - 1:16

first [14] - 9:24,

10:12, 16:11, 16:22,

16:23, 19:16, 19:20,

21:16, 21:19, 25:12,

29:3, 34:5

five [8] - 11:18,

11:24, 13:15, 15:16,

15:17, 18:23, 21:7,

22:12

fleshing [1] - 3:12

Floor [2] - 2:4, 39:11

FLORIDA [1] - 1:1

Florida [8] - 1:4,

1:17, 1:20, 2:4, 9:3,

33:1, 33:10, 39:11

folks [2] - 26:5,

26:18

follow [2] - 20:9,

23:10

FOR [2] - 1:15, 1:18

foregoing [1] - 39:3

forget [1] - 16:16

format [1] - 19:17

forth [1] - 26:2

forward [1] - 10:8

fought [1] - 25:14

four [1] - 31:3

fourth [2] - 18:1,

18:20

FPR [2] - 2:2, 39:9

Franza [1] - 14:18

full [1] - 8:14

fundamental [2] -

4:4, 4:13

funny [4] - 22:4, 23:2

G

GAYLES[1] - 1:12

gee [1] - 15:4

general [3] - 6:25,

7:1, 29:13

generally [1] - 25:24

gentleman [4] - 7:12,

8:13, 16:12, 17:6

given [8] - 5:21,

5:23, 6:17, 9:19, 9:20,

27:10, 29:7

3

GOODMAN [1] - 1:15

gotta [2] - 11:25

graduate [1] - 16:19

grant [1] - 34:21

great [1] - 25:14

grounds [3] - 15:17,

21:7, 22:12

guaranteed [1] -

20:3

guess [2] - 24:5,

25:2

guy [5] - 13:10, 14:1,

14:5, 14:6, 24:24

H

handle [3] - 18:19,

21:23, 31:21

handling [2] - 30:6,

30:8

handrails [1] - 23:17

hang [2] - 26:20,

26:22

Hansen [1] - 17:14

hard [1] - 36:2

Harested [2] - 26:9,

26:10

harnesses [1] - 24:9

hats [1] - 24:25

hazardous [1] -

28:15

hear[2] - 3:16, 25:11

heard [1] - 13:7

hearing [1] - 37:11

held [2] - 4:7, 15:17

helpful [1] - 28:2

hereby [1] - 39:3

HEYWARD [1] - 1:15

Hickey [1] - 24:11

HICKEY [20] - 1:15,

1:16, 10:11, 13:21,

15:10, 20:16, 21:14,

22:19, 22:25, 23:23,

24:2, 24:7, 25:6, 26:4,

34:8, 34:16, 35:11,

36:12, 37:15, 37:21

hired [1] - 30:10

hit [1] - 26:1

hold [5] - 24:9,

24:10, 24:19, 25:18,

28:16

holding [1] - 15:25

Holland [2] - 28:8,

28:11

home [1] - 37:15

Hommen [2] - 36:2,

36:6

honest [2] - 26:15,

26:16

Honor [14] - 3:3,

Case 1:20-cv-21961-DPG Document 180 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/07/2024 Page 42 of 46
3:14, 14:14, 20:16,

