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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

MIAMI DIVISION

CASE NO.: 16-cv-24687-KMW

 

EDGARDO LEBRON, )

) 

Plaintiff, ) October 11, 2017 

) 

) 

ROYAL CARIBBEAN CRUISES LTD, ) Pages 1 - 48

)

Defendant. ) 

______________________________/ 

DISCOVERY HEARING

BEFORE THE HONORABLE ANDREA M. SIMONTON 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

APPEARANCES:

On behalf of Plaintiff:

ARONFELD TRIAL LAWYERS

3132 Ponce De Leon Boulevard 

Coral Gables, FL 33134 

BY: MATTHIAS M. HAYASHI, ESQ.

Case 1:20-cv-22463-FAM Document 17-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/09/2020 Page 1 of 49
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

APPEARANCES CONTINUED:

On behalf of the Defendants:

FOREMAN FRIEDMAN, P.A. 

2 S Biscayne Boulevard 

Suite 2300, 

One Biscayne Tower 

Miami, FL 33131 

BY: DARREN W. FRIEDMAN, ESQ.

Transcribed By:

BONNIE JOY LEWIS, R.P.R.

7001 SW 13 Street

Pembroke Pines, FL 33023

954-985-8875

caselawrptg@gmail.com

Case 1:20-cv-22463-FAM Document 17-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/09/2020 Page 2 of 49
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

(Thereupon, the following proceeding was held:) 

THE COURT: Good morning. Please be seated.

THE COURTROOM DEPUTY: Calling Case Number 16-24687 

civil Judge Williams; Edgardo Labron versus Royal Caribbean 

Cruises LTD.

Counsel, would you please note your appearances for 

the record. 

MR. HAYASHI: Yes. Matt Hayashi with Aronfeld Trial 

Lawyers for the Plaintiff Edgardo Labron. 

THE COURT: Thank you. 

MR. FRIEDMAN: And good morning, Your Honor. Darren 

Friedman on behalf of the Defendant. 

THE COURT: Okay. Thank you.

We are here today for a discovery hearing on about a 

thousand issues between the parties with, I think, our 85th 

discovery hearing in this case. 

I speak hyperbolically, of course, but there are a 

number of discovery requests. You all have been here on a 

number of occasions. 

I want to start by asking the Plaintiff to provide me 

with the information that has developed to date regarding 

refrigeration equipment. 

Your expert affidavit says nothing about how it would 

be relevant to the events that would occur on this ship with 

respect to Mr. Lebron's ice skating. All it says is that he 

Case 1:20-cv-22463-FAM Document 17-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/09/2020 Page 3 of 49
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

wasn't allowed to inspect the equipment. And I think we dealt 

with that somewhat at the last hearing in terms of the 

inspection. 

So, Mr. Hayashi, why don't you explain that to me. 

MR. HAYASHI: Okay. Would you like me to send -- 

because I believe this is discussed in his report. Would you 

like me to send it to you, or just discuss it, or both? 

THE COURT: This is not the time to be sending expert 

reports to me ten minutes -- we are a little late on our 

discovery hearing. Our other discovery hearings ran over so we 

are about ten minutes late. And we're about ten minutes late, 

but the source materials are the source materials. 

I know you sent me a deposition at 11:45 last night, 

you know, as source materials for the hearing this morning, Mr. 

Hayashi, but I want you to give me the information you have 

that leads you to believe that the refrigeration equipment 

contributed to the fall of Mr. Lebron.

At the last hearing I think you mentioned, for 

example, that you believed his fall was caused because he was 

skating when the thrusters were operating. When it appears at 

this point, undisputed, that the trusters they were not just 

leaving the port. The trusters were not operating.

Your argument led me to order, you know, pretty broad 

discovery on that basis which you received, at least to some 

extent. So now, you advance some theory, I imagine, that the 

Case 1:20-cv-22463-FAM Document 17-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/09/2020 Page 4 of 49
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

refrigeration equipment contributed to the fall. So I would 

like an explanation of that. 

