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

VIVIAN RUGGERI, Miami, Florida

Plaintiff, June 26, 2023

vs. 10:06 a.m. to 11:55 a.m.

NCL (BAHAMAS) LTD., Pages 1 to 47

Defendant.

______________________________________________________________

MOTION HEARING

BEFORE THE HONORABLE DARRIN P. GAYLES

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

APPEARANCES:

FOR THE PLAINTIFF: LISA GOODMAN, ESQ.

THE HICKEY LAW FIRM

1401 Brickell Avenue

Suite 510

Miami, Florida 33131

FOR THE DEFENDANT: RICHARD McALPIN, ESQ.

MATTHEW STREET, ESQ.

McALPIN, TANNER, MARCOTTE

80 SW 8 Street

Suite 2805

Miami, Florida 33130

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 107 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/07/2023 Page 1 of 47
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

(Call to the Order of the Court.)

THE COURT: Good morning. Please be seated.

COURTROOM DEPUTY: Calling case 20-CV-29161, Ruggeri

versus NCL Bahamas Limited.

Counsel, please state your appearances, starting with

the plaintiff.

MS. GOODMAN: Good morning, Your Honor, Lisa Goodman

from Hickey Law Firm on behalf of the plaintiff.

MR. McALPIN: Good morning, Richard McAlpin and Matthew

street for Norweigian Cruise Lines.

THE COURT: All right. We are here for a hearing on

the motion for summary judgment, so are you ready to proceed,

Counsel?

MR. McALPIN: Yes, Your Honor. Mr. Street is going to

argue for us.

MR. STREET: Norweigian is entitled to final summary

judgment on plaintiff's three count complaint.

As described in our motion, complaint pleads, Failure

to warn of an unreasonably dangerous sea condition, failure to

train to warn of a dangerous sea condition, and failure to

supervise to warn of a dangerous sea condition.

I am going to review a little bit of the pleadings in

the complaint because I think it's important that we understand

exactly what was plead in the three separate counts.

First, we can look at Count 1 that's titled, Negligent

Case 1:20-cv-21961-DPG Document 107 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/07/2023 Page 2 of 47
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

Failure to Warn.

Paragraph 20, "This is an action for negligence of NCL

failing to warn passengers, including Ruggeri, of its hazards,

risks or dangers."

Next, plaintiff lists out the duties owed by Norwegian

in paragraphs 21, 22 and 23. Specifically, they state,

"Norwegian had a duty to exercise reasonable care for the

safety of its passengers."

Duty is to warn of dangers known to Norwegian --

THE COURT REPORTER: Can you read a little slower,

please?

MR. STREET: Sorry.

And Norwegian is directly negligent for failing to warn

its passengers of the dangerous condition.

Paragraph 22, Norweigian had a duty to provide safe

ingress and egress to and from the ship.

Paragraph 23, This is -- the main thrust of this

particular paragraph relates to dangerous weather and sea

conditions that alleges that Norwegian owed a duty to safely

navigate so passengers are not subjected to unreasonably

dangerous conditions at seas, and a duty to warn of the risk of

injury associated with dangerous weather and sea conditions.

The next of the paragraph relates to, tendering can be

dangerous in rough seas.

Rough seas has forced Norweigian to skip ports of call

Case 1:20-cv-21961-DPG Document 107 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/07/2023 Page 3 of 47
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

altogether at times.

Continuing, paragraphs 27 through 30, Plaintiff's

thrust of this argument is that the tender vessel should not

have gone out in the rough weather conditions and that

Norweigian should have warned passengers of the rough weather

conditions. That's 27, 28, 29, 30.

Next, plaintiffs list Norwegian's breaches in paragraph

33, Norweigian breaches its duty by failing to properly,

adequately and/or reasonably warn Ruggeri of the dangerous sea

conditions.

Notably, in this paragraph it states, Norweigian failed

to warn passengers of NCL's decision to sail into unreasonably

dangerous weather conditions.

Finally, the plaintiff alleges the breaches that

proximately caused her injuries, to plead all four essential

elements, duty to breach causation, the final proximate cause.

Paragraph 34, NCL's failure to warn and properly,

adequately warn Ruggeri of the dangerous conditions proximately

caused the plaintiff's injuries. Had Norwegian properly warned

Ruggeri of the dangerous conditions, Ruggeri would have been

aware of the dangerous conditions.

This is a failure to warn count that we failed to warn

the plaintiff of the dangerous sea conditions, notably from the

weather.

Next, in Count 2, negligent training of personnel. So,

Case 1:20-cv-21961-DPG Document 107 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/07/2023 Page 4 of 47
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

again, plaintiff lays out this complaint, duties, breaches,

causations. She entitles them duties owed by Norwegian. Those

are paragraphs 38, 39, 40 and 41.

Similar duties, as alleged in Count 1, duty to exercise

reasonable care for the safety of its passengers, duty to

provide safe ingress and egress to and from the ship, duty to

train its crew members to warn of dangers known to Norweigian.

And, again, the rest of the paragraph relays things similar as

in the first count, tendering can be dangerous in rough seas,

rough seas force Norweigian to skip ports of call altogether,

etcetera.

In paragraph 41, duty to train its crew members to warn

its passengers of the dangerous conditions on board the ship.

Moving on, so, again, you have to plead the essential

elements, duty of breach of causation damages. That was the

duties owed.

The breaches owed or the breaches by Norwegian were

alleged in paragraph 49 and paragraph 50, Plaintiff alleges

that Norweigian failed to reasonably train its crew members to

warn passengers of the dangerous condition on board the ship.

Paragraph 50, Norweigian's crew member that was

responsible for providing proper and adequate warnings failed

to do so. Because that crew member was not properly trained,

that crew member failed to properly and adequately warn

passengers of the dangerous conditions.

Case 1:20-cv-21961-DPG Document 107 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/07/2023 Page 5 of 47
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

In this count, plaintiff is alleging that Norweigian

breached its duty by failing to reasonably training its rue

crew members to warn passengers. This is a failure to warn

claim.

Again, finally, the plaintiff describes how the

breaches caused her injuries in the proximate cause, paragraph

51, Had Norweigian properly trained its crew members to warn

passengers about the dangerous conditions, the crew member

would have warned Ruggeri, and that failure to properly and

adequately train the crew members proximately caused Ruggeri's

injuries. So, again, even with causation, she is alleging that

the failure to warn proximately caused her injuries.

Count 3, Negligent Supervision of Personnel, it's a cut

and paste directly from the negligent training from Count 2.

We can go through it one by one, but it's going to be the exact

same language, only substituting supervise for train.

So, given plaintiff's allegations, as she plead them,

Norwegian moved for the summary judgment on the three counts.

Again, that's a failure to warn and two derivatives of a

failure to warn: A negligent training to failure to warn, and

a negligent supervision of a failure to warn. So, in order for

the plaintiff to survive the summary judgment, she must show

genuine issue of material fact to a failure to warn count.

Because of the three counts -- as the Court is aware,

the moving party is entitled to summary judgment as a matter of

Case 1:20-cv-21961-DPG Document 107 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/07/2023 Page 6 of 47
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

law when there is no genuine issue of material fact. This

matter is governed by general maritime law. In general

maritime, the plaintiff must prove that Norwegian owed her a

duty, breached that duty, the breach was the proximate cause

and that she suffered the injuries.

It's well established that a cruise line does not

become liable to a passenger merely because an accident

occurred. Cruise ship operators owe us passengers the duty to

exercise reasonable care under the circumstances, and that

includes a duty to warn passengers of dangers which the carrier

knows or should know, but which may not be apparent to a

reasonable passenger.

THE COURT: So, Counsel, as I understand it, your basic

point is that the seas were calm when the vessel attempted to

dock as opposed to the allegations in the complaint. Correct?

MR. STREET: Correct, Your Honor.

THE COURT: There is a video, which is not normally the

case when we get these matters in for summary judgment, and it

does show, I mean, to a layperson, the water seemed to be

relatively calm until the approach. And then there is some

rocking back and forth of the tender, and even the other vessel

that's visible from the video starts to rock a bit.

So, how should I consider that?

I know you want me to consider the allegations in a

broader sense about the general weather conditions and the

Case 1:20-cv-21961-DPG Document 107 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/07/2023 Page 7 of 47
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

conditions of the sea that day, but why shouldn't I also focus

on what happened at the time of the incident where the ship

seemed to clearly rocking back and forth?

MR. STREET: Sure, Your Honor.

It may be helpful to give a timeline. So, that

video -- this case has been pending for quite some time. That

video was propounded to plaintiff's counsel October 26th, 2020.

In that video, we also propounded the CCTV footage, which as

the Court is aware, shows fairly calm seas and weather isn't an

issue.

We also produced a deck log that confirms the same, the

wind was at three knots and the seas were smooth and calm. So,

from that time, plaintiff had a chance to amend their

allegations to come up with some other theory, and it appears,

based on some of these responses, that plaintiff's new theory

is that the dangerous condition was caused by the tender vessel

or the operation of the tender vessel. Yet, that is nowhere in

the pleadings.

There is nothing on the pleadings about negligent

operation. The pleadings are focused on the weather conditions

themselves.

THE COURT: The plaintiff's expert opined that the

operator's failure -- I don't have it open but it was basically

opining that the tender operator's actions caused a wake, which

caused all of this to happen. So, the defendant would have

Case 1:20-cv-21961-DPG Document 107 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/07/2023 Page 8 of 47
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

been aware of that theory. I mean, that seems to be a pretty

prominent part of the plaintiff's expert's opinion. Right?

MR. STREET: So with that being said, we view -- the

plaintiffs --

THE COURT: Let me back up.

So, I guess the point is, even if the plaintiff didn't

adequately plead the negligent operation by the tender

operator, their expert clearly placed the blame on the tender

operator's operation of the tender and that that's what caused

the plaintiff's injury.

MR. STREET: Right. I think it's important to go back

to a timeline. So, if you indulge me, I will try to keep it

very brief here.

Again, the plaintiff had the discovery, the CCTV

footage and the deck logs since October 26th, 2020. The case

got stayed May 10th, 2021. Plaintiff's deposition was taken

February 12th, 2021.

The case was reopened November 10th, 2021.

THE COURT: This is stayed because of COVID, was it

not?

MR. STREET: No, Your Honor, the plaintiff went back

for a second surgery.

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. STREET: November 30th, the Court issued an amended

scheduling order and set a deadline of March 24th, 2022, to

Case 1:20-cv-21961-DPG Document 107 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/07/2023 Page 9 of 47
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

amend the complaint, for plaintiff to amend the complaint. The

expert report came out. We received a copy one week prior to

disclosures. I think it was the second week of August, 2022.

Fact discovery had been closed. That was the first time that

we started hearing about the operation of the tender vessel.

Now, with that also being said, August 2nd, plaintiff's

counsel, in conversations with opposing counsel -- we pointed

out some of the deficiencies that we thought in her pleadings

specifically to negligent operation, and we advised -- she

actually advised us, sent an e-mail with a proposed amended

complaint and asked if we would oppose her motion for leave to

amend the complaint. We said yes because it was untimely as of

March; not to mention, we don't think it applies to other

issues, but plaintiff's counsel decided not to seek leave from

this Court to amend her complaint to add those specific

negligent operation counts and facts.

So, with that being said, we didn't have any fact

discovery. The entire discovery -- the tone and tenor was

based around the dangerous weather conditions, not the

operation of the tender vessel.

THE COURT: So, once you received the expert's opinion

regarding the tender's operation of the vessel, what did the

defense do?

MR. STREET: Pardon me?

THE COURT: Did you explore that at all?

Case 1:20-cv-21961-DPG Document 107 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/07/2023 Page 10 of 47
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

MR. STREET: Yes, Your Honor, we filed a Daubert

motion.

We actually have a pending amended motion in limine on

those specific issues moving to strike all of his opinions

related today the operation of the tender vessel.

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. STREET: From our standpoint, we did have about a

week with our expert to do as best as we could in terms of

getting something in a report to rebut at least something in

the event that this Court does grant her motion for leave to

amend, which she ultimately chose not to proceed with.

THE COURT: Well, I mean, that's what I'm getting at.

Did your expert respond to that allegation, to that

opinion?

MR. STREET: Very limited, Your Honor. We would like

the opportunity to conduct more fact discovery related to the

actual operation of the tender vessel. That was never an issue

during the fact discovery. We didn't look into that because it

wasn't plead.

THE COURT: Again, I understand that the negligent

operation wasn't specifically plead.

When you look at Counts 2 and 3 -- give me just a

moment -- it talks about dangerous sea conditions, including

the tender boat crashing into the removable or floating dock,

and that's something that the plaintiff should have been warned

Case 1:20-cv-21961-DPG Document 107 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/07/2023 Page 11 of 47
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

about. So -- well, that goes back to a factual question.

Did the tender actually crash into the dock?

MR. STREET: It appears it did bump into the dock from

the footage. The footage speaks for itself.

THE COURT: So, I don't think there was -- from your

pleadings, I don't think there is any dispute that the operator

was at a superior vantage point than the plaintiff and the

other passengers that were sitting below the operator.

Is that correct?

MR. STREET: That is correct, Your Honor. He sits

higher.

THE COURT: So, I mean, crashing into the dock, would

that not -- I mean, didn't that cause at least some of the

movement that led to the plaintiff's injury, allegedly?

MR. STREET: Allegedly, we don't think so.