25:7, 27:3, 32:20,

33:18, 34:18, 35:2,

35:11, 36:1, 37:6,

37:24

Honor's [1] - 15:7

HONORABLE [1] -

1:12

hope [1] - 6:23

hour [3] - 20:19,

35:8, 36:11

HOUSE [1] - 1:22

hurry [2] - 12:11,

26:17

hybrid [1] - 28:13

I

idea [2] - 30:16,

30:23

identify [1] - 36:12

illegally [1] - 29:7

IMO [6] - 7:18, 11:19,

11:21, 23:11, 30:3,

30:19

IMO/Circ [1] - 7:13

important [1] - 3:20

improper[2] - 9:9,

32:12

improperly [1] - 23:5

IN [1] - 1:22

IN-HOUSE [1] - 1:22

inadequate [2] - 8:9,

15:18

inappropriate [1] -

32:12

incident [1] - 17:2

incompetent [1] -

9:12

indicate [1] - 19:18

indicated [4] - 3:22,

4:15, 8:23, 36:3

indicates [1] - 7:14

indicating [2] - 5:15,

30:2

indication [4] - 6:2,

6:17, 8:17, 30:11

industry [5] - 30:3,

30:22, 31:6, 31:11,

32:7

information [3] -

7:11, 10:2, 21:1

injuries [1] - 28:1

inquiry [1] - 27:24

inside [2] - 15:15,

21:6

insisting [1] - 25:13

insufficient [1] -

34:24

intermingle [1] -

28:8

international [1] -

11:18

International [1] -

11:20

interpret [1] - 28:3

interval [3] - 5:17,

5:21, 5:22

intimations [1] - 22:3

investigate [3] -

9:10, 32:14, 34:3

investigating [1] -

8:24

invite [2] - 5:8, 29:21

involving [1] - 22:24

irrelevant[2] - 23:1,

29:7

issue [3] - 6:7, 13:24,

31:12

issued [2] - 7:10,

7:17

itself [9] - 4:17, 4:18,

4:19, 7:4, 7:14, 19:12,

19:13, 20:12, 21:24

J

job [3] - 15:15, 21:6,

29:14

JOHN [1] - 1:15

Joint [2] - 20:15,

36:15

joint [1] - 38:6

joking [2] - 12:25,

13:1

Jomar[4] - 8:2,

36:22, 37:1, 37:2

JUDGE [1] - 1:12

Judge [18] - 5:2, 9:5,

9:17, 10:9, 15:12,

20:10, 24:25, 26:25,

28:6, 29:24, 31:19,

32:9, 33:5, 33:14,

33:22, 33:24, 36:12,

37:15

judgment [4] - 3:8,

6:22, 9:18, 33:24

JURY [1] - 1:11

K

Keijer[28] - 5:12,

6:8, 7:19, 7:24, 10:18,

10:19, 11:5, 11:6,

11:14, 11:15, 12:1,

12:2, 12:8, 15:16,

17:6, 18:21, 19:11,

20:18, 21:7, 21:20,

22:3, 29:14, 30:5,

30:14, 30:23, 31:6,

35:15

KEIJER [1] - 10:19

Keijer's [1] - 5:19

kids [1] - 24:17

kind [2] - 19:3, 32:2

kitchen [1] - 28:4

knots [1] - 12:13

knowledge [8] -

10:21, 18:4, 18:5,

21:22, 24:12, 28:14,

29:18

known [7] - 5:7,

6:18, 10:14, 10:25,

11:17, 12:15, 14:1

knows [3] - 10:21,

11:22, 31:25

L

lack [2] - 6:21, 16:23

landings [1] - 18:12

language [1] - 14:11

last [2] - 23:25, 28:10

lastly [1] - 32:9

late [3] - 12:12, 19:8,

26:17

latter[1] - 26:4

LAW [1] - 1:16

law [5] - 3:11, 3:12,

34:6, 34:23

lawyers [2] - 25:13,

37:19

least [1] - 24:18

leave [2] - 36:10,

37:17

legally [1] - 4:7

length [1] - 11:15

Lexis [2] - 9:5, 32:25

liability [15] - 3:22,