MR. HAYASHI: Absolutely Your Honor. 

Just about the stabilizer fins. Our client did inform 

us that he did believe the ship was leaving port at the time, 

but we understand your concern. 

As to the refrigeration unit, our expert indicates 

that when he investigated the -- when he performed the ship 

inspection, he noticed that the ice was soft and wet. And it 

is our expert's opinion that the ice should not have been in 

this condition.

And one way the ice can be in this condition is that 

the temperature may not have been as low as it is should have 

been. And our expert indicates that the temperature did not 

feel as cold as he would have expected. 

And to that effect, our expert requested to 

investigate the refrigeration unit, not just the control panel. 

And Defense counsel or Defendant make a big deal out of the 

piping, but I have actually spoken to Mr. McLaughlin. And 

although he, perhaps, would like to he says it is not essential 

that he inspect the piping. 

So we are fine not to go into in that. However, he 

did want to see -- I think it's called the control room. I 

forget the exact term, but there's a part of the ship where the 

piping leads to. There is a refrigeration unit that the piping 

Case 1:20-cv-22463-FAM Document 17-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/09/2020 Page 5 of 49
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

connects the rink to this refrigeration unit. 

And our expert requested to inspect this area and this 

was something that we brought up as something that our expert 

wanted to inspect at the previous discovery hearing, but our 

expert was not allowed to inspect. 

THE COURT: Okay. 

MR. HAYASHI: And I meant the one before the previous 

one. Excuse me. 

THE COURT: Right.

And that hearing, two hearings ago, what I said is the 

inspector needs to be allowed to examine any accessible part of 

the ship where the refrigeration equipment is located. 

And I also said, at your request, that the rink needed 

to be iced over. In other words, it needed to be in ice 

skating condition for the inspection. You couldn't have the 

Quest, you know, the dance floor put over the ice skating rink.

And then, at the last hearing, he needed to many 

incident effect the piping. And the argument was, well, the 

piping, you know, we couldn't defrost the rink for him to 

conduct the inspection and that was not requested and it wasn't 

ordered. 

And so I think that's, in an sense, I think that's 

where we left it. There was a request for sanctions because he 

didn't do the inspection that, you know, took enough time. And 

we went back and forth and I said no sanctions on the 

Case 1:20-cv-22463-FAM Document 17-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/09/2020 Page 6 of 49
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

Plaintiff. He is entitled to spend as little time as he wants. 

He is still entitled to examine the boat. And if he didn't 

take advantage of the full opportunity, then, so be it. 

And the only issue that I understood was at issue was 

that in order for him to conduct whatever additional inspection 

he wanted to conduct, it would have required defrosting the ice 

rink, which simply was not feasible and had not been requested. 

And in fact, the contrary was requested. 

So we are back here, yet, again. And I need you to 

tell me exactly what it was and how the inspection should have 

occurred that it didn't occur with respect to the refrigeration 

equipment. 

MR. HAYASHI: Absolutely, Your Honor.

Just so the record is clear, our expert does not need 

to inspect the piping. The issue is there is a room that the 

piping is connected to. The piping runs from the rink to a 

room where there is the refrigeration equipment, which should 

include the model, the make number, and it should include a 

machine that's cooling the ice. 

THE COURT: Right. And that's what he was allowed to 

inspect. 

MR. HAYASHI: Actually, Your Honor, he was not allowed 

to inspect this room. He was allowed to inspect the control 

panel, which is not in this room. And it was our understanding 

that he should have been allowed to inspect this room and it is 

Case 1:20-cv-22463-FAM Document 17-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/09/2020 Page 7 of 49
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

our position that we should be allowed to inspect this room. 

THE COURT: Okay. So let me ask Mr. Friedman.

At that hearing I specifically said he's allowed to 

look at the refrigeration equipment. He's allowed to look at 

the model. He's allowed to look at whatever manuals are there 

and he's allowed to look at the rink that's iced over. 