Allegedly, the causation -- and, again, if you are

going to read on certain counts, she alleges potentially,

generally, you could say she alleges different duties, but she

doesn't allege specifically a breach of that duty. And she

doesn't allege that those breach caused those injuries.

I think that those paragraphs are very clear as to the

failure to warn is what caused the injury. Not necessarily the

bump. It's the failure to warn.

THE COURT: The failure to warn what, though, I mean?

MR. STREET: Of the dangerous sea conditions is what

Case 1:20-cv-21961-DPG Document 107 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/07/2023 Page 12 of 47
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

the pleading is.

THE COURT: Right but -- and, again, it goes back to, I

guess, my initial question about, do I consider this in a more

expansive sense?

Am I concerned about the conditions in general or the

conditions at the moment or immediately preceding the

plaintiff's alleged injury because, again, it seems that the

sea appeared to be pretty calm from the video, but the bump or

whatever else happened, clearly caused the tender to shake back

and forth?

MR. STREET: From Norweigian's perspective, Your Honor,

we were on notice of the general sea conditions. That's our

position.

We weren't noticed, from the pleadings specifically, of

this specific condition.

Does that answer your question?

THE COURT: Okay. But, again, once you did become

aware of the plaintiff's opinion, you decided not to follow up

on that with your own expert's rebuttal.

MR. STREET: At that point, Your Honor, we had already

retained an expert. What it does is it prejudices us in the

fact that maybe we want to get a different expert. We want

somebody to opine on the operation, and we want somebody to

opine on the failure to warn.

We weren't given that opportunity. We just had the

Case 1:20-cv-21961-DPG Document 107 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/07/2023 Page 13 of 47
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

expert we had, and we said, well, it looks like they are going

to at least say something about this; can you put this on your

report.

There is a little something on our report regarding the

operation of the tender vessel. It's very minimal. We wish we

had more facts. We wish we were able to look at the discovery.

Frankly, we wish we had an opportunity for a different expert.

THE COURT: Okay. And you didn't have that opportunity

because of what?

MR. STREET: Because it was one week before expert

witness disclosure deadlines.

THE COURT: All right. Did you ask the Court for leave

to, I guess, conduct some additional discovery or to extend the

expert deadline to address that issue?

MR. STREET: No, Your Honor.

THE COURT: All right. Anything else you have,

Counsel?

MR. STREET: Sure, just on the two other aspects.

Even if the Court were to find that it was an

unreasonably dangerous sea condition, we don't think plaintiff

met her burden to show that Norwegian had actual or

constructive notice for a sufficient interval of time to allow

any curative action including warning the plaintiff.

The record evidence -- you will see the CCTV footage

obviously speaks for itself. The swell comes in very briefly,

Case 1:20-cv-21961-DPG Document 107 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/07/2023 Page 14 of 47
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

stays for a brief moment.

The plaintiff provided zero record evidence that shows

that the record condition existed for any period of time to

invite any corrective measures, including the warning of

plaintiff.

As to substantially similar incidents, there was one

prior incident but that actually was rough seas and dangerous

weather. That was a weather condition case. Here it's not a

weather condition case.

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. STREET: And generally speaking, finally, plaintiff

attempts to avoid summary judgment by inserting elements in

evidence of unclaimed claims; namely, the negligent operation.

The expert opinion that you had referred to is a good

example, we think, of record evidence attempting to avoid

summary judgment on an unplead claim, the negligent operation

of a tender vessel.

Thank you, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Okay. Thank you.

For the plaintiff?

MS. GOODMAN: Good morning, Your Honor.

Lisa Goodman on behalf of the plaintiff.

The defendant filed for summary judgment arguing three

points: The first, that the sea conditions were not dangerous.

The second being that the sea conditions were open and

Case 1:20-cv-21961-DPG Document 107 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/07/2023 Page 15 of 47
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

obvious or the dangerous conditions were open and obvious and

that NCL had no actual notice or constructive notice of the

dangerous condition.

NCL is now arguing about the plaintiff's complaint,

that it's not factually detailed or, I guess, correct based on

our allegations.

The defendant, who produced the video in this case, had

the video, the CCTV video all along. They knew what the

conditions were. They had the ability to investigate this

incident from the day that this incident occurred, on

October 25th, 2019. It wasn't until October of 2020 that we

got a copy of the CCTV footage.

At that point, upon seeing the footage, yes, you can

see that the seas were calm up until the approach and when the

vessel hits and collides with the tender platform.

THE COURT: So, when you received that video two years

ago, why didn't you then amend your allegations to account for

what was evidence in the video?

MS. GOODMAN: Because we reviewed our complaint and we

reasonably believed that our complaint contained the necessary

information.

Mr. Street read through some of our allegations in the

complaint and didn't specifically read under -- so, the

complaint has three counts, negligent failure to warn,

negligent training and negligent supervision.

Case 1:20-cv-21961-DPG Document 107 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/07/2023 Page 16 of 47
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

Within the negligent training and the negligent

supervision claims are counts regarding the negligent operation

of the vessel. It's within the negligent training and

negligent supervision claims. Specifically, under Count 2,

paragraph 39, it says, NCL is directly negligent for failing to

train its shipboard crew members to provide safe egress and

ingress to and from the NCL Epic.

Paragraph 40, reading in part, the NCL Epic stopped at

various ports of call during a cruise.

Going on, a removal/floating dock is used to allow

passengers and crew to board the tender boat from the crew

ship. Tender boats must be operated at a safe speed and in a

safe manner, given the sea conditions.

Paragraph 41, there is a sentence, NCL trained its crew

members that passengers may not know about rough sea

conditions, and NCL also trains its shipboard crew members to

provide a safe egress, ingress to and from the NCL Epic.

NCL knew or should have known of the importance of

training its crew members to provide a safe egress, ingress to

and from the NCL Epic. However, despite knowing how, and the

reason why NCL should train its crew members, NCL failed to do

so.

That's also within the negligent supervision claim.

THE COURT: So anywhere in your complaint do you

specifically mention how the operator intended to dock the

Case 1:20-cv-21961-DPG Document 107 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/07/2023 Page 17 of 47
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

tender or that there was a crash? Is that mentioned anywhere

in the complaint?

MS. GOODMAN: Yes, we do mention it in the beginning

paragraphs.

Paragraph 18, a couple of sentences in, NCL Epic's life

boat approached the removable/floating dock and then violently

crashed into the removable/floating dock. And then it

explains, as NCL's lifeboat crashed into the removable/floating

dock, Ruggeri extended her right arm to the bench perpendicular

to her in order to prevent her from falling off the bench.

During the deposition of NCL's corporate representative

and the NCL tender operator, Jomar Buerano, and the other

able-bodied seaman on board, Michael Ligue, there were a line

of questioning about the operation of the tender vessel. That

was cited to, in fact, in our statement of facts.

In paragraph 32 of our statement of facts, there is

testimony that boats create swells. In paragraph 33 of our

statement of facts, NCL knows that swells or wakes can cause

boats to roll, rock back and forth.

In paragraph 34 of plaintiff's statement of facts, it

states that NCL knows that a boat rocking back and forth can

crash into or collide with another object, including a

platform.

THE COURT: Those are disputed by the defendant,

though.

Case 1:20-cv-21961-DPG Document 107 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/07/2023 Page 18 of 47
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

MS. GOODMAN: But NCL did admit that those were facts,

that a swell or wake could cause a boat to rock back and forth

and that a boat rocking back and forth could crash into another

object, and that a boat crashing into another object is

dangerous. In fact, the NCL tender operator, Jomar Buerano, on

page 64 of his deposition, described the swell or wake as big.

He was shown the video and he testified that, "You

know, you weren't there. You can't tell how big it was."

That's on page 64 and 65 of his deposition.

The defendant's expert, Captain Harstead, who submitted

his report on August 19th, 2022, addresses the negligent

operation of the tender vessel. He talks about the speed of

the vessel. He talks about rocking back and forth of the

vessel.

Hold on.

On page eight of his report, that's DE 43-3, he says,

The rolling motion, while noticeable, is not unusual in itself.

It is encountered frequently as a matter of course in all

tender operations. That means if it's encountered frequently

as a matter of course, the tender voyage was approximately

20 minutes from when it left the dock in Cannes, France to when

it made its way back to the ship.

That means that the crew members on board had at least

20 minutes to provide its passengers warning that upon approach

to the removable/floating platform that there would be

Case 1:20-cv-21961-DPG Document 107 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/07/2023 Page 19 of 47
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

increased swells and wakes that would cause the boat to rock

back and forth and to brace themselves accordingly.

They had 20 minutes to provide that warning. They

never provided that warning.

There was an additional 25 seconds, I believe, that my

expert calculated from when the rocking back and forth

initially begins to when it becomes very violent, and a more

than unusual rocking and rolling back and forth that the crew

members could have provided a warning and didn't.

Again, the defendant only moved for summary judgment on

whether the condition was dangerous, whether it was open and

obvious, and whether they had notice of it.

In terms of the dangerous condition being open or

obvious, the defendant failed to comply with the local rules in

their response to our statement of facts, plaintiff's statement

of facts on paragraph 40, and that would also be DE-40, states

that the plaintiff could not see the sea condition or the

platform.

If you look at defendant's response, if you look at

defendant's response to the statement of facts, DE-48,

paragraph 40, the defendant does not address whether or not the

plaintiff saw the sea condition or the platform. Therefore, it

is admitted that the plaintiff did not see the big swells and

wakes in the water or the platform or would have known that the

boat was going to crash into the removable platform.

Case 1:20-cv-21961-DPG Document 107 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/07/2023 Page 20 of 47
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

Again, NCL failed to comply with the local rules, which

requires specific citations when disputing paragraphs when

you're responding to them. There were no citations in the

defendant's responses to the statement of facts, DE-48.

The plaintiff actually moved for leave to file

surreplies, and that is currently pending.

The plaintiff's motion for leave to file surreply to

the defendant's statement of facts and the response to the

motion for summary judgment is DE-49.

The defendant, in their own statement of facts, lists

approximately six different ways that they did have notice of

the dangerous condition. Despite having notice of the

dangerous condition, the defendant alleges that they have no

notice. Additionally, this contradicts NCL's argument that the

dangerous condition was open and obvious.

If the dangerous condition was open and obvious, which

it was not to the plaintiff, then NCL would also have notice of

the dangerous condition.

Here we can prove at least eight different ways of how

the defendant had notice of the dangerous condition.

THE COURT: Counsel, just so I'm clear, so the

plaintiff's theory regarding the dangerous condition is what?

MS. GOODMAN: The dangerous condition of the water were

the swell or wake which was created by the tender vessel. So,

while the tender vessel is operating, it is travelling at an

Case 1:20-cv-21961-DPG Document 107 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/07/2023 Page 21 of 47
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

unreasonable speed under the circumstance. Because of that,

the tender vessel has to abruptly slow down on its approach.

Because it abruptly slows down, the wake that the vessel

creates itself is now given a chance to catch up to the vessel

and actually surpass the vessel and head to the cruise ship

where it reflects off of the cruise ship and returns back to

overtake the vessel itself. So this is --

THE COURT: I mean, you concede that that specific

theory wasn't revealed to the defense until about two years

into the litigation when your expert filed the report?

MS. GOODMAN: Yes, Your Honor.

THE COURT: So, what should I make of that?

I mean, presumably, had that -- I mean, you allege

rough sea conditions broadly, but had you alleged that specific

theory about how the operator attempted to dock and cause --

and cause the wave which caused the rocking, as set forth in

your expert report, that would have given the defense an

opportunity to explore that matter more in discovery and

perhaps hire its own expert regarding that issue.

MS. GOODMAN: Your Honor, their expert actually

responded to that, and NCL's theory of where the wake came from

is from other boats in the area. NCL says that the wake came

from other boats in the area, not the own vessel itself. So,

there is a dispute as to whether -- our position is that the

wake that over took the subject vessel came from the vessel

Case 1:20-cv-21961-DPG Document 107 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/07/2023 Page 22 of 47
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

itself, based on how the NCL tender operator negligently

operated and failed to slow down or traveled at an unreasonable

speed, and because of that had to do an abrupt slowdown, which

allowed the wake to catch up to the vessel and then reflect off

of the cruise ship.

NCL's position is that the wake came from other vessels

in the area. The tender operator who testified said that the

wake came from other vessels in the area.

The area is known to be a highly trafficked area where

there is lots of vessels. NCL knows this. Because NCL knows

that this is a high traffic area, NCL has its own presentation

for tendering in Cannes, France.

NCL knows that vessels create wakes. It's a matter of,

you know, whether the wake came from another vessel in the area

or the vessel, itself, and NCL was aware of the plaintiff's

position from the plaintiff's expert report that was produced

to NCL. And the NCL expert also responded to such -- to the

opinion that the wake came from the vessel, itself, in the NCL

expert's report.

The NCL expert's report discusses the speed of the

vessel. It talks about the rocking and rolling of the vessel.

It talks about how the tender operator actually did everything

right, and he said that he wouldn't change anything. In fact,

NCL, in their statement of facts, paragraph 28, puts the

operation of the tender vessel at issue.

Case 1:20-cv-21961-DPG Document 107 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/07/2023 Page 23 of 47
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

NCL says, through hearsay testimony, that the tender

operator exhibited seamanlike, seamanship in the operation of

the vessel. NCL knows that the operation of the tender vessel

has been at issue from the beginning. It's clear in the

complaints and the allegations and it's clear from the fact

that their own expert addresses the operation of the tender

vessel.