4:5, 4:6, 4:22, 4:25,

6:16, 7:5, 9:23, 15:5,

27:5, 28:7, 28:13,

29:1, 29:3, 29:4

liable [4] - 4:7, 14:16,

14:21, 28:16

license [1] - 18:10

Ligue [1] - 16:16

limit [2] - 20:21, 21:3

Line [2] - 3:25, 14:18

LINE [2] - 1:8, 1:22

line [8] - 4:11, 11:23,

12:20, 14:1, 14:7,

14:20, 14:21, 24:15

lines [1] - 11:22

LISA [1] - 1:15

listing [1] - 18:16

litigation [2] - 30:13,

34:20

lock [2] - 37:17,

37:23

log [3] - 18:12, 22:1,

22:7

logs [1] - 18:16

look [9] - 5:9, 11:4,

20:23, 23:23, 23:24,

25:16, 28:19, 32:10,

33:12

lookout [2] - 11:23,

11:24

lowest [1] - 15:21

LTD [1] - 1:7

M

magically [1] - 6:18

maintain [2] - 11:23,

11:24

maintenance [1] -

28:24

man [3] - 10:2, 30:2,

31:25

Management[1] -

38:5

management [2] -

31:20, 32:4

maneuvering [2] -

9:14, 30:6

mariner[2] - 16:9,

18:8

Maritime [3] - 7:21,

11:20, 30:25

maritime [2] - 16:20,

25:11

mash [1] - 28:12

master[5] - 4:23,

9:21, 13:16, 18:8,

27:8

materials [1] - 35:3

matter[4] - 19:17,

21:17, 34:23, 39:5

MATTHEW[1] - 1:19

McAlpin [6] - 11:4,

12:6, 14:3, 18:23,

22:15, 31:9

MCALPIN [30] - 1:18,

3:3, 3:6, 3:18, 27:3,

30:14, 31:13, 31:18,

32:17, 32:20, 33:4,

33:7, 33:9, 33:14,

33:18, 34:18, 35:2,

35:23, 36:1, 36:6,

36:9, 36:15, 36:19,

36:21, 36:25, 37:6,

37:9, 37:13, 37:24,

38:8

mean [4] - 11:5,

30:9, 30:11, 34:14

medical [1] - 36:6

member[2] - 6:14,

10:13

4

members [3] - 14:17,

14:19, 14:22

memorandum [3] -

3:11, 3:12, 3:17

mercy [1] - 19:5

messed [2] - 26:18,

26:21

MIAMI [1] - 1:2

Miami [7] - 1:4, 1:17,

1:20, 2:3, 2:4, 39:11,

39:11

Michael [1] - 16:16

might [2] - 19:25,

27:3

mile [1] - 12:25

mind [1] - 5:9

minute [1] - 18:6

minutes [3] - 33:11,

33:16, 37:6

mishaps [1] - 10:5

misjudge [1] - 13:11

mistaken [1] - 9:6

mix [1] - 28:8

module [3] - 31:2,

31:3, 31:4

modules [1] - 32:5

moment [1] - 27:1

moments [1] - 3:10

moreover[2] - 6:16,

29:20

morning [2] - 37:11,

37:19

mostly [2] - 23:14,

24:17

motion [5] - 3:4,

32:22, 33:21, 33:23,

34:21

motions [1] - 3:2

mountain [4] - 10:13,

12:18, 12:19, 22:14

move [2] - 3:8, 10:7

MR [47] - 3:3, 3:6,

3:18, 10:11, 13:21,

15:10, 20:16, 21:14,

22:19, 22:25, 23:23,

24:2, 24:7, 25:6, 26:4,

27:3, 30:14, 31:13,

31:18, 32:17, 32:20,

33:4, 33:7, 33:9,

33:14, 33:18, 34:8,

34:16, 34:18, 35:2,

35:11, 35:23, 36:1,

36:6, 36:9, 36:12,

36:15, 36:19, 36:21,

36:25, 37:6, 37:9,

37:13, 37:15, 37:21,

37:24, 38:8

must [3] - 9:9, 9:24,

24:21

Case 1:20-cv-21961-DPG Document 180 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/07/2024 Page 43 of 46
N