And what happened, from your perspective? I might 

need an evidentiary hearing on this. 

MR. FRIEDMAN: Sure. 

First, in terms of timing, Your Honor, if you may 

recall, that hearing took place on the day that our attorney 

was actually en route to the ship. 

THE COURT: Correct. 

MR. FRIEDMAN: So there was a little bit of a 

communication issue there. 

When she got to the ship, when all the attorneys got 

to the ship, what we learned is you have the rink itself. You 

have the control room. 

Then, you have the layer of ice. So underneath the 

layer of ice you have the sand and under that you have the 

piping. He was allowed to see the ice. He was allowed to see 

the control room. He was allowed to see all the panels, 

et cetera. 

The actual machine, the compressor, I guess, that 

pushes the water through the compressor up through the pipes 

Case 1:20-cv-22463-FAM Document 17-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/09/2020 Page 8 of 49
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

into the ice is actually buried deep within the engine room of 

the ship and that is not an accessible area of the ship. That 

is an area that the ship doesn't allow anyone to be in because 

it is really unsafe for anyone to be in the engine room, as you 

can could imagine. 

And so when they came on board, learned of the 

discussion that happened, the ship looked at all the lawyers 

and said there's no way we're letting anybody in the engine 

room. It's not safe. We can't allow anyone in there because 

it is dangerous to them and that's what happened. 

And then, I would say to the Court, one, it's crazy to 

allow -- and I apologize for the use of that word, but a second 

inspection for refrigeration because it has nothing to do with 

the case. Never mind the fact that it is not safe to go down 

there. 

If they want, I have not problem telling them the make 

or the model, but to allow someone into a dangerous situation 

into the engine room, another trip back to Puerto Rico to 

inspect this when it has nothing to do with the issues in the 

case, I would suggest that that is generally a waste of 

everybody's time. 

In terms of what their expert himself said, I can't 

help but note again, his expert's opinion is the room felt warm 

to me. They actually took measurements with actual 

thermometers as opposed to feelings, which showed that 

Case 1:20-cv-22463-FAM Document 17-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/09/2020 Page 9 of 49
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

everything was set to the proper temperature and there is no 

argument about that. But their whole reasoning for we have to 

go down into the bowels of the ship to see the machine that's 

in the engine room is because of his feeling that it seemed too 

warm. To me that doesn't warrant a second inspection. 

THE COURT: Okay. And Mr. Hayashi, he has the 

temperatures of the room at the time? 

MR. HAYASHI: I'm not sure, but I don't believe that 

he actually took the temperature. 

However, he did note that the ice was soft and it was 

wet. And that's why he wanted to inspect the compressor. I 

believe that's what it is called. 

MR. FRIEDMAN: If I may, Your Honor, ice is always 

wet. 

MR. HAYASHI: Well, it was unusually soft, Your Honor. 

THE COURT: Okay. 

MR. HAYASHI: And really wet. 

MR. FRIEDMAN: I would also note, Your Honor, however 

it may have been on that day says nothing about what it would 

have been a year and-a-half plus on the date of the actual 

incident. I'm happy to provide the name of the machine, the 

make, the model. That may have already been produced. I'm not 

certain. 

THE COURT: You objected to their bit request for 

production, which actually asked for production for all of that 

Case 1:20-cv-22463-FAM Document 17-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/09/2020 Page 10 of 49
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

information among other things. 

MR. FRIEDMAN: And I will happily give the name of the 

make and the model of that equipment. I don't see the 

relevance to it, but if it is that versus paying for everyone 

-- it would be our fourth trip to Puerto Rico in this case 

which is probably not the easiest place to get to right about 

now. 

THE COURT: Are you still sailing into Puerto Rico? 

MR. FRIEDMAN: They are going in and out because 

they're running rescue missions right now. I couldn't tell you 

right now where this specific vessel is then. 

THE COURT: So it may not be on the Puerto Rico run; 

is that correct? 