Again, NCL did not move for summary judgment on whether

or not the plaintiff failed to plead negligent operation in the

plaintiff's complaint. NCL only moved for summary judgment on

whether the sea condition was dangerous, which NCL admits that

it was dangerous, and whether or not the condition was open and

obvious and whether NCL had notice of the dangerous condition.

NCL's own tender operator says it was a dangerous

condition. The swell was big. We weren't there, so we can't

appreciate how big it was from just watching the video.

THE COURT: You did cite some other cases regarding

conditions. I'm looking at the response of the defendant's

statement, Docket Entry 40. These all involved, I guess, more

general rough seas as opposed to what happened here, the tender

hitting a dock.

Is that -- am I summarizing these cases correctly?

MS. GOODMAN: Yes, Your Honor.

This situation all involved an incident where they

were --

Case 1:20-cv-21961-DPG Document 107 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/07/2023 Page 24 of 47
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

(Fire alarm going off.)

MS. GOODMAN: Do we need to stop and leave?

THE COURT: Not until we get an announcement.

MS. GOODMAN: It's an incident where there was, I

guess, a collision. The sea conditions may be different.

However, it shouldn't change how you operate in these sea

conditions.

So, I would argue that those are similar incidents and

a swell or a wake in the sea is a sea condition, and NCL admits

that, that that is a sea condition. And that was admitted by

NCL during the corporate rep's deposition on July 28th, 2022.

The discovery regarding the operation of the tender

vessel, I'm not sure what else that would be. There has been

extensive discovery on the operation of the tender vessel.

We've taken the tender operators's deposition.

We have taken the other crew member on board's

deposition. We have taken NCL's deposition. NCL has had the

video and could have determined from the video how the wake or

swell came about.

They did do that. They determined that it came from

another vessel in the area.

Our expert reviewed that video and then determined that

it didn't come from another vessel in the area, that it came

from the vessel itself.

So, NCL -- NCL's position that it would have more

Case 1:20-cv-21961-DPG Document 107 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/07/2023 Page 25 of 47
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

discovery to do regarding operation of the vessel is --

COURT SECURITY OFFICER: We have to evacuate.

THE COURT: Finish your thought.

MS. GOODMAN: -- is incorrect as discovery has been

fully taken on that issue.

THE COURT: We have an alarm, so we have to go outside.

(Recess for evacuation.)

(Call to the Order of the Court.)

THE COURT: All right. Sorry about the delay, but the

fire alarm was unexpected.

Did you finish your argument, Counsel?

MS. GOODMAN: Your Honor, if I may, I have a few more

points.

THE COURT: Okay.

MS. GOODMAN: Thank you.

Your Honor, the defendant's motion for summary judgment

on page 6 of 11, D-29, it argues that the sea conditions were

not unreasonably dangerous. In response to that, the sea

conditions were unreasonably dangerous by the creation of the

tender operator.

He operated the tender vessel in a way that created

this dangerous condition where the wake was able to catch up to

the vessel and to overtake the vessel and cause this violent

rolling, rocking and back and forth motion.

NCL has known, from the inception of the complaint,

Case 1:20-cv-21961-DPG Document 107 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/07/2023 Page 26 of 47
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

that the operation of the tender vessel was at issue. In NCL's

sixth affirmative defense, it states that the defendant did not

create the dangerous condition.

In the 13th affirmative defense, it states that the

acts and omissions of third parties over whom the defendant had

no control of such caused the plaintiff's damages and are not

actionable against the defendant.

Here we are able to demonstrate, through our expert,

that it was, in fact, NCL. It was NCL's tender operator who

was not properly trained on how to operate a tender vessel. He

had probably, at most, ever operated a tender vessel maybe 20

times in his career. He operated the tender vessel at an

unreasonable speed, given the circumstance, and then abruptly

slowed down, which allowed the wake to catch up. And when

doing so, he provided no warnings, even though NCL's own expert

says that the rolling back and forth motions are not unexpected

during tendering and docking a vessel.

NCL's own tender operator testified on July 13th, 2022,

again, on page 64 of his deposition, when asked, "The tender

vessel is now pointed away?"

"Yes."

"From the dock?"

"Yes, because you only see the boat. You didn't see

the swell."

Question: "Okay. What swell?"

Case 1:20-cv-21961-DPG Document 107 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/07/2023 Page 27 of 47
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

Answer: "You see the water?"

Question, "Yes."

Answer: "Yes. It was different if you are there. We

see the water. It's like a swell, you know. It's like a big

swell. That's why the boat was do like that."

Again, NCL's own expert, on page 8 of 17 of his report,

DE 43-23, talked about how the rolling motion of itself is not

unusual and that the tender operator did a quite competent

seaman-like manner -- that he operated the boat in a

seaman-like manner.

The NCL's expert also opined that -- about the training

of tender operators and that some of the things that we allege

should be included in the training of a tender operator is not

something that should be included. So, NCL has had a full

opportunity to address the operation of the tender operator and

what went wrong.

If anything, we put NCL on notice during those e-mails

where we considered amending the complaint. NCL's counsel did

not tell you about my response e-mail where I responded that

eventually we decided not to amend because we saw that the

allegations in the complaint already sufficiently alleged what

we were alleging. And I pointed to the specific paragraphs in

my response, in my e-mail, which have been included in my

response, paragraphs 39, 40, 41, how we already alleged that

the negligent operation is included within the negligent

Case 1:20-cv-21961-DPG Document 107 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/07/2023 Page 28 of 47
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

training and negligent supervision.

Again, these arguments go towards more NCL's argument

that it made in its reply, that we are alleging a new theory of

liability. NCL made this new argument in its reply which is

also improper under the rules.

NCL in its initial motion for summary judgment never

made an argument that we did not allege negligent operation or

did not sufficiently allege sea condition or the dangerous

condition. NCL only alleged that the sea condition was not

unreasonably dangerous.

NCL is now arguing, for the first time, basically, and

did so for the first time in its reply that these allegations

are a new theory and were not included in the complaint, but

this is erroneous when their own expert addressed the negligent

operation of the vessel and how they believe that their

operator operated the vessel in a seaman-like manner.

Again, we can demonstrate that the dangerous condition

was not open and obvious to the plaintiff and NCL admitted that

through their failure to properly respond to the plaintiff's

statement of facts where they are now deemed admitted and NCL

admits that the plaintiff did not see the sea condition, the

wakes or the waves and did not see the platform.

Also, we are able to prove that NCL had notice of the

dangerous condition at least eight different ways, including

through NCL's own testimony, NCL's presentations, NCL's

Case 1:20-cv-21961-DPG Document 107 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/07/2023 Page 29 of 47
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

announcements, NCL's audio statement that is made when they get

on board the vessel through prior incidents and through the

fact that NCL had a non-delegable duty to provide safe egress

and ingress to and from the ship and that negligence in the

slightest puts NCL, holds them liable for what happened.

THE COURT: How do you suggest that I consider the

warnings that were provided to the passengers before they got

on the tender?

MS. GOODMAN: Those warnings are general warnings.

They are not specific about the condition. There was no

specific warning that, you know, when the vessel approaches the

dock there will excessive rocking and rolling back and forth,

make sure you brace yourselves during that because you could

fall off the bench when the bench has no seatbelts and no

handrails for people to hold onto.

That could have been an easily made warning. However,

that was not made. There are general warnings just about

remaining seated during the tender operation, nothing specific

about what happened in this situation.

And, again, in those 25 seconds from when the vessel

starts violently rolling to when it is violently rolling,

again, there was no warning. That's undisputed. NCL does not

dispute that there was no warning that the crash or collision

was imminent to hold on or to brace yourselves for a collision,

even though the tender operator had a higher vantage point and

Case 1:20-cv-21961-DPG Document 107 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/07/2023 Page 30 of 47
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

knew that this was going to happen, he didn't say anything.

He easily could have. There is a PA system on board.

There is also a second NCL crew member on board that could also

have said something if the tender operator himself did not say

something. It could have been the other NCL member on board

that couldn't.

If you read his depo or if you watch his depo you could

see he has a very difficult time communicating in English.

Maybe that's why he couldn't verbalize for people on board to

hold on, brace yourself, we are about to crash into the dock,

but there was no specific warning about this dangerous

condition, even though NCL's own expert says that it's not

unusual for this to happen.

So, if it's not unusual for this to happen in the

operation of vessels and docking, then NCL should have known to

provide that, to provide its passengers this warning about this

specific dangerous condition where passengers can and do fall

off of these benches and injure themselves.

THE COURT: All right.

MS. GOODMAN: Thank you, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Thank you.

Anything in reply?

MR. STREET: Yes, Your Honor, briefly.

I just want to speak broadly on some general points

here.

Case 1:20-cv-21961-DPG Document 107 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/07/2023 Page 31 of 47
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

I think one of the important things of this case is the

timing of the CCTV disclosure. Of course, that was

October 26th, 2020. The basic issue that we see is that

plaintiff here wants to retool her case.

After discovery, when it's not plead, she wants to

change her theory now that we have heard which is that our

operator somehow created this dangerous condition or the wake

that overtook as it was coming in.

Nowhere in the complaint does it allege that the tender

operator, himself, created the dangerous condition. Nor does

it allege that it was breached or that it caused her injuries.

In fact, the causation is from the failure to warn

aspect of whether or not Norweigian gave her a warning that

here comes a dangerous condition or rolling waves or whatever

you have it, sea conditions, it is time to brace yourself.

So, with that kind of context, plaintiff essentially

wants a do-over, and we did not have a full fair opportunity to

defend against the claims as plead and litigated.

Specifically, we would need -- with plaintiff's new theory

about the tender vessel creating the wake, we would need to

measure the hull of the tender vessel to determine what kind of

vessel wake it was, to look at what kind of accident

reconstruction, whether or not that's even plausible, and it

wasn't from an ocean swell or a separate vessel passing by.

So, we dispute that even the wake was created by our

Case 1:20-cv-21961-DPG Document 107 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/07/2023 Page 32 of 47
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

vessel owner. We simply don't know, and we would like the

opportunity to investigate that further.

THE COURT: But, I mean, when the plaintiff's expert

issued his report and opined about the tender operator's

actions on that day, I mean, I understand you filed a Daubert

motion, but you could have then -- you could have, one, gotten

another expert to specifically talk about that. You could have

petitioned the Court for some limited discovery. I mean, there

are some things that the defense could have done, but you chose

a particular route, not those other avenues that were available

to you.

MR. STREET: Sure. And on the flip side, the plaintiff

could have amended her complaint to allege that specific theory

she had, that presumably she had been developing over months

and she simply chose not to.

THE COURT: Okay.

So, in Counts 2 and 3, you know, the plaintiff's claims

for Count 3 is negligent supervision, and Count 2 is negligent

training. I mean, don't those counts assume some unreasonable

conduct under the circumstances by the tender operator?

I mean, how is the defendant unaware of the plaintiff's

theory is the nature itself of those counts?

MR. STREET: Your Honor, as written, as plaintiff's own

writing in both the breach and the causation aspect, she

pinpoints exactly the failure was a failure to warn. We

Case 1:20-cv-21961-DPG Document 107 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/07/2023 Page 33 of 47
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

negligently trained our crew members who ultimately failed to

warn of the dangerous sea condition.

We don't think that those counts are ambiguous or there

is anything to read between the lines there.

THE COURT: Give me just a moment. I'm looking at

paragraph 34. It says, "NCL's failure to properly and

adequately warn Ruggeri, the plaintiff, of the dangerous

conditions on board the NCL Epic, including the NCL tender boat

that crashed into the removable floating dock where Ruggeri was

injured on October 25th, 2019, proximately caused the

plaintiff's injuries.

"Had NCL properly warned Ruggeri of the dangerous

condition, Ruggeri would have been aware of the dangerous

condition." And that's in Count 1.

In paragraph 51, that's within Count 2, it states,

"NCL's failure to properly and adequately train NCL's crew

members proximately caused Ruggeri's injuries. Had NCL

properly trained NCL's crew members to warn passengers about

the dangerous conditions on board the NCL Epic, including the

NCL tender boat that crashed into the removable floating dock

where Ruggeri was injured on October 25th, 2019, the crew

member would have warned Ruggeri, and Ruggeri would have been

aware of the dangerous condition."

Then in paragraph 67, which is for Count 3, it makes

similar allegations. So, it seems, I mean, the plain reading,

Case 1:20-cv-21961-DPG Document 107 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/07/2023 Page 34 of 47
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

that these are -- they are based on failures to warn, but it is

relating to the crash of the floating dock, not a warning about

conditions in general, sea conditions in general.

That's what's on the claim. So why is this a surprise

to the defendant?

MR. STREET: Specifically to that paragraph, sure, it

relates to the actual, the damage, but the entire, the context

of the complaint is that there are dangerous sea conditions

which ultimately lead the tender vessel to crash into the dock.

So there is a leap of causation that's implied in that

particular paragraph.

THE COURT: Okay. Anything else you wanted to argue?

MR. STREET: Nothing further, Your Honor.

THE COURT: All right. I've considered the motions and

the response and the record as a whole. I am going to deny the

defendant's motion for summary judgment, as I find that there

are genuine issues of material fact to be resolved at trial.