name [1] - 16:16

named [1] - 7:15

namely [1] - 35:4

nauseam [1] - 11:8

nautical [1] - 17:14

NCL [19] - 1:7, 9:5,

12:10, 13:9, 13:18,

14:13, 14:15, 15:14,

22:9, 22:16, 22:19,

22:20, 24:8, 24:24,

24:25, 28:20, 30:10,

30:24, 32:25

necessary [1] - 3:15

need [7] - 3:17, 20:4,

23:8, 36:10, 37:20,

37:22

needed [2] - 12:17,

20:21

Negligence [1] - 8:21

negligence [10] -

3:23, 3:25, 4:2, 4:5,

4:10, 4:21, 14:21,

18:22, 28:17, 31:12

negligent [24] - 4:16,

9:8, 13:9, 13:13,

13:18, 13:22, 14:16,

17:25, 19:12, 21:8,

22:12, 24:1, 25:3,

25:9, 27:12, 27:13,

27:23, 28:24, 29:25,

33:20, 33:25, 34:23

negligently [1] - 13:6

never[2] - 25:7,

31:24

next [5] - 20:14,

20:17, 20:25, 35:1,

36:21

NO [1] - 1:2

none [5] - 11:2,

16:14, 18:14, 22:6

North [2] - 2:3, 39:11

NORWEGIAN [2] -

1:7, 1:22

Norwegian [19] -

3:25, 4:11, 4:17, 4:18,

4:19, 5:14, 5:16, 6:7,

6:14, 6:17, 7:4, 7:10,

7:20, 9:23, 29:18,

29:20, 29:21

Norwegian's [1] -

5:20

note [1] - 3:20

notes [4] - 15:11,

23:23, 23:24, 27:15

nothing [12] - 7:22,

9:12, 9:16, 18:19,

18:20, 18:24, 19:17,

19:21, 19:22, 22:25,

23:6

notice [11] - 5:3, 5:4,

6:21, 9:24, 29:1, 29:2,

29:5, 29:9, 34:1,

34:15

notion [1] - 27:4

November[1] -

15:14

number[17] - 3:21,

8:10, 11:18, 11:24,

15:20, 15:23, 15:24,

18:23, 20:22, 23:7,

23:8, 31:2, 31:3, 31:4,

33:2, 33:4

Number[3] - 37:25,

38:2, 38:4

numbers [1] - 36:13

O

o'clock [4] - 36:2,

36:4, 36:7, 37:12

objected [2] - 20:10,

20:12

objection [1] - 35:20

observation [1] -

24:5

occasions [1] - 7:24

occurs [1] - 8:21

October[3] - 24:16,

28:10, 33:7

OF [3] - 1:1, 1:11, 3:1

offered [1] - 20:11

officer[4] - 15:14,

16:14, 16:15, 16:19

official [1] - 2:2

Official [1] - 39:10

OK [1] - 22:11

old [1] - 24:17

older [2] - 23:14,

24:23

once [1] - 20:24

one [19] - 3:21, 8:10,

11:4, 12:9, 12:10,

12:25, 14:23, 14:24,

15:20, 15:23, 16:11,

18:4, 20:19, 22:4,

23:7, 24:21, 33:21,

34:10

open [3] - 36:17,

36:20, 37:3

opening [2] - 13:15,

27:7

operate [1] - 13:6

operating [3] - 8:13,

9:15, 26:13

operation [8] - 4:16,

7:11, 8:16, 13:13,

13:19, 25:3, 27:23

operations [1] -

17:15

operator[11] - 4:19,

4:20, 6:4, 7:17, 9:12,

9:24, 13:6, 13:23,

27:22, 34:11, 35:7

operator's [2] -

13:19, 30:8

opportunity [5] -

3:13, 13:2, 29:20,

29:22, 32:21

opposed [1] - 4:12

order[5] - 9:8, 9:25,

33:6, 33:21, 33:23

Organization [1] -

11:20

orphan [1] - 19:5

outline [1] - 3:10

outset [1] - 3:21

overtaking [1] - 6:9

own [3] - 10:15, 17:3,

28:17

owner [1] - 28:16

owner's [1] - 28:14

P

p.m [3] - 1:6, 38:10

PA [3] - 12:22, 12:23,

13:2

page [6] - 5:19, 6:1,

7:25, 20:14, 20:17,

28:3

Pages [1] - 1:9