MR. FRIEDMAN: I don't know. 

THE COURT: It could be still sitting at the dock in 

Miami. 

MR. FRIEDMAN: I don't know where this specific vessel 

is today. 

THE COURT: And what inspecting this machine tell him? 

What will a visual inspection of this machine tell him, Mr. 

Hayashi? I don't see a -- 

MR. HAYASHI: Yes, Your Honor.

When speaking to Mr. McLaughlin, he indicated that 

depending on the age of the machine if there was rust, like 

what state of repair or disrepair the machine was in that could 

Case 1:20-cv-22463-FAM Document 17-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/09/2020 Page 11 of 49
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

give him an idea of whether or not the machine might have been 

a cause and a factor of the ice being unusually soft and wet. 

MR. FRIEDMAN: Again, Your Honor, how it is today says 

nothing but how it was then. 

I would also point out to the Court because I am just 

envisioning further hearings down the road -- 

THE COURT: No. Actually, I'm not having any further 

hearings on this case. 

Anything else that needs to be brought to my 

attention, I want a written motion. And I am going to use an 

expedited briefing schedule on it because, you know, this case 

is -- I think the case is being over litigated in a lot of 

respects. I think there is just a failure to agree on things.

Mr. Friedman, when I was here before, whoever was here 

-- I don't remember who was here at that hearing. You know, I 

said, well, what's the problem with letting them examine the 

refrigeration equipment? No problem. 

You're now saying, well, that's because the person who 

was here didn't know that the refrigeration equipment that he 

wanted to inspect was located in an inaccessible area. 

Why is it inaccessible? It is inaccessible because it 

is dangerous. Well, I could certainly understand why you 

wouldn't want people unfamiliar with engine rooms going down 

there, but presumably their expert is familiar with engine 

rooms. I mean, he's a maritime expert. 

Case 1:20-cv-22463-FAM Document 17-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/09/2020 Page 12 of 49
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

MR. FRIEDMAN: He's not. 

THE COURT: He isn't a maritime expert? 

MR. FRIEDMAN: No, he's an expert at constructing ice 

skating rinks. My guess is he knows nothing about engine rooms 

and ships. 

MR. HAYASHI: Well, correct. 

He is an ice skating rink manager or he is an expert 

in the construction of ice skating rinks. 

THE COURT: Okay. I mean, I have been in engine 

compartments of actually very tiny engine compartments of 

ships. And you have to be very careful when you are there, but 

nevertheless, they can be inspected.

I don't know why your client fell. I mean, your 

client has had various theories about why he fell, but what I 

am going to do is and it would seem -- it seems to me one thing 

I am concerned about is that this discovery is eating away in 

terms of the proportionality of the discovery versus the nature 

of the claims.

What was the computation of damages for Mr. Lebron? I 

know he hurt his ankle, but I don't really know. 

MR. HAYASHI: Let me look at our responses to their 

interrogatories. I will just pull this up. 

And I am not sure that the Defendant asked for a 

computation of damages. 

THE COURT: Well, Rule 26 requires that you provide 

Case 1:20-cv-22463-FAM Document 17-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/09/2020 Page 13 of 49
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

one. 

MR. HAYASHI: Well, let me look at the initial -- 

THE COURT: It's without request and updated as 

appropriate. 

MR. HAYASHI: I apologize, Your Honor. 

But I will have to look into this more because I can't 

seem to find this. 

THE COURT: And the nature of his injury was? 

MR. HAYASHI: He had a -- his ankle was fractured, I 

believe. And it required extensive surgery and it was a pretty 

bad injury, Your Honor. 

THE COURT: And in this terms of his work? 

MR. HAYASHI: Yes, it says that he missed days of 

work. 

THE COURT: How many days? 

MR. HAYASHI: Let me pull up the responses. Excuse 

me, Your Honor.

THE COURT: So the bottom line, Mr. Hayashi, you 

cannot tell me the value of your case, the economic value of 

your case? 