I guess the overarching issue is, relates to the sea

conditions. I think the defendant -- I am sure the defendant

wants me to consider it more broadly because the video clearly

shows that the general sea conditions were not unusual at the

time of the accident but -- right before the accident, but

there are some disputes about the conditions as the tender was

docking.

And there are also, I think, the issues of fact with

Case 1:20-cv-21961-DPG Document 107 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/07/2023 Page 35 of 47
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

regard to whether the tender operator reasonably operated the

vessel under the circumstances. There's also issues about what

caused, of course, the general conditions at the time of the

accident. The plaintiff argues that it was the tender

operator's operation of the vessel. The defense asserts it was

a wake from another vessel.

There are disputed issues about whether or not the

condition should have been open and obvious to the plaintiff.

It's, I think, now pretty clear from the record, and it

doesn't seem disputed by the defense, that the operator of the

tender had a superior vantage point as he was sitting above the

passengers. He actually operated the tender, and the plaintiff

was below him with the other passengers. And whether or not

the warnings provided by the defendant were sufficient is,

obviously -- and also been disputed by the parties, whether or

not those general warnings were sufficient based on how this

incident actually occurred.

So, I get the defendant's argument that the very

specific theory articulated by the plaintiff now was not

specifically alleged within the complaint, but I think the

language in the complaint -- one, the issue was whether or not

there was enough to state a claim, and it was, but I think the

language could be read reasonably to -- for a reasonable person

to understand that they were challenging the tender operator's

operation of the tender.

Case 1:20-cv-21961-DPG Document 107 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/07/2023 Page 36 of 47
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

It sounds circular, but based on the paragraphs I read

a moment ago, and the defense clearly became aware of the

specific theory when the plaintiff's expert opined on the issue

and specifically placed blame on the operation of the tender,

under the circumstances, and as I noted a moment ago, the

plaintiff had a couple of options. They chose to challenge

that experts's opinion through a Daubert motion, which was

fine. That motion was subsequently denied, but it did not seek

leave to -- well, I should note, the opinion came within the

deadline set by the Court and the defense could have asked for

more time or some additional discovery, and it did not.

So, based on this record, I am going to deny the

motion.

I should note that the motion for surreply, of course,

is denied as moot, and the motion in limine is denied. It's a

bench trial. There is no reason for a motion in limine at a

bench trial. So, we will -- do we have a trial date?

All right. Then I will ask the parties to confer and

give the Court a couple of options for trial dates when both

sides are available.

All right. Anything else today on behalf of the

plaintiffs?

MS. GOODMAN: That's it, Your Honor, thank you.

THE COURT: Anything else on behalf of the defense?

MR. McALPIN: Yes, Your Honor, Richard McAlpin.

Case 1:20-cv-21961-DPG Document 107 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/07/2023 Page 37 of 47
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

In light of the Court's ruling, I guess I just want to

kind of foreshadow our response -- and I think that we will be

asking the Court and we will do it by written motion, asking

the Court for some very limited additional discovery predicated

upon this issue we have been discussing this morning about now

we have a very specific allegation of what the plaintiff's

theory of liability is.

We will be asking the Court for an opportunity to

conduct additional limited discovery on this issue as

articulated by Mr. Street because now we don't feel like we've

had an opportunity to defend against this particular issue of

the tender creating a wake and the wake overtaking the vessel,

etcetera, and also possibility of obtaining a new expert to

fairly respond to this.

We will file a written motion, but I just want to sort

of articulate our thinking, Your Honor, and give the Court a

heads-up on that.

THE COURT: Well, I can't rule on anything until I see

it.

MR. McALPIN: I know.

THE COURT: All right. Then we will be in recess.

MS. GOODMAN: Thank you, Your Honor.

(Proceedings were concluded at 11:55 a.m.)

Case 1:20-cv-21961-DPG Document 107 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/07/2023 Page 38 of 47
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.

July 7, 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 107 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/07/2023 Page 39 of 47
/

/s/Patricia [1] - 39:8

1

1 [4] - 1:7, 2:25, 5:4,

34:14

10:06 [1] - 1:6

10th [2] - 9:16, 9:18

11 [1] - 26:17

11:49 [1] - 1:6

11:55 [1] - 38:23

11th [2] - 1:24, 39:10

12th [1] - 9:17

13th [2] - 27:4, 27:18

1401 [1] - 1:15

17 [1] - 28:6

18 [1] - 18:5

19th [1] - 19:11

2

2 [7] - 4:25, 6:14,

11:22, 17:4, 33:17,

33:18, 34:15

20 [5] - 3:2, 19:21,

19:24, 20:3, 27:11

20-CV-21961 [1] -

1:2

20-CV-29161 [1] -

2:3

2019 [3] - 16:11,

34:10, 34:21

2020 [4] - 8:7, 9:15,

16:11, 32:3

2021 [3] - 9:16, 9:17,

9:18

2022 [5] - 9:25, 10:3,

19:11, 25:11, 27:18

2023 [2] - 1:5, 39:8

21 [1] - 3:6

22 [2] - 3:6, 3:15

23 [2] - 3:6, 3:17

24th [1] - 9:25

25 [2] - 20:5, 30:20

25th [3] - 16:11,

34:10, 34:21

26 [1] - 1:5

26th [3] - 8:7, 9:15,

32:3

27 [2] - 4:2, 4:6

28 [2] - 4:6, 23:24

2805 [1] - 1:19

28th [1] - 25:11

29 [1] - 4:6

2nd [1] - 10:6

3

3 [5] - 6:13, 11:22,

33:17, 33:18, 34:24

30 [2] - 4:2, 4:6

305 [2] - 1:25, 39:11

30th [1] - 9:24

32 [1] - 18:16

33 [2] - 4:8, 18:17

33128 [2] - 1:25,

39:11

33130 [1] - 1:20

33131 [1] - 1:16

34 [3] - 4:17, 18:20,

34:6

38 [1] - 5:3

39 [3] - 5:3, 17:5,

28:24

4

40 [6] - 5:3, 17:8,

20:16, 20:21, 24:19,

28:24

400 [2] - 1:24, 39:10

41 [4] - 5:3, 5:12,

17:14, 28:24

43-23 [1] - 28:7

43-3 [1] - 19:16

49 [1] - 5:18

5

50 [2] - 5:18, 5:21

51 [2] - 6:7, 34:15

510 [1] - 1:15

523-5178 [2] - 1:25,

39:11

6

6 [1] - 26:17

64 [3] - 19:6, 19:9,

27:19

65 [1] - 19:9

67 [1] - 34:24

7

7 [1] - 39:8

8

8 [2] - 1:19, 28:6

80 [1] - 1:19

A

a.m [3] - 1:6, 38:23

ability [1] - 16:9

able [5] - 14:6, 18:13,

26:22, 27:8, 29:23

able-bodied [1] -

18:13

above-entitled [1] -

39:5

abrupt [1] - 23:3

abruptly [3] - 22:2,

22:3, 27:13

accident [5] - 7:7,

32:22, 35:22, 36:4

accordingly [1] -

20:2

account [1] - 16:17

accurate [1] - 39:4

action [2] - 3:2,

14:23

actionable [1] - 27:7

actions [2] - 8:24,

33:5

acts [1] - 27:5

actual [4] - 11:17,

14:21, 16:2, 35:7

add [1] - 10:15

additional [5] -

14:13, 20:5, 37:11,

38:4, 38:9

additionally [1] -

21:14

address [3] - 14:14,

20:21, 28:15

addressed [1] -

29:14

addresses [2] -

19:11, 24:6

adequate [1] - 5:22

adequately [7] - 4:9,

4:18, 5:24, 6:10, 9:7,

34:7, 34:16

admit [1] - 19:1

admits [3] - 24:11,

25:9, 29:21

admitted [4] - 20:23,

25:10, 29:18, 29:20

advised [2] - 10:9,

10:10

ago [3] - 16:17, 37:2,

37:5

alarm [3] - 25:1,

26:6, 26:10

allegation [2] -

11:13, 38:6

allegations [11] -

6:17, 7:15, 7:24, 8:14,

16:6, 16:17, 16:22,

24:5, 28:21, 29:12,

34:25

allege [9] - 12:19,

12:20, 22:13, 28:12,

29:7, 29:8, 32:9,

32:11, 33:13

alleged [8] - 5:4,

5:18, 13:7, 22:14,

28:21, 28:24, 29:9,

36:20

allegedly [3] - 12:14,

12:15, 12:16

alleges [6] - 3:19,

4:14, 5:18, 12:17,

12:18, 21:13

alleging [4] - 6:1,

6:11, 28:22, 29:3

allow [2] - 14:22,

17:10

allowed [2] - 23:4,

27:14

altogether[2] - 4:1,

5:10

ambiguous [1] - 34:3

amend [8] - 8:13,

10:1, 10:12, 10:15,

11:11, 16:17, 28:20

amended [4] - 9:24,

10:10, 11:3, 33:13

amending [1] - 28:18

announcement [1] -

25:3

announcements [1]

- 30:1

answer[3] - 13:16,

28:1, 28:3

apparent [1] - 7:11

appearances [1] -

2:5

APPEARANCES[1] -

1:12

appeared [1] - 13:8

applies [1] - 10:13

appreciate [1] -

24:16

approach [4] - 7:20,

16:14, 19:24, 22:2

approached [1] -

18:6

approaches [1] -

30:11

area [10] - 22:22,

22:23, 23:7, 23:8,

23:9, 23:11, 23:14,

25:21, 25:23

argue [3] - 2:15,

25:8, 35:12

argues [2] - 26:17,

36:4

arguing [3] - 15:23,

16:4, 29:11

argument [7] - 4:3,

21:14, 26:11, 29:2,

29:4, 29:7, 36:18

arguments [1] - 29:2

1

arm [1] - 18:9

articulate [1] - 38:16

articulated [2] -

36:19, 38:10

aspect [2] - 32:13,

33:24

aspects [1] - 14:18

asserts [1] - 36:5

associated [1] - 3:22

assume [1] - 33:19

attempted [2] - 7:14,

22:15

attempting [1] -

15:15

attempts [1] - 15:12

audio [1] - 30:1

August [3] - 10:3,

10:6, 19:11

available [2] - 33:10,

37:20

Avenue [3] - 1:15,

1:24, 39:10

avenues [1] - 33:10

avoid [2] - 15:12,

15:15

aware [9] - 4:21,

6:24, 8:9, 9:1, 13:18,

23:15, 34:13, 34:23,

37:2

B

Bahamas [1] - 2:4

BAHAMAS[1] - 1:7

based [8] - 8:15,

10:19, 16:5, 23:1,

35:1, 36:16, 37:1,

37:12

basic [2] - 7:13, 32:3

became [1] - 37:2

become [2] - 7:7,

13:17

becomes [1] - 20:7

BEFORE [1] - 1:10

beginning [2] - 18:3,

24:4

begins [1] - 20:7

behalf [4] - 2:8,

15:22, 37:21, 37:24

below [2] - 12:8,

36:13

bench [6] - 18:9,

18:10, 30:14, 37:16,

37:17

benches [1] - 31:18

best [1] - 11:8

between [1] - 34:4

big [6] - 19:6, 19:8,

20:23, 24:15, 24:16,

28:4

Case 1:20-cv-21961-DPG Document 107 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/07/2023 Page 40 of 47
bit [2] - 2:22, 7:22