paragraph [5] -

13:23, 14:11, 14:13,

14:15, 15:6

paragraphs [1] -

14:23

parents [1] - 19:4

part [5] - 28:15,

30:11, 31:21, 31:23,

32:9

partial [2] - 3:8, 6:22

particular[4] - 14:2,

18:9, 21:23

pass [1] - 21:18

passed [3] - 8:2, 8:4

passengers [3] -

11:8, 12:17, 17:10

passes [3] - 20:2,

20:3, 21:16

passing [2] - 20:22,

21:4

past [1] - 13:24

PATRICIA[2] - 2:2,

39:9

pause [1] - 37:4

people [11] - 22:9,

23:12, 23:13, 23:14,

23:18, 24:16, 24:17,

24:23, 25:17, 26:5,

26:14

per[1] - 8:14

percent [1] - 20:22

perhaps [1] - 25:3

period [3] - 5:8, 10:8,

29:21

person [6] - 7:15,

11:16, 17:10, 18:17,

22:7, 30:18

personnel [3] - 23:4,

27:13, 27:14

perspective [1] -

25:5

physically [1] - 34:11

pick [1] - 37:7

piece [10] - 16:11,

16:22, 16:23, 16:25,

17:5, 17:11, 17:24,

18:1, 18:20, 19:10

pilot [1] - 18:11

pilots [1] - 18:11

Plaintiff [1] - 1:5

plaintiff [11] - 4:23,

9:20, 12:24, 19:7,

27:8, 27:17, 27:21,

27:22, 27:25, 33:25,

34:5

PLAINTIFF [1] - 1:15

plaintiff's [3] - 3:7,

27:12, 30:12

plans [1] - 35:12

platform [9] - 6:11,

6:20, 13:12, 16:1,

17:9, 17:21, 26:6,

26:7

play [2] - 8:20, 20:25

played [6] - 35:15,

35:16, 36:17, 36:20,

37:2

plead [8] - 4:24,

4:25, 9:20, 9:22, 13:8,

13:16, 14:5, 27:9

pleadings [1] - 9:18

pleads [1] - 27:16

plethora [1] - 10:12

point [8] - 5:14, 19:9,

20:25, 23:25, 25:2,

32:22, 35:3, 37:24

points [1] - 5:9

port [2] - 8:15, 17:14

predicated [2] - 4:8,

27:5

premises [1] - 28:25

prepared [1] - 32:22

present [3] - 3:3,

27:21, 35:21

president [1] - 17:14

pretty [1] - 31:25

prevail [1] - 9:8

5

prevention [2] -

19:19

problem [12] - 5:13,

5:15, 5:16, 8:16, 9:13,

11:9, 11:11, 11:14,

12:2, 12:4, 22:17,

31:25

problems [3] - 8:23,

10:4, 10:5

Procedure [1] - 3:9

procedures [3] -

20:17, 21:17, 21:22

proceed [3] - 27:12,

27:22, 34:21

proceeded [1] - 29:8

PROCEEDINGS [1] -

3:1

proceedings [2] -

38:10, 39:4

produced [2] -

18:14, 22:2

proof [2] - 9:19,

30:17

proper[4] - 9:10,

11:23, 11:24, 27:19

properly [7] - 4:18,

7:5, 8:17, 10:3, 17:7,

32:3, 32:6

proposition [3] - 9:4,

9:7, 32:11

prove [2] - 14:9,

24:11

provide [2] - 24:19,

29:22

provided [2] - 20:8,

23:3

proving [1] - 31:5

provision [1] - 7:15

publish [2] - 35:3,

35:6

published [1] - 35:24

pull [1] - 10:21

put [3] - 7:8, 18:18,

32:2

putting [1] - 19:7

Q

quarrel [1] - 11:7

questioned [1] - 31:7

questions [1] - 22:3

quiet [1] - 17:3

quote [1] - 8:21

R

rails [4] - 24:4, 24:9,

24:18

rather[1] - 4:16

re [1] - 15:24

Case 1:20-cv-21961-DPG Document 180 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/07/2024 Page 44 of 46
read [2] - 15:11,