blame [2] - 9:8, 37:4

board [12] - 5:13,

5:20, 17:11, 18:13,

19:23, 30:2, 31:2,

31:3, 31:5, 31:9, 34:8,

34:19

board's [1] - 25:16

boat [14] - 11:24,

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

19:2, 19:3, 19:4, 20:1,

20:25, 27:23, 28:5,

28:9, 34:8, 34:20

boats [5] - 17:12,

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

22:23

bodied [1] - 18:13

brace [5] - 20:2,

30:13, 30:24, 31:10,

32:15

breach [6] - 4:16,

5:15, 7:4, 12:19,

12:20, 33:24

breached [3] - 6:2,

7:4, 32:11

breaches [7] - 4:7,

4:8, 4:14, 5:1, 5:17,

6:6

Brickell [1] - 1:15

brief [2] - 9:13, 15:1

briefly [2] - 14:25,

31:23

broader[1] - 7:25

broadly [3] - 22:14,

31:24, 35:20

Buerano [2] - 18:12,

19:5

bump [3] - 12:3,

12:23, 13:8

burden [1] - 14:21

BY [1] - 1:21

C

calculated [1] - 20:6

calm [6] - 7:14, 7:20,

8:9, 8:12, 13:8, 16:14

Cannes [2] - 19:21,

23:12

Captain [1] - 19:10

care [3] - 3:7, 5:5,

7:9

career[1] - 27:12

carrier[1] - 7:10

case [10] - 2:3, 7:18,

8:6, 9:15, 9:18, 15:8,

15:9, 16:7, 32:1, 32:4

CASE[1] - 1:2

cases [2] - 24:17,

24:22

catch [4] - 22:4,

23:4, 26:22, 27:14

causation [7] - 4:16,

5:15, 6:11, 12:16,

32:12, 33:24, 35:10

causations [1] - 5:2

caused [18] - 4:15,

4:19, 6:6, 6:10, 6:12,

8:16, 8:24, 8:25, 9:9,

12:20, 12:22, 13:9,

22:16, 27:6, 32:11,

34:10, 34:17, 36:3

CCTV [6] - 8:8, 9:14,

14:24, 16:8, 16:12,

32:2

certain [1] - 12:17

certify [1] - 39:3

challenge [1] - 37:6

challenging [1] -

36:24

chance [2] - 8:13,

22:4

change [3] - 23:23,

25:6, 32:6

chose [4] - 11:11,

33:9, 33:15, 37:6

circular[1] - 37:1

circumstance [2] -

22:1, 27:13

circumstances [4] -

7:9, 33:20, 36:2, 37:5

citations [2] - 21:2,

21:3

cite [1] - 24:17

cited [1] - 18:15

claim [5] - 6:4, 15:16,

17:23, 35:4, 36:22

claims [5] - 15:13,

17:2, 17:4, 32:18,

33:17

clear[5] - 12:21,

21:21, 24:4, 24:5,

36:9

clearly [5] - 8:3, 9:8,

13:9, 35:20, 37:2

closed [1] - 10:4

collide [1] - 18:22

collides [1] - 16:15

collision [3] - 25:5,

30:23, 30:24

coming [1] - 32:8

communicating [1] -

31:8

competent [1] - 28:8

complaint [27] -

2:17, 2:18, 2:23, 5:1,

7:15, 10:1, 10:11,

10:12, 10:15, 16:4,

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

16:24, 17:24, 18:2,

24:10, 26:25, 28:18,

28:21, 29:13, 32:9,

33:13, 35:8, 36:20,

36:21

complaints [1] - 24:5

comply [2] - 20:14,

21:1

concede [1] - 22:8

concerned [1] - 13:5

concluded [1] -

38:23

condition [49] - 2:19,

2:20, 2:21, 3:14, 5:20,

8:16, 13:15, 14:20,

15:3, 15:8, 15:9, 16:3,

20:11, 20:13, 20:17,

20:22, 21:12, 21:13,

21:15, 21:16, 21:18,

21:20, 21:22, 21:23,

24:11, 24:12, 24:13,

24:15, 25:9, 25:10,

26:22, 27:3, 29:8,

29:9, 29:17, 29:21,

29:24, 30:10, 31:12,

31:17, 32:7, 32:10,

32:14, 34:2, 34:13,

34:14, 34:23, 36:8

conditions [45] -

3:19, 3:21, 3:22, 4:4,

4:6, 4:10, 4:13, 4:18,

4:20, 4:21, 4:23, 5:13,

5:25, 6:8, 7:25, 8:1,

8:20, 10:19, 11:23,

12:25, 13:5, 13:6,

13:12, 15:24, 15:25,

16:1, 16:9, 17:13,

17:16, 22:14, 24:18,

25:5, 25:7, 26:17,

26:19, 32:15, 34:8,

34:19, 35:3, 35:8,

35:19, 35:21, 35:23,

36:3

conduct [4] - 11:16,

14:13, 33:20, 38:9

confer[1] - 37:18

confirms [1] - 8:11

consider[5] - 7:23,

7:24, 13:3, 30:6,

35:20

considered [2] -

28:18, 35:14

constructive [2] -

14:22, 16:2

contained [1] - 16:20

context [2] - 32:16,

35:7

continuing [1] - 4:2

contradicts [1] -

21:14

control [1] - 27:6

conversations [1] -

10:7

copy [2] - 10:2,

16:12

corporate [2] -

18:11, 25:11

correct [5] - 7:15,

7:16, 12:9, 12:10,

16:5

corrective [1] - 15:4

correctly [1] - 24:22

counsel [7] - 2:5,

8:7, 10:7, 10:14,

21:21, 28:18

Counsel [4] - 2:13,

7:13, 14:17, 26:11

count [5] - 2:17,

4:22, 5:9, 6:1, 6:23

Count [11] - 2:25,

4:25, 5:4, 6:13, 6:14,

17:4, 33:18, 34:14,

34:15, 34:24

Counts [2] - 11:22,

33:17

counts [10] - 2:24,

6:18, 6:24, 10:16,

12:17, 16:24, 17:2,

33:19, 33:22, 34:3

couple [3] - 18:5,

37:6, 37:19

course [5] - 19:18,

19:20, 32:2, 36:3,

37:14

COURT [49] - 1:1,

2:2, 2:11, 3:10, 7:13,

7:17, 8:22, 9:5, 9:19,

9:23, 10:21, 10:25,

11:6, 11:12, 11:20,

12:5, 12:12, 12:24,

13:2, 13:17, 14:8,

14:12, 14:16, 15:10,

15:19, 16:16, 17:24,

18:24, 21:21, 22:8,

22:12, 24:17, 25:3,

26:2, 26:3, 26:6, 26:9,

26:14, 30:6, 31:19,

31:21, 33:3, 33:16,

34:5, 35:12, 35:14,

37:24, 38:18, 38:21

Court [20] - 1:23,

1:23, 2:1, 6:24, 8:9,

9:24, 10:15, 11:10,

14:12, 14:19, 26:8,

33:8, 37:10, 37:19,

38:3, 38:4, 38:8,

38:16, 39:9, 39:10

Court's [1] - 38:1

COURTROOM [1] -

2:3

COVID [1] - 9:19

2

crash [9] - 12:2,

18:1, 18:22, 19:3,

20:25, 30:23, 31:10,

35:2, 35:9

crashed [4] - 18:7,

18:8, 34:9, 34:20

crashing [3] - 11:24,

12:12, 19:4

create [3] - 18:17,

23:13, 27:3

created [5] - 21:24,

26:21, 32:7, 32:10,

32:25

creates [1] - 22:4

creating [2] - 32:20,

38:12

creation [1] - 26:19

crew [25] - 5:7, 5:12,

5:19, 5:21, 5:23, 5:24,

6:3, 6:7, 6:8, 6:10,

17:6, 17:11, 17:14,

17:16, 17:19, 17:21,

19:23, 20:8, 25:16,

31:3, 34:1, 34:16,

34:18, 34:21

cruise [6] - 7:6, 7:8,

17:9, 22:5, 22:6, 23:5

Cruise [1] - 2:10

curative [1] - 14:23

cut [1] - 6:13

D

D-29 [1] - 26:17

damage [1] - 35:7

damages [2] - 5:15,

27:6

dangerous [63] -

2:19, 2:20, 2:21, 3:14,

3:18, 3:21, 3:22, 3:24,

4:9, 4:13, 4:18, 4:20,

4:21, 4:23, 5:9, 5:13,

5:20, 5:25, 6:8, 8:16,

10:19, 11:23, 12:25,

14:20, 15:7, 15:24,

16:1, 16:3, 19:5,

20:11, 20:13, 21:12,

21:13, 21:15, 21:16,

21:18, 21:20, 21:22,

21:23, 24:11, 24:12,

24:13, 24:14, 26:18,

26:19, 26:22, 27:3,

29:8, 29:10, 29:17,

29:24, 31:11, 31:17,

32:7, 32:10, 32:14,

34:2, 34:7, 34:12,

34:13, 34:19, 34:23,

35:8

dangers [4] - 3:4,

3:9, 5:7, 7:10

Case 1:20-cv-21961-DPG Document 107 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/07/2023 Page 41 of 47
DARRIN [1] - 1:10