21:16

reading [1] - 14:13

ready [1] - 35:1

real [2] - 21:21,

21:22

realized [1] - 25:14

really [2] - 12:14,

20:21

reason [1] - 13:15

reasonable [3] -

25:10, 25:12, 25:15

reasons [1] - 21:25

reassignment [2] -

8:25, 34:4

received [1] - 34:1

Recess [1] - 33:17

recess [1] - 37:10

recognized [3] -

4:14, 11:19, 11:22

recommended [3] -

7:16, 30:18, 30:21

record [10] - 6:13,

6:24, 7:23, 8:15, 10:7,

12:19, 18:12, 30:12,

32:8, 37:25

recover[1] - 27:23

redirect [1] - 12:8

referenced [1] - 7:19

regard [5] - 5:15,

22:22, 23:12, 25:22,

26:24

regarding [7] -

23:25, 27:21, 30:6,

30:7, 30:8, 32:19,

34:7

regimen [1] - 22:11

regiment [1] - 23:20

regulation [1] -

11:20

regulations [1] -

11:21

Rehan [1] - 37:23

relevance [1] - 11:11

relevant[1] - 11:13

reliable [1] - 32:2

relying [1] - 28:20

remainder[1] -

20:13

repetitive [1] - 27:7

replead [1] - 25:8

reply [1] - 27:2

REPORTED [1] - 2:1

Reporter[2] - 2:2,

39:10

representative [4] -

17:12, 17:13, 17:15,

23:10

require [1] - 29:4

required [1] - 13:25

requirements [1] -

8:3

requires [2] - 29:1

resolving [2] - 33:21,

33:23

respectfully [1] -

10:7

respondeat [1] -

14:20

response [1] - 10:10

responsible [1] -

14:16

resume [1] - 37:14

retake [1] - 20:24

reverberate[1] -

10:24

reverse [1] - 18:18

review [1] - 21:1

reviewed [2] - 17:2,

17:16

RICHARD [1] - 1:18

roll [2] - 6:10, 26:1

rollers [4] - 17:19,

26:9, 26:11, 26:20

rolling [2] - 6:19,

12:21

rolls [2] - 17:9, 17:22

rooms [2] - 37:18,

37:23

rough [1] - 18:19

Royal [1] - 14:18

RPR [2] - 2:2, 39:9

RUGGERI [1] - 1:4

Ruggeri [1] - 16:6

rule [3] - 3:17, 11:18,

11:24

Rule [2] - 3:4, 3:9

RULE [1] - 1:11

rules [1] - 11:19

Rules [1] - 3:9

ruling [1] - 3:18

rulings [1] - 4:14

run [4] - 5:22, 16:17,

16:20, 24:15

runs [1] - 14:4

rushing [1] - 17:18

S

Safety [1] - 38:4

safety [2] - 35:4, 35:5

school [1] - 24:17

scope [1] - 4:9

score [1] - 20:22

screen [2] - 11:8,

19:13

sea [4] - 27:17,

27:18, 27:20, 29:13

seaman [4] - 15:21,

16:17, 18:2, 21:9

seamanship [4] -

10:21, 17:17, 17:22

season [1] - 8:14

seasons [3] - 8:14,

9:14, 31:24

seatbelts [3] - 23:17,

24:4, 24:8

seats [8] - 23:15,

23:16, 24:12, 24:14,

24:20, 24:22, 24:23,

25:17

second [7] - 5:17,

7:3, 15:21, 16:25,

17:5, 21:20, 37:4

seconds [9] - 6:4,

6:8, 6:12, 6:15, 6:18,

12:6, 12:15, 29:13,

29:17

see [5] - 14:18,

20:12, 33:12, 34:5,

35:22

seeking [1] - 28:16

sense [1] - 8:10

set [1] - 29:8

settle [1] - 26:24

seven [1] - 26:8

several [3] - 6:3,

7:24, 37:19

shaking [1] - 17:10

shall [1] - 27:11

ship [12] - 10:22,

12:5, 13:1, 15:21,

15:22, 16:1, 17:21,

26:8, 26:19, 26:23,

28:14, 28:16

ship's [1] - 28:24

shipboard [1] -

14:16

ships [2] - 14:22,

17:22

shoots [1] - 19:4

shoulder [1] - 24:9

show [13] - 11:8,

13:9, 13:18, 14:1,

19:25, 20:1, 20:4,

22:16, 23:5, 34:1,

36:13, 36:21

showed [2] - 18:17,

36:24

showing [1] - 35:12

shown [6] - 35:13,

35:14, 35:16, 37:25,

38:1, 38:2

side [4] - 16:5, 17:9

sides [1] - 3:16

sideways [1] - 16:4

sign [1] - 21:6

signed [1] - 15:13

similar[1] - 10:5

simply [1] - 29:24

sink [1] - 28:4

sitting [1] - 10:15

situation [7] - 10:16,

12:16, 19:23, 21:23,

26:25, 31:21, 32:14

situational [1] - 12:1

skills [1] - 30:8

slow [1] - 10:23

slowdown [1] -

12:13

slowed [2] - 26:18

slowing [1] - 15:23

SMS [1] - 38:4

so-called [1] - 6:15

someone [2] - 18:7,

25:25

sorry [3] - 15:11,

20:15, 37:4

SOUTHERN [1] - 1:1

Southern [3] - 9:3,

32:25, 33:10

specific [3] - 23:19,

30:23, 35:5

specifically [2] -

25:25, 32:10

speculating [1] -

31:22

stage [2] - 30:13,

34:20

stand [5] - 11:6,

11:12, 15:4, 18:21,

32:11

standard [6] - 17:23,

22:9, 22:10, 25:10,

30:3, 32:24

standards [8] - 7:16,

17:23, 30:19, 30:21,

30:22, 31:6, 31:11,

32:7

standing [3] - 9:4,

9:6, 24:8

stands [1] - 32:8

start [4] - 5:22, 36:1,

36:2, 37:12

statement [2] - 11:5,

25:15

States [2] - 2:3,

39:10

STATES[2] - 1:1,

1:12

staying [1] - 15:25

stemming [1] - 28:24

STENOGRAPHICA

LLY [1] - 2:1

step [1] - 11:10

stepping [1] - 11:10

steps [2] - 9:10,

11:10

still [4] - 4:7, 25:1,

27:4, 27:5

6

stop [2] - 17:18,

35:10

Stores [2] - 9:2, 33:9

story [2] - 31:21,

31:23

STREET [1] - 1:19

Street [1] - 1:19

strike [1] - 6:11

strong [3] - 31:18,

31:19, 31:25

struck [1] - 21:16

student [3] - 20:23,

21:1, 21:2

stuff [3] - 19:15,

29:6, 32:16

subject [1] - 19:17

submit [2] - 10:7,

22:13

sufficient [2] - 5:7,

34:21

suggest [1] - 9:12

Suite [2] - 1:16, 1:20

summary [1] - 33:24

superior[1] - 14:21

supervise [8] - 4:2,

4:20, 8:19, 8:20, 9:16,

22:16, 27:19, 34:11

supervised [1] -

16:13

supervision [19] -

8:21, 9:8, 10:4, 14:10,

15:18, 16:13, 16:24,

17:25, 18:22, 19:12,

21:9, 22:13, 27:14,

32:9, 32:24, 33:20,

33:25, 34:23

supervisor[1] - 21:5

supplied [1] - 22:22

support [1] - 9:17

supporting [1] -

18:21

surface [4] - 10:22,

10:24, 26:7, 26:19

SW [1] - 1:19

swears [1] - 24:20

System [1] - 38:5

T

table [1] - 37:21

tables [1] - 37:20

takeoffs [1] - 18:11

taught [1] - 19:18

tender[29] - 4:16,

6:9, 6:10, 6:19, 7:10,

7:16, 8:14, 8:16, 9:14,

9:23, 12:5, 13:6,

13:19, 13:20, 13:23,

16:14, 17:8, 22:23,

24:3, 25:25, 26:1,

Case 1:20-cv-21961-DPG Document 180 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/07/2024 Page 45 of 46
27:22, 30:7, 34:11,