date [1] - 37:17

DATE[1] - 39:9

dates [1] - 37:19

Daubert [3] - 11:1,

33:5, 37:7

DE [2] - 19:16, 28:7

DE-40 [1] - 20:16

DE-48 [2] - 20:20,

21:4

DE-49 [1] - 21:9

deadline [3] - 9:25,

14:14, 37:10

deadlines [1] - 14:11

decided [3] - 10:14,

13:18, 28:20

decision [1] - 4:12

deck [2] - 8:11, 9:15

deemed [1] - 29:20

defend [2] - 32:18,

38:11

defendant [19] - 1:8,

8:25, 15:23, 16:7,

18:24, 20:10, 20:14,

20:21, 21:10, 21:13,

21:20, 27:2, 27:5,

27:7, 33:21, 35:5,

35:19, 36:14

DEFENDANT[1] -

1:17

defendant's [9] -

19:10, 20:19, 20:20,

21:4, 21:8, 24:18,

26:16, 35:16, 36:18

defense [11] - 10:23,

22:9, 22:17, 27:2,

27:4, 33:9, 36:5,

36:10, 37:2, 37:10,

37:24

deficiencies [1] -

10:8

delay [1] - 26:9

delegable [1] - 30:3

demonstrate [2] -

27:8, 29:17

denied [3] - 37:8,

37:15

deny [2] - 35:15,

37:12

depo [2] - 31:7

deposition [9] - 9:16,

18:11, 19:6, 19:9,

25:11, 25:15, 25:17,

27:19

DEPUTY[1] - 2:3

derivatives [1] - 6:19

described [2] - 2:18,

19:6

describes [1] - 6:5

despite [2] - 17:20,

21:12

detailed [1] - 16:5

determine [1] - 32:21

determined [3] -

25:18, 25:20, 25:22

developing [1] -

33:14

DIAZ [2] - 1:22, 39:9

Diaz [1] - 39:8

different [8] - 12:18,

13:22, 14:7, 21:11,

21:19, 25:5, 28:3,

29:24

difficult [1] - 31:8

directly [3] - 3:13,

6:14, 17:5

disclosure [2] -

14:11, 32:2

disclosures [1] -

10:3

discovery [18] - 9:14,

10:4, 10:18, 11:16,

11:18, 14:6, 14:13,

22:18, 25:12, 25:14,

26:1, 26:4, 32:5, 33:8,

37:11, 38:4, 38:9

discusses [1] -

23:20

discussing [1] - 38:5

dispute [4] - 12:6,

22:24, 30:23, 32:25

disputed [4] - 18:24,

36:7, 36:10, 36:15

disputes [1] - 35:23

disputing [1] - 21:2

DISTRICT [3] - 1:1,

1:1, 1:11

District [2] - 1:23,

39:10

DIVISION [1] - 1:2

do-over[1] - 32:17

dock [20] - 7:15,

11:24, 12:2, 12:3,

12:12, 17:10, 17:25,

18:6, 18:7, 18:9,

19:21, 22:15, 24:21,

27:22, 30:12, 31:10,

34:9, 34:20, 35:2,

35:9

Docket [1] - 24:19

docking [3] - 27:17,

31:15, 35:24

done [1] - 33:9

down [4] - 22:2,

22:3, 23:2, 27:14

during [8] - 11:18,

17:9, 18:11, 25:11,

27:17, 28:17, 30:13,

30:18

duties [6] - 3:5, 5:1,

5:2, 5:4, 5:16, 12:18

duty [19] - 3:7, 3:9,

3:15, 3:19, 3:21, 4:8,

4:16, 5:4, 5:5, 5:6,

5:12, 5:15, 6:2, 7:4,

7:8, 7:10, 12:19, 30:3

E

e-mail [3] - 10:10,

28:19, 28:23

e-mails [1] - 28:17

easily [2] - 30:16,

31:2

egress [6] - 3:16,

5:6, 17:6, 17:17,

17:19, 30:3

eight [3] - 19:16,

21:19, 29:24

elements [3] - 4:16,

5:15, 15:12

encountered [2] -

19:18, 19:19

English [1] - 31:8

entire [2] - 10:18,

35:7

entitled [3] - 2:16,

6:25, 39:5

entitles [1] - 5:2

Entry [1] - 24:19

Epic [6] - 17:7, 17:8,

17:17, 17:20, 34:8,

34:19

Epic's [1] - 18:5

erroneous [1] -

29:14

ESQ [3] - 1:14, 1:17,

1:18

essential [2] - 4:15,

5:14

essentially [1] -

32:16

established [1] - 7:6

etcetera [2] - 5:11,

38:13

evacuate [1] - 26:2

evacuation [1] - 26:7

event [1] - 11:10

eventually [1] -

28:20

evidence [5] - 14:24,

15:2, 15:13, 15:15,

16:18

exact [1] - 6:15

exactly [2] - 2:24,

33:25

example [1] - 15:15

excessive [1] - 30:12

exercise [3] - 3:7,

5:4, 7:9

exhibited [1] - 24:2

existed [1] - 15:3

expansive [1] - 13:4

expert [32] - 8:22,

9:8, 10:2, 11:8, 11:13,

13:21, 13:22, 14:1,

14:7, 14:10, 14:14,

15:14, 19:10, 20:6,

22:10, 22:17, 22:19,

22:20, 23:16, 23:17,

24:6, 25:22, 27:8,

27:15, 28:6, 28:11,

29:14, 31:12, 33:3,

33:7, 37:3, 38:13

expert's [5] - 9:2,

10:21, 13:19, 23:19,

23:20

experts's [1] - 37:7

explains [1] - 18:8

explore [2] - 10:25,

22:18

extend [1] - 14:13

extended [1] - 18:9

extensive [1] - 25:14

F

fact [16] - 6:23, 7:1,

10:4, 10:17, 11:16,

11:18, 13:22, 18:15,

19:5, 23:23, 24:5,

27:9, 30:3, 32:12,

35:17, 35:25

facts [15] - 10:16,

14:6, 18:15, 18:16,

18:18, 18:20, 19:1,

20:15, 20:16, 20:20,

21:4, 21:8, 21:10,

23:24, 29:20

factual [1] - 12:1

factually [1] - 16:5

failed [11] - 4:11,

4:22, 5:19, 5:22, 5:24,

17:21, 20:14, 21:1,

23:2, 24:9, 34:1

failing [5] - 3:3, 3:13,

4:8, 6:2, 17:5

Failure [2] - 2:18, 3:1

failure [24] - 2:19,

2:20, 4:17, 4:22, 6:3,

6:9, 6:12, 6:19, 6:20,

6:21, 6:23, 8:23,

12:22, 12:23, 12:24,

13:24, 16:24, 29:19,

32:12, 33:25, 34:6,

34:16

failures [1] - 35:1

fair[1] - 32:17

fairly [2] - 8:9, 38:14

fall [2] - 30:14, 31:17

3

falling [1] - 18:10

FCRR [2] - 1:22, 39:9

February [1] - 9:17

few [1] - 26:12

file [3] - 21:5, 21:7,

38:15

filed [4] - 11:1,

15:23, 22:10, 33:5

final [2] - 2:16, 4:16

finally [3] - 4:14, 6:5,

15:11

fine [1] - 37:8

finish [2] - 26:3,

26:11

Fire [1] - 25:1

fire [1] - 26:10

FIRM [1] - 1:14

Firm [1] - 2:8

first [6] - 2:25, 5:9,

10:4, 15:24, 29:11,

29:12

flip [1] - 33:12

floating [4] - 11:24,

34:9, 34:20, 35:2

Floor [2] - 1:24,

39:10

FLORIDA [1] - 1:1

Florida [5] - 1:4,

1:16, 1:20, 1:25,

39:11

focus [1] - 8:1

focused [1] - 8:20

follow [1] - 13:18

footage [7] - 8:8,

9:15, 12:4, 14:24,

16:12, 16:13

FOR [2] - 1:14, 1:17

force [1] - 5:10

forced [1] - 3:25

foregoing [1] - 39:3

foreshadow [1] -

38:2

forth [15] - 7:21, 8:3,

13:10, 18:19, 18:21,

19:2, 19:3, 19:13,

20:2, 20:6, 20:8,

22:16, 26:24, 27:16,

30:12

four [1] - 4:15

FPR [2] - 1:22, 39:9

France [2] - 19:21,

23:12

frankly [1] - 14:7

frequently [2] -

19:18, 19:19

full [2] - 28:14, 32:17

fully [1] - 26:5

Case 1:20-cv-21961-DPG Document 107 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/07/2023 Page 42 of 47
G

GAYLES[1] - 1:10

general [14] - 7:2,

7:25, 13:5, 13:12,

24:20, 30:9, 30:17,

31:24, 35:3, 35:21,

36:3, 36:16

generally [2] - 12:18,

15:11

genuine [3] - 6:23,

7:1, 35:17

given [6] - 6:17,

13:25, 17:13, 22:4,

22:17, 27:13

Goodman [2] - 2:7,

15:22

GOODMAN [19] -

1:14, 2:7, 15:21,

16:19, 18:3, 19:1,

21:23, 22:11, 22:20,

24:23, 25:2, 25:4,

26:4, 26:12, 26:15,

30:9, 31:20, 37:23,

38:22

governed [1] - 7:2

grant [1] - 11:10

guess [8] - 9:6, 13:3,

14:13, 16:5, 24:19,

25:5, 35:18, 38:1

H

handrails [1] - 30:15

Harstead [1] - 19:10

hazards [1] - 3:3

head [1] - 22:5

heads [1] - 38:17

heads-up [1] - 38:17

heard [1] - 32:6

HEARING [1] - 1:10

hearing [2] - 2:11,

10:5

hearsay [1] - 24:1

helpful [1] - 8:5

hereby [1] - 39:3

Hickey [1] - 2:8

HICKEY [1] - 1:14

high [1] - 23:11

higher [2] - 12:11,

30:25

highly [1] - 23:9

himself [2] - 31:4,

32:10

hire [1] - 22:19

hits [1] - 16:15

hitting [1] - 24:21

hold [4] - 19:15,

30:15, 30:24, 31:10

holds [1] - 30:5

Honor [26] - 2:7,

2:14, 7:16, 8:4, 9:21,

11:1, 11:15, 12:10,

13:11, 13:20, 14:15,

15:18, 15:21, 22:11,

22:20, 24:23, 26:12,

26:16, 31:20, 31:23,

33:23, 35:13, 37:23,

37:25, 38:16, 38:22

HONORABLE [1] -

1:10

hull [1] - 32:21

I

immediately [1] -

13:6

imminent [1] - 30:24

implied [1] - 35:10

importance [1] -

17:18

important [3] - 2:23,

9:11, 32:1

improper[1] - 29:5

inception [1] - 26:25

incident [7] - 8:2,

15:7, 16:10, 24:24,

25:4, 36:17

incidents [3] - 15:6,

25:8, 30:2

included [5] - 28:13,

28:14, 28:23, 28:25,

29:13

includes [1] - 7:10

including [8] - 3:3,

11:23, 14:23, 15:4,

18:22, 29:24, 34:8,

34:19

incorrect [1] - 26:4

increased [1] - 20:1

indulge [1] - 9:12

information [1] -

16:21

ingress [6] - 3:16,

5:6, 17:7, 17:17,

17:19, 30:4

initial [2] - 13:3, 29:6

injure [1] - 31:18

injured [2] - 34:10,

34:21

injuries [10] - 4:15,

4:19, 6:6, 6:11, 6:12,

7:5, 12:20, 32:11,

34:11, 34:17

injury [5] - 3:22,

9:10, 12:14, 12:22,

13:7

inserting [1] - 15:12

intended [1] - 17:25

interval [1] - 14:22

investigate [2] -

16:9, 33:2

invite [1] - 15:4

involved [2] - 24:19,

24:24

issue [17] - 6:23, 7:1,

8:10, 11:17, 14:14,

22:19, 23:25, 24:4,

26:5, 27:1, 32:3,

35:18, 36:21, 37:3,

38:5, 38:9, 38:11

issued [2] - 9:24,

33:4

issues [6] - 10:14,

11:4, 35:17, 35:25,

36:2, 36:7

itself [12] - 12:4,

14:25, 19:17, 22:4,

22:7, 22:23, 23:1,

23:15, 23:18, 25:24,

28:7, 33:22

J

Jomar[2] - 18:12,

19:5

JUDGE [1] - 1:11

judgment [16] - 2:12,

2:17, 6:18, 6:22, 6:25,

7:18, 15:12, 15:16,

15:23, 20:10, 21:9,

24:8, 24:10, 26:16,

29:6, 35:16

July [3] - 25:11,

27:18, 39:8

June [1] - 1:5

K

keep [1] - 9:12

kind [4] - 32:16,

32:21, 32:22, 38:2

knots [1] - 8:12

knowing [1] - 17:20

known [7] - 3:9, 5:7,

17:18, 20:24, 23:9,

26:25, 31:15

knows [7] - 7:11,

18:18, 18:21, 23:10,

23:13, 24:3

L

language [3] - 6:16,

36:21, 36:23

LAW [1] - 1:14

law [2] - 7:1, 7:2

Law [1] - 2:8

layperson [1] - 7:19

lays [1] - 5:1

lead [1] - 35:9

leap [1] - 35:10

least [6] - 11:9,

12:13, 14:2, 19:23,

21:19, 29:24

leave [8] - 10:11,

10:14, 11:10, 14:12,

21:5, 21:7, 25:2, 37:9

led [1] - 12:14

left [1] - 19:21

liability [2] - 29:4,

38:7

liable [2] - 7:7, 30:5

life [1] - 18:5

lifeboat [1] - 18:8

light [1] - 38:1

Ligue [1] - 18:13

limine [3] - 11:3,

37:15, 37:16

Limited [1] - 2:4

limited [4] - 11:15,

33:8, 38:4, 38:9

line [2] - 7:6, 18:13

lines [1] - 34:4

Lines [1] - 2:10

LISA [1] - 1:14

Lisa [2] - 2:7, 15:22

list [1] - 4:7

lists [2] - 3:5, 21:10

litigated [1] - 32:18

litigation [1] - 22:10

local [2] - 20:14, 21:1

log [1] - 8:11

logs [1] - 9:15

look [7] - 2:25,

11:18, 11:22, 14:6,

20:19, 32:22

looking [2] - 24:18,

34:5

looks [1] - 14:1

LTD [1] - 1:7

M

mail [3] - 10:10,

28:19, 28:23

mails [1] - 28:17

main [1] - 3:17

manner[4] - 17:13,

28:9, 28:10, 29:16

March [2] - 9:25,

10:13

MARCOTTE[1] -

1:18

maritime [2] - 7:2,

7:3

material [3] - 6:23,

7:1, 35:17

matter[7] - 6:25, 7:2,

19:18, 19:20, 22:18,

4

23:13, 39:5

matters [1] - 7:18

Matthew [1] - 2:9

MATTHEW[1] - 1:18

McAlpin [8] - 1:17,

1:18, 2:9, 2:14, 37:25,

38:20

mean [15] - 7:19, 9:1,

11:12, 12:12, 12:13,

12:24, 22:8, 22:13,

33:3, 33:5, 33:8,

33:19, 33:21, 34:25

means [2] - 19:19,

19:23

measure [1] - 32:21

measures [1] - 15:4

member[8] - 5:21,

5:23, 5:24, 6:8, 25:16,

31:3, 31:5, 34:22

members [16] - 5:7,

5:12, 5:19, 6:3, 6:7,

6:10, 17:6, 17:15,

17:16, 17:19, 17:21,

19:23, 20:9, 34:1,

34:17, 34:18

mention [3] - 10:13,

17:25, 18:3

mentioned [1] - 18:1

merely [1] - 7:7

met [1] - 14:21

MIAMI [1] - 1:2

Miami [7] - 1:4, 1:16,

1:20, 1:24, 1:25,

39:10, 39:11

Michael [1] - 18:13

minimal [1] - 14:5

minutes [3] - 19:21,

19:24, 20:3

moment [6] - 11:23,

13:6, 15:1, 34:5, 37:2,

37:5

months [1] - 33:14

moot [1] - 37:15

morning [5] - 2:2,

2:7, 2:9, 15:21, 38:5

most [1] - 27:11

motion [23] - 2:12,

2:18, 10:11, 11:2,

11:3, 11:10, 19:17,

21:7, 21:9, 26:16,

26:24, 28:7, 29:6,

33:6, 35:16, 37:7,

37:8, 37:13, 37:14,

37:15, 37:16, 38:3,

38:15

MOTION [1] - 1:10

motions [2] - 27:16,

35:14

move [1] - 24:8

moved [4] - 6:18,

Case 1:20-cv-21961-DPG Document 107 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/07/2023 Page 43 of 47
20:10, 21:5, 24:10