35:4, 35:5

tendering [2] -

22:20, 23:6

tenders [2] - 23:13,

30:11

test [32] - 18:5,

18:10, 19:12, 19:13,

19:14, 19:17, 19:18,

19:23, 19:24, 19:25,

20:2, 20:4, 20:5, 20:7,

20:17, 20:19, 20:22,

20:23, 20:24, 21:1,

21:3, 21:11, 21:13,

21:14, 21:15, 21:16,

21:22, 21:24, 38:2

testified [9] - 15:16,

16:25, 17:4, 17:13,

18:21, 19:11, 20:18,

21:7, 21:20

testify [1] - 11:15

testimony [17] -

5:14, 5:18, 5:19, 6:1,

6:2, 6:3, 6:23, 8:9,

10:18, 10:20, 12:6,

12:24, 17:1, 18:3,

21:19, 23:9, 32:3

THE [48] - 1:12, 1:15,

1:18, 3:2, 3:5, 3:15,

10:10, 13:4, 15:9,

20:15, 21:10, 22:15,

22:24, 23:22, 23:25,

24:3, 25:2, 25:22,

27:1, 30:5, 31:10,

31:16, 32:16, 32:18,

33:3, 33:6, 33:8,

33:11, 33:15, 33:19,

34:9, 34:17, 34:19,

35:19, 35:25, 36:5,

36:8, 36:10, 36:18,

36:23, 37:4, 37:7,

37:10, 37:14, 37:17,

37:22, 38:7, 38:9

themselves [1] -

8:12

theories [2] - 4:22,

29:1

theory [2] - 27:5,

29:13

therefore [1] - 14:20

thinks [1] - 5:22

third [6] - 8:18,

17:11, 17:24, 19:23,

20:2, 34:22

three [4] - 15:24,

19:14, 29:4, 31:2

throughout [1] -

20:13

throw [1] - 26:19

thrown [1] - 28:4

tight [2] - 26:20,

26:22

today [3] - 10:16,

32:8, 36:10

tomorrow [7] - 36:2,

36:3, 36:7, 37:8,

37:11, 37:12, 37:19

tonight [1] - 37:16

took [2] - 7:2, 18:17

total [1] - 8:15

train [10] - 4:1, 4:18,

7:3, 7:5, 23:8, 23:9,

23:20, 24:23, 24:24,

27:17

trained [17] - 7:12,

7:15, 8:18, 10:3,

16:12, 17:7, 17:10,

22:8, 30:2, 30:4,

30:18, 31:5, 31:10,

31:20, 32:4, 32:6

trainer[1] - 31:1

training [38] - 7:11,

7:16, 7:21, 7:22, 8:2,

8:7, 8:8, 8:9, 8:11,

10:2, 14:10, 15:11,

15:12, 15:13, 15:18,

16:24, 17:25, 18:4,

18:8, 18:22, 19:12,

20:7, 20:9, 21:9,

22:10, 22:12, 23:12,

23:20, 25:20, 27:13,

29:25, 30:4, 30:6,

30:9, 30:12, 30:15,

30:19, 32:5

transcription [1] -

39:4

transcripts [1] -

35:16

transits [1] - 31:24

transporting [1] -

25:25

travel [1] - 14:9

TRIAL [1] - 1:11

trial [3] - 20:13,

27:12, 29:8

tried [2] - 20:11,

28:21

trigger[1] - 9:25

triggered [1] - 5:3

triggers [1] - 5:4

try [2] - 18:25, 19:8

trying [3] - 15:11,

27:4, 28:3

turn [6] - 15:24, 16:3,

17:19, 17:20, 18:18,

26:23

turning [1] - 7:3

TV [1] - 11:8

twenty [1] - 37:6

twice [2] - 21:1, 21:4

two [19] - 8:14, 9:14,

11:3, 15:12, 15:23,

17:21, 18:3, 18:4,

20:22, 21:20, 21:24,

22:8, 23:8, 31:24,

32:10, 32:18, 32:23,

33:12, 33:20

types [1] - 18:3

U

ultimate [1] - 27:24

ultimately [1] - 14:19

uncertified [1] -

16:17

unchallenged [1] -

30:1

under [11] - 3:8,

11:19, 14:9, 14:10,

14:20, 22:10, 25:10,

25:12, 25:15, 28:25,

29:4

understood [2] -

13:14, 34:13

unfitness [3] - 8:23,

34:2, 34:15

Ungaro [3] - 9:5,

33:5, 33:22

unimpeached [1] -

30:1

united [1] - 2:3

United [1] - 39:10

UNITED [2] - 1:1,

1:12

up [21] - 10:21,

11:12, 11:17, 12:24,

15:4, 17:10, 18:11,

18:24, 19:8, 19:15,

24:21, 26:15, 26:18,

26:21, 28:8, 29:8,

32:16, 35:21, 37:7,

37:23

utter[1] - 9:19

V

valid [1] - 21:15

valuations [1] - 23:4

various [1] - 23:14

verbal [1] - 21:13

verbally [1] - 21:2

verdict [1] - 34:22

verification [1] - 30:7

versus [10] - 9:1, 9:4,

14:18, 28:9, 28:11,

28:13, 28:19, 28:20,

32:25, 33:9

vertical [4] - 10:22,

10:24, 26:7, 26:19

vessel [2] - 26:11,

27:22

vicarious [11] - 3:21,

4:5, 4:6, 4:25, 6:16,

7:5, 9:23, 15:4, 27:5,

28:7, 28:13

vicariously [1] -

14:15

vice [1] - 17:14

Video [2] - 36:17,

36:20

video [9] - 17:2,

17:16, 24:25, 35:4,

35:5, 35:7, 36:21,

36:22, 37:5

videos [7] - 12:3,

35:12, 35:15, 35:16,

35:24, 36:23

videotaped [2] -

37:1, 37:2

view [1] - 5:16

violently [1] - 16:5

VIVIAN [1] - 1:4

vs [1] - 1:6

W

wake [18] - 6:9,

10:23, 10:24, 16:1,

16:2, 16:4, 18:20,

19:19, 19:20, 21:23,

30:7, 30:8, 30:9,

31:20, 32:4

wakes [1] - 26:20

wall [1] - 10:22

wants [2] - 33:1,

35:10

warn [36] - 3:24,

4:17, 4:19, 4:20, 5:3,

5:6, 5:17, 6:4, 6:23,

9:25, 10:12, 11:1,

11:2, 11:16, 12:17,

13:14, 13:22, 13:23,

14:3, 14:6, 14:25,

15:1, 15:5, 25:22,

25:24, 26:1, 26:3,

26:14, 27:13, 27:17,

27:25, 28:25, 29:11,

29:16

warned [2] - 6:4,

11:3

warning [11] - 6:17,

11:11, 11:12, 12:5,

12:20, 14:10, 14:11,

19:22, 29:23, 35:5

warnings [10] - 5:13,

5:15, 5:20, 5:23, 6:25,

7:1, 11:7, 12:3, 27:20

watch [3] - 11:10,

11:25, 26:14

water[1] - 26:8

7

waters [1] - 23:19

waves [1] - 18:20

ways [1] - 16:7

weight [1] - 32:2

whereas [1] - 4:10

witness [1] - 35:1

word [2] - 21:17

words [5] - 5:7,

10:15, 12:1, 16:6,

29:22

worry [1] - 5:1

wow [1] - 21:17

written [7] - 3:11,

12:3, 19:12, 19:13,

19:24, 21:13, 32:22

Y

year[2] - 24:17,

28:10

years [2] - 25:12,

25:13

Yusko [3] - 28:20,

28:22, 28:23

Z

Zloch [1] - 33:24

Case 1:20-cv-21961-DPG Document 180 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/07/2024 Page 46 of 46