movement[1] -

12:14

moving [3] - 5:14,

6:25, 11:4

MR [31] - 2:9, 2:14,

2:16, 3:12, 7:16, 8:4,

9:3, 9:11, 9:21, 9:24,

10:24, 11:1, 11:7,

11:15, 12:3, 12:10,

12:15, 12:25, 13:11,

13:20, 14:10, 14:15,

14:18, 15:11, 31:23,

33:12, 33:23, 35:6,

35:13, 37:25, 38:20

MS [18] - 2:7, 15:21,

16:19, 18:3, 19:1,

21:23, 22:11, 22:20,

24:23, 25:2, 25:4,

26:4, 26:12, 26:15,

30:9, 31:20, 37:23,

38:22

must [3] - 6:22, 7:3,

17:12

N

namely [1] - 15:13

nature [1] - 33:22

navigate [1] - 3:20

NCL [68] - 1:7, 2:4,

3:2, 16:2, 16:4, 17:5,

17:7, 17:8, 17:14,

17:16, 17:17, 17:18,

17:20, 17:21, 18:5,

18:12, 18:18, 18:21,

19:1, 19:5, 21:1,

21:17, 22:22, 23:1,

23:10, 23:11, 23:13,

23:15, 23:17, 23:18,

23:20, 23:24, 24:1,

24:3, 24:8, 24:10,

24:11, 24:13, 25:9,

25:11, 25:17, 25:25,

26:25, 27:9, 28:14,

28:17, 29:4, 29:6,

29:9, 29:11, 29:18,

29:20, 29:23, 30:3,

30:5, 30:22, 31:3,

31:5, 31:15, 34:8,

34:12, 34:17, 34:19,

34:20

NCL's [27] - 4:12,

4:17, 18:8, 18:11,

21:14, 22:21, 23:6,

24:14, 25:17, 25:25,

27:1, 27:9, 27:15,

27:18, 28:6, 28:11,

28:18, 29:2, 29:25,

30:1, 31:12, 34:6,

34:16, 34:18

necessarily [1] -

12:22

necessary [1] -

16:20

need [3] - 25:2,

32:19, 32:20

negligence [2] - 3:2,

30:4

Negligent [2] - 2:25,

6:13

negligent [31] - 3:13,

4:25, 6:14, 6:20, 6:21,

8:19, 9:7, 10:9, 10:16,

11:20, 15:13, 15:16,

16:24, 16:25, 17:1,

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

17:23, 19:11, 24:9,

28:25, 29:1, 29:7,

29:14, 33:18

negligently [2] -

23:1, 34:1

never[3] - 11:17,

20:4, 29:6

new [6] - 8:15, 29:3,

29:4, 29:13, 32:19,

38:13

next [4] - 3:5, 3:23,

4:7, 4:25

NO [1] - 1:2

non [1] - 30:3

non-delegable [1] -

30:3

normally [1] - 7:17

North [2] - 1:24,

39:10

Norwegian [11] - 3:5,

3:7, 3:9, 3:13, 3:19,

4:19, 5:2, 5:17, 6:18,

7:3, 14:21

Norwegian's [1] -

4:7

Norweigian [13] -

2:10, 2:16, 3:15, 3:25,

4:5, 4:8, 4:11, 5:7,

5:10, 5:19, 6:1, 6:7,

32:13

Norweigian's [2] -

5:21, 13:11

notably [2] - 4:11,

4:23

note [2] - 37:9, 37:14

noted [1] - 37:5

nothing [3] - 8:19,

30:18, 35:13

notice [13] - 13:12,

14:22, 16:2, 20:12,

21:11, 21:12, 21:14,

21:17, 21:20, 24:13,

28:17, 29:23

noticeable [1] -

19:17

noticed [1] - 13:14

November[2] - 9:18,

9:24

nowhere [2] - 8:17,

32:9

O

object [3] - 18:22,

19:4

obtaining [1] - 38:13

obvious [9] - 16:1,

20:12, 20:14, 21:15,

21:16, 24:13, 29:18,

36:8

obviously [2] -

14:25, 36:15

occurred [3] - 7:8,

16:10, 36:17

ocean [1] - 32:24

October[7] - 8:7,

9:15, 16:11, 32:3,

34:10, 34:21

OF [1] - 1:1

OFFICER [1] - 26:2

Official [1] - 39:9

official [1] - 1:23

omissions [1] - 27:5

once [2] - 10:21,

13:17

one [8] - 6:15, 10:2,

14:10, 15:6, 32:1,

33:6, 36:21

open [10] - 8:23,

15:25, 16:1, 20:11,

20:13, 21:15, 21:16,

24:12, 29:18, 36:8

operate [2] - 25:6,

27:10

operated [9] - 17:12,

23:2, 26:21, 27:11,

27:12, 28:9, 29:16,

36:1, 36:12

operating [1] - 21:25

operation [37] - 8:17,

8:20, 9:7, 9:9, 10:5,

10:9, 10:16, 10:20,

10:22, 11:5, 11:17,

11:21, 13:23, 14:5,

15:13, 15:16, 17:2,

18:14, 19:12, 23:25,

24:2, 24:3, 24:6, 24:9,

25:12, 25:14, 26:1,

27:1, 28:15, 28:25,

29:7, 29:15, 30:18,

31:15, 36:5, 36:25,

37:4

operations [1] -

19:19

operator[26] - 9:8,

12:6, 12:8, 17:25,

18:12, 19:5, 22:15,

23:1, 23:7, 23:22,

24:2, 24:14, 26:20,

27:9, 27:18, 28:8,

28:13, 28:15, 29:16,

30:25, 31:4, 32:7,

32:10, 33:20, 36:1,

36:10

operator's [6] - 8:23,

8:24, 9:9, 33:4, 36:5,

36:24

operators [2] - 7:8,

28:12

operators's [1] -

25:15

opine [2] - 13:23,

13:24

opined [4] - 8:22,

28:11, 33:4, 37:3

opining [1] - 8:24

opinion [8] - 9:2,

10:21, 11:14, 13:18,

15:14, 23:18, 37:7,

37:9

opinions [1] - 11:4

opportunity [10] -

11:16, 13:25, 14:7,

14:8, 22:18, 28:15,

32:17, 33:2, 38:8,

38:11

oppose [1] - 10:11

opposed [2] - 7:15,

24:20

opposing [1] - 10:7

options [2] - 37:6,

37:19

Order[2] - 2:1, 26:8

order[3] - 6:21, 9:25,

18:10

outside [1] - 26:6

overarching [1] -

35:18

overtake [2] - 22:7,

26:23

overtaking [1] -

38:12

overtook [1] - 32:8

owe [1] - 7:8

owed [6] - 3:5, 3:19,

5:2, 5:16, 5:17, 7:3

own [14] - 13:19,

21:10, 22:19, 22:23,

23:11, 24:6, 24:14,

27:15, 27:18, 28:6,

29:14, 29:25, 31:12,

33:23

owner [1] - 33:1

5

P

PA [1] - 31:2

page [6] - 19:6, 19:9,

19:16, 26:17, 27:19,

28:6

Pages [1] - 1:7

paragraph [29] - 3:2,

3:15, 3:17, 3:18, 3:23,

4:7, 4:11, 4:17, 5:8,

5:12, 5:18, 5:21, 6:6,

17:5, 17:8, 17:14,

18:5, 18:16, 18:17,

18:20, 20:16, 20:21,

23:24, 34:6, 34:15,

34:24, 35:6, 35:11

paragraphs [9] - 3:6,

4:2, 5:3, 12:21, 18:4,

21:2, 28:22, 28:24,

37:1

pardon [1] - 10:24

part [2] - 9:2, 17:8

particular[4] - 3:18,

33:10, 35:11, 38:11

parties [3] - 27:5,

36:15, 37:18

party [1] - 6:25

passenger[2] - 7:7,

7:12

passengers [24] -

3:3, 3:8, 3:14, 3:20,

4:5, 4:12, 5:5, 5:13,

5:20, 5:25, 6:3, 6:8,

7:8, 7:10, 12:8, 17:11,

17:15, 19:24, 30:7,

31:16, 31:17, 34:18,

36:12, 36:13

passing [1] - 32:24

paste [1] - 6:14

PATRICIA[2] - 1:22,

39:9

pending [3] - 8:6,

11:3, 21:6

people [2] - 30:15,

31:9

perhaps [1] - 22:19

period [1] - 15:3

perpendicular[1] -

18:9

person [1] - 36:23

personnel [1] - 4:25

Personnel [1] - 6:13

perspective [1] -

13:11

petitioned [1] - 33:8

pinpoints [1] - 33:25

placed [2] - 9:8, 37:4

plain [1] - 34:25

plaintiff [41] - 2:6,

2:8, 3:5, 4:14, 4:23,

Case 1:20-cv-21961-DPG Document 107 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/07/2023 Page 44 of 47
5:1, 6:1, 6:5, 6:22,

7:3, 8:13, 9:6, 9:14,

9:21, 10:1, 11:25,

12:7, 14:20, 14:23,

15:2, 15:5, 15:11,

15:20, 15:22, 20:17,

20:22, 20:23, 21:5,

21:17, 24:9, 29:18,

29:21, 32:4, 32:16,

33:12, 34:7, 36:4,

36:8, 36:12, 36:19,

37:6

Plaintiff [2] - 1:5,

5:18

PLAINTIFF [1] - 1:14

plaintiff's [32] - 2:17,

4:19, 6:17, 8:7, 8:15,

8:22, 9:2, 9:10, 9:16,

10:6, 10:14, 12:14,

13:7, 13:18, 16:4,

18:20, 20:15, 21:7,

21:22, 23:15, 23:16,

24:10, 27:6, 29:19,

32:19, 33:3, 33:17,

33:21, 33:23, 34:11,

37:3, 38:6

Plaintiff's [1] - 4:2

plaintiffs [3] - 4:7,

9:4, 37:22

platform [8] - 16:15,

18:23, 19:25, 20:18,

20:22, 20:24, 20:25,

29:22

plausible [1] - 32:23

plead [10] - 2:24,

4:15, 5:14, 6:17, 9:7,

11:19, 11:21, 24:9,

32:5, 32:18

pleading [1] - 13:1

pleadings [7] - 2:22,

8:18, 8:19, 8:20, 10:8,

12:6, 13:14

pleads [1] - 2:18

point [7] - 7:14, 9:6,

12:7, 13:20, 16:13,

30:25, 36:11

pointed [3] - 10:7,

27:20, 28:22

points [3] - 15:24,

26:13, 31:24

ports [3] - 3:25, 5:10,

17:9

position [5] - 13:13,

22:24, 23:6, 23:16,

25:25

possibility [1] -

38:13

potentially [1] -

12:17

preceding [1] - 13:6

predicated [1] - 38:4

prejudices [1] -

13:21

presentation [1] -

23:11

presentations [1] -

29:25

presumably [2] -

22:13, 33:14

pretty [3] - 9:1, 13:8,

36:9

prevent [1] - 18:10

proceed [2] - 2:12,

11:11

Proceedings [1] -

38:23

proceedings [1] -

39:4

produced [3] - 8:11,

16:7, 23:16

prominent [1] - 9:2

proper[1] - 5:22

properly [13] - 4:8,

4:17, 4:19, 5:23, 5:24,

6:7, 6:9, 27:10, 29:19,

34:6, 34:12, 34:16,

34:18

proposed [1] - 10:10

propounded [2] -

8:7, 8:8

prove [3] - 7:3,

21:19, 29:23

provide [10] - 3:15,

5:6, 17:6, 17:17,

17:19, 19:24, 20:3,

30:3, 31:16

provided [6] - 15:2,

20:4, 20:9, 27:15,

30:7, 36:14

providing [1] - 5:22

proximate [3] - 4:16,

6:6, 7:4

proximately [6] -

4:15, 4:18, 6:10, 6:12,

34:10, 34:17

put [2] - 14:2, 28:17

puts [2] - 23:24, 30:5

Q

questioning [1] -

18:14

quite [2] - 8:6, 28:8

R

read [8] - 3:10,

12:17, 16:22, 16:23,

31:7, 34:4, 36:23,

37:1

reading [2] - 17:8,

34:25

ready [1] - 2:12

reason [2] - 17:21,

37:16

reasonable [5] - 3:7,

5:5, 7:9, 7:12, 36:23

reasonably [6] - 4:9,

5:19, 6:2, 16:20, 36:1,

36:23

rebut [1] - 11:9

rebuttal [1] - 13:19

received [3] - 10:2,

10:21, 16:16

Recess [1] - 26:7

recess [1] - 38:21

reconstruction [1] -

32:23

record [7] - 14:24,

15:2, 15:3, 15:15,

35:15, 36:9, 37:12

referred [1] - 15:14

reflect [1] - 23:4

reflects [1] - 22:6

regard [1] - 36:1

regarding [8] -

10:22, 14:4, 17:2,

21:22, 22:19, 24:17,

25:12, 26:1

related [2] - 11:5,

11:16

relates [4] - 3:18,

3:23, 35:7, 35:18

relating [1] - 35:2

relatively [1] - 7:20

relays [1] - 5:8

remaining [1] - 30:18

removable [4] -

11:24, 20:25, 34:9,

34:20

removable/floating

[4] - 18:6, 18:7, 18:8,

19:25

removal/floating [1]

- 17:10

reopened [1] - 9:18

rep's [1] - 25:11

reply [4] - 29:3, 29:4,

29:12, 31:22

report [13] - 10:2,

11:9, 14:3, 14:4,

19:11, 19:16, 22:10,

22:17, 23:16, 23:19,

23:20, 28:6, 33:4

REPORTED [1] -

1:21

REPORTER [1] -

3:10

Reporter[2] - 1:23,

39:9

representative [1] -

18:11

requires [1] - 21:2

resolved [1] - 35:17

respond [3] - 11:13,

29:19, 38:14

responded [3] -

22:21, 23:17, 28:19

responding [1] -

21:3

response [11] -

20:15, 20:19, 20:20,

21:8, 24:18, 26:18,

28:19, 28:23, 28:24,

35:15, 38:2

responses [2] - 8:15,

21:4

responsible [1] -

5:22

rest [1] - 5:8

retained [1] - 13:21

retool [1] - 32:4

returns [1] - 22:6

revealed [1] - 22:9

review [1] - 2:22

reviewed [2] - 16:19,

25:22

Richard [2] - 2:9,

37:25

RICHARD [1] - 1:17

risk [1] - 3:21

risks [1] - 3:4

rock [4] - 7:22,

18:19, 19:2, 20:1

rocking [11] - 7:21,

8:3, 18:21, 19:3,

19:13, 20:6, 20:8,

22:16, 23:21, 26:24,

30:12

roll [1] - 18:19

rolling [10] - 19:17,

20:8, 23:21, 26:24,

27:16, 28:7, 30:12,

30:21, 32:14

rough [10] - 3:24,

3:25, 4:4, 4:5, 5:9,

5:10, 15:7, 17:15,

22:14, 24:20

route [1] - 33:10

RPR [2] - 1:22, 39:9

rue [1] - 6:2

RUGGERI [1] - 1:4

Ruggeri [15] - 2:3,

3:3, 4:9, 4:18, 4:20,

6:9, 18:9, 34:7, 34:9,

34:12, 34:13, 34:21,

34:22

Ruggeri's [2] - 6:10,

34:17

rule [1] - 38:18

6

rules [3] - 20:14,

21:1, 29:5

ruling [1] - 38:1

S

safe [8] - 3:15, 5:6,

17:6, 17:12, 17:13,

17:17, 17:19, 30:3

safely [1] - 3:19

safety [2] - 3:8, 5:5

sail [1] - 4:12

saw [2] - 20:22,

28:20

scheduling [1] - 9:25

sea [37] - 2:19, 2:20,

2:21, 3:18, 3:22, 4:9,

4:23, 8:1, 11:23,

12:25, 13:8, 13:12,

14:20, 15:24, 15:25,

17:13, 17:15, 20:17,

20:22, 22:14, 24:11,

25:5, 25:6, 25:9,

25:10, 26:17, 26:18,

29:8, 29:9, 29:21,

32:15, 34:2, 35:3,

35:8, 35:18, 35:21

seaman [4] - 18:13,

28:9, 28:10, 29:16

seaman-like [3] -

28:9, 28:10, 29:16

seamanlike [1] -

24:2

seamanship [1] -

24:2

seas [11] - 3:21,

3:24, 3:25, 5:9, 5:10,

7:14, 8:9, 8:12, 15:7,

16:14, 24:20

seatbelts [1] - 30:14

seated [2] - 2:2,

30:18

second [4] - 9:22,

10:3, 15:25, 31:3

seconds [2] - 20:5,

30:20

SECURITY[1] - 26:2

see [13] - 14:24,

16:14, 20:17, 20:23,

27:23, 28:1, 28:4,

29:21, 29:22, 31:8,

32:3, 38:18

seeing [1] - 16:13

seek [2] - 10:14, 37:8

seem [1] - 36:10

sense [2] - 7:25, 13:4

sent [1] - 10:10

sentence [1] - 17:14

sentences [1] - 18:5

separate [2] - 2:24,

Case 1:20-cv-21961-DPG Document 107 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/07/2023 Page 45 of 47
32:24

set [3] - 9:25, 22:16,

37:10

shake [1] - 13:9

ship [12] - 3:16, 5:6,

5:13, 5:20, 7:8, 8:2,

17:12, 19:22, 22:5,

22:6, 23:5, 30:4

shipboard [2] - 17:6,

17:16

show [3] - 6:22, 7:19,

14:21

shown [1] - 19:7

shows [3] - 8:9, 15:2,

35:21

side [1] - 33:12

sides [1] - 37:20

similar[5] - 5:4, 5:8,

15:6, 25:8, 34:25

simply [2] - 33:1,

33:15

sits [1] - 12:10

sitting [2] - 12:8,

36:11

situation [2] - 24:24,

30:19

six [1] - 21:11

sixth [1] - 27:2

skip [2] - 3:25, 5:10

slightest [1] - 30:5

slow [2] - 22:2, 23:2

slowdown [1] - 23:3

slowed [1] - 27:14

slower [1] - 3:10

slows [1] - 22:3

smooth [1] - 8:12

sorry [1] - 26:9

Sorry [1] - 3:12

sort [1] - 38:15

sounds [1] - 37:1

SOUTHERN [1] - 1:1

speaking [1] - 15:11

speaks [2] - 12:4,

14:25

specific [16] - 10:15,

11:4, 13:15, 21:2,

22:8, 22:14, 28:22,

30:10, 30:11, 30:18,

31:11, 31:17, 33:13,

36:19, 37:3, 38:6

specifically [13] -

3:6, 10:9, 11:21,

12:19, 13:14, 16:23,

17:4, 17:25, 32:19,

33:7, 35:6, 36:20,

37:4

speed [6] - 17:12,

19:12, 22:1, 23:3,

23:20, 27:13

standpoint [1] - 11:7

started [1] - 10:5

starting [1] - 2:5

starts [2] - 7:22,

30:21

state [3] - 2:5, 3:6,

36:22

statement [14] -

18:15, 18:16, 18:18,

18:20, 20:15, 20:20,

21:4, 21:8, 21:10,

23:24, 24:19, 29:20,

30:1

states [6] - 4:11,

18:21, 20:16, 27:2,

27:4, 34:15

States [2] - 1:23,

39:10

STATES[2] - 1:1,

1:11

stayed [2] - 9:16,

9:19

stays [1] - 15:1

STENOGRAPHICA

LLY [1] - 1:21

stop [1] - 25:2

stopped [1] - 17:8

street [3] - 2:10,

2:14, 38:10

STREET [28] - 1:18,

2:16, 3:12, 7:16, 8:4,

9:3, 9:11, 9:21, 9:24,

10:24, 11:1, 11:7,

11:15, 12:3, 12:10,

12:15, 12:25, 13:11,

13:20, 14:10, 14:15,

14:18, 15:11, 31:23,

33:12, 33:23, 35:6,

35:13

Street [2] - 1:19,

16:22

strike [1] - 11:4

subject [1] - 22:25

subjected [1] - 3:20

submitted [1] - 19:10

subsequently [1] -

37:8

substantially [1] -

15:6

substituting [1] -

6:16

suffered [1] - 7:5

sufficient [3] - 14:22,

36:14, 36:16

sufficiently [2] -

28:21, 29:8

suggest [1] - 30:6

Suite [2] - 1:15, 1:19

summarizing [1] -

24:22

summary [16] - 2:12,

2:16, 6:18, 6:22, 6:25,

7:18, 15:12, 15:16,

15:23, 20:10, 21:9,

24:8, 24:10, 26:16,

29:6, 35:16

superior[2] - 12:7,

36:11

supervise [2] - 2:21,

6:16

Supervision [1] -

6:13

supervision [7] -

6:21, 16:25, 17:2,

17:4, 17:23, 29:1,

33:18

surgery [1] - 9:22

surpass [1] - 22:5

surprise [1] - 35:4

surreplies [1] - 21:6

surreply [2] - 21:7,

37:14

survive [1] - 6:22

SW [1] - 1:19

swell [12] - 14:25,

19:2, 19:6, 21:24,

24:15, 25:9, 25:19,

27:24, 27:25, 28:4,

28:5, 32:24

swells [4] - 18:17,

18:18, 20:1, 20:23

system [1] - 31:2

T

talks [5] - 11:23,

19:12, 19:13, 23:21,

23:22

TANNER [1] - 1:18

tender[76] - 4:3,

7:21, 8:16, 8:17, 8:24,

9:7, 9:8, 9:9, 10:5,

10:20, 11:5, 11:17,

11:24, 12:2, 13:9,

14:5, 15:17, 16:15,

17:11, 17:12, 18:1,

18:12, 18:14, 19:5,

19:12, 19:19, 19:20,

21:24, 21:25, 22:2,

23:1, 23:7, 23:22,

23:25, 24:1, 24:3,

24:6, 24:14, 24:20,

25:12, 25:14, 25:15,

26:20, 26:21, 27:1,

27:9, 27:10, 27:11,

27:12, 27:18, 27:19,

28:8, 28:12, 28:13,

28:15, 30:8, 30:18,

30:25, 31:4, 32:9,

32:20, 32:21, 33:4,

33:20, 34:8, 34:20,

35:9, 35:23, 36:1,

36:4, 36:11, 36:12,

36:24, 36:25, 37:4,

38:12

tender's [1] - 10:22

tendering [4] - 3:23,

5:9, 23:12, 27:17

tenor[1] - 10:18

terms [2] - 11:8,

20:13

testified [3] - 19:7,

23:7, 27:18

testimony [3] -

18:17, 24:1, 29:25

THE [51] - 1:10, 1:14,

1:14, 1:17, 2:2, 2:11,

3:10, 7:13, 7:17, 8:22,

9:5, 9:19, 9:23, 10:21,

10:25, 11:6, 11:12,

11:20, 12:5, 12:12,

12:24, 13:2, 13:17,

14:8, 14:12, 14:16,

15:10, 15:19, 16:16,

17:24, 18:24, 21:21,

22:8, 22:12, 24:17,

25:3, 26:3, 26:6, 26:9,

26:14, 30:6, 31:19,

31:21, 33:3, 33:16,

34:5, 35:12, 35:14,

37:24, 38:18, 38:21

themselves [3] -

8:21, 20:2, 31:18

theory [16] - 8:14,

8:15, 9:1, 21:22, 22:9,

22:15, 22:21, 29:3,

29:13, 32:6, 32:19,

33:13, 33:22, 36:19,

37:3, 38:7

therefore [1] - 20:22

thinking [1] - 38:16

third [1] - 27:5

three [7] - 2:17, 2:24,

6:18, 6:24, 8:12,

15:23, 16:24

thrust [2] - 3:17, 4:3

timeline [2] - 8:5,

9:12

timing [1] - 32:2

titled [1] - 2:25

today [2] - 11:5,

37:21

tone [1] - 10:18

took [1] - 22:25

towards [1] - 29:2

traffic [1] - 23:11

trafficked [1] - 23:9

train [9] - 2:20, 5:7,

5:12, 5:19, 6:10, 6:16,

17:6, 17:21, 34:16

trained [6] - 5:23,

7

6:7, 17:14, 27:10,

34:1, 34:18

training [12] - 4:25,

6:2, 6:14, 6:20, 16:25,

17:1, 17:3, 17:19,

28:11, 28:13, 29:1,

33:19

trains [1] - 17:16

transcription [1] -

39:4

traveled [1] - 23:2

travelling [1] - 21:25

trial [5] - 35:17,

37:16, 37:17, 37:19

try [1] - 9:12

two [4] - 6:19, 14:18,

16:16, 22:9

U

ultimately [3] -

11:11, 34:1, 35:9

unaware [1] - 33:21

unclaimed [1] -

15:13

under [8] - 7:9,

16:23, 17:4, 22:1,

29:5, 33:20, 36:2,

37:5

undisputed [1] -

30:22

unexpected [2] -

26:10, 27:16

united [1] - 1:23

United [1] - 39:10

UNITED [2] - 1:1,

1:11

unplead [1] - 15:16

unreasonable [4] -

22:1, 23:2, 27:13,

33:19

unreasonably [7] -

2:19, 3:20, 4:12,

14:20, 26:18, 26:19,

29:10

untimely [1] - 10:12

unusual [6] - 19:17,

20:8, 28:8, 31:13,

31:14, 35:21

up [9] - 8:14, 9:5,

13:18, 16:14, 22:4,

23:4, 26:22, 27:14,

38:17

V

vantage [3] - 12:7,

30:25, 36:11

various [1] - 17:9

verbalize [1] - 31:9

Case 1:20-cv-21961-DPG Document 107 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/07/2023 Page 46 of 47
versus [1] - 2:4

vessel [68] - 4:3,

7:14, 7:21, 8:16, 8:17,

10:5, 10:20, 10:22,

11:5, 11:17, 14:5,

15:17, 16:15, 17:3,

18:14, 19:12, 19:13,

19:14, 21:24, 21:25,

22:2, 22:3, 22:4, 22:5,

22:7, 22:23, 22:25,

23:4, 23:14, 23:15,

23:18, 23:21, 23:25,

24:3, 24:7, 25:13,

25:14, 25:21, 25:23,

25:24, 26:1, 26:21,

26:23, 27:1, 27:10,

27:11, 27:12, 27:17,

27:20, 29:15, 29:16,

30:2, 30:11, 30:20,

32:20, 32:21, 32:22,

32:24, 33:1, 35:9,

36:2, 36:5, 36:6,

38:12

vessels [5] - 23:6,

23:8, 23:10, 23:13,

31:15

video [17] - 7:17,

7:22, 8:6, 8:7, 8:8,

13:8, 16:7, 16:8,

16:16, 16:18, 19:7,

24:16, 25:18, 25:22,

35:20

view [1] - 9:3

violent [2] - 20:7,

26:23

violently [3] - 18:6,

30:21

visible [1] - 7:22

VIVIAN [1] - 1:4

voyage [1] - 19:20

vs [1] - 1:6

W

wake [24] - 8:24,

19:2, 19:6, 21:24,

22:3, 22:21, 22:22,

22:25, 23:4, 23:6,

23:8, 23:14, 23:18,

25:9, 25:18, 26:22,

27:14, 32:7, 32:20,

32:22, 32:25, 36:6,

38:12

wakes [5] - 18:18,

20:1, 20:24, 23:13,

29:22

wants [4] - 32:4,

32:5, 32:17, 35:20

warn [38] - 2:19,

2:20, 2:21, 3:3, 3:9,

8

3:13, 3:21, 4:9, 4:12,

4:17, 4:18, 4:22, 5:7,

5:12, 5:20, 5:24, 6:3,

6:7, 6:12, 6:19, 6:20,

6:21, 6:23, 7:10,

12:22, 12:23, 12:24,

13:24, 16:24, 32:12,

33:25, 34:2, 34:7,

34:18, 35:1

Warn [1] - 3:1

warned [6] - 4:5,

4:19, 6:9, 11:25,

34:12, 34:22

warning [14] - 14:23,

15:4, 19:24, 20:3,

20:4, 20:9, 30:11,

30:16, 30:22, 30:23,

31:11, 31:16, 32:13,

35:2

warnings [8] - 5:22,

27:15, 30:7, 30:9,

30:17, 36:14, 36:16

watch [1] - 31:7

watching [1] - 24:16

water[5] - 7:19,

20:24, 21:23, 28:1,

28:4

wave [1] - 22:16

waves [2] - 29:22,

32:14

ways [3] - 21:11,

21:19, 29:24

weather[13] - 3:18,

3:22, 4:4, 4:5, 4:13,

4:24, 7:25, 8:9, 8:20,

10:19, 15:8, 15:9

week [4] - 10:2, 10:3,

11:8, 14:10

whole [1] - 35:15

wind [1] - 8:12

wish [3] - 14:5, 14:6,

14:7

witness [1] - 14:11

writing [1] - 33:24

written [3] - 33:23,

38:3, 38:15

Y

years [2] - 16:16,

22:9

yourself[2] - 31:10,

32:15

yourselves[2] -

30:13, 30:24

Z

zero [1] - 15:2

Case 1:20-cv-21961-DPG Document 107 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/07/2023 Page 47 of 47