MR. HAYASHI: Well, I believe it is over $100,000, 

Your Honor, just from some familiarity with the case. 

THE COURT: Mr. Friedman, what is the Defendant's 

estimate of the value of the Plaintiff's value of the case? 

Now the Defendant's value is zero and I understand. 

Case 1:20-cv-22463-FAM Document 17-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/09/2020 Page 14 of 49
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

MR. FRIEDMAN: Your Honor, you are asking me to assess 

assuming there is liability and what I would value the case at. 

THE COURT: Well, I don't know if you've had 

discussions with other folks in Mr. Hayashi's office. Not in 

terms of settlement discussions, but just in terms of the 

damages they're claiming, since Mr. Hayashi doesn't seem to 

know what damages they're claiming. 

MR. FRIEDMAN: I have not. 

THE COURT: I didn't know if you knew what damages 

they were claiming even though they hadn't -- 

MR. FRIEDMAN: Well -- 

THE COURT: -- been put forth in a Rule 26 disclosure 

or something like that. That's what I meant. I don't want you 

to value their case. 

MR. FRIEDMAN: Understood.

THE COURT: I mean, that's -- 

MR. FRIEDMAN: Generally, my understanding is it was 

an ankle fracture. It was surgically repaired. I do believe 

he missed a little time off work, but now I've met the 

individual on multiple occasions. He's back to work. He 

doesn't have any limp or permanent issues. 

My understanding is his ankle injury has fully 

resolved. I would certainly suggest that the cost of the 

experts and the cost of the various trips that we've taken has 

probably exceeded the value of the case already. 

Case 1:20-cv-22463-FAM Document 17-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/09/2020 Page 15 of 49
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

THE COURT: Well, one never knows about pain and 

suffering and how a jury is going to value that. 

MR. FRIEDMAN: Very true. 

THE COURT: Okay. 

MR. HAYASHI: And I have an answer to the number of 

days missed, Your Honor. 

THE COURT: Okay. 

MR. HAYASHI: It says here approximately 90 days. 

THE COURT: Okay. What does he do? 

MR. HAYASHI: He is a manager for, I believe, Sears. 

THE COURT: Okay. So here's what I am going to 

require. I am going to require the Defendant to respond to the 

RFPs regarding the refrigeration equipment. 

And at this time, I am not allowing an additional 

inspection. And that's due to the inaccessibility issues, 

however, and the lapse in time between the accident and today. 

And also, basically, the lack of evidence to indicate, 

that has been presented to me, to indicate that the 

refrigeration equipment could have contributed to the 

Plaintiff's fall. 

If the Plaintiff seeks to have this second inspection 

after receiving the information and presenting it to its 

expert, Plaintiff can file a motion after consulting with the 

Defendant. 

And I would expect any motion must be supported by an 

Case 1:20-cv-22463-FAM Document 17-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/09/2020 Page 16 of 49
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

expert's affidavit. And not the affidavit that you gave me 

that said I wanted to look at refrigeration equipment in pipes 

and wasn't allowed to do so. And so any response would also be 

supported by an affidavit explaining why inspection is not 

feasible.

Okay. Now, I am going to turn to the Defendant's 

notice of hearing, since you filed your notice first, and I 

will get to whatever it is we can get to. I think that it 

makes sense to first deal with the -- and I know this was also 

part of Plaintiff's notice, the e-mail and telephone numbers 

for the 108 passengers. 

And I will just say, at the outset, it seems to me 

that the request for e-mail and telephone numbers for all of 

these people is overbroad because the description of some of 

them -- and I just briefly glanced through the list is clearly 

not relevant to the Plaintiff's claim. 

I bumped into somebody and I fell, for example. I 

don't see where somebody cut me off ice skating. I don't see 

how those incidents could, by any stretch, be relevant to Mr. 

Lebron's claims, but you can explain why. 

But since it is the Defendant's notice of hearing, I 

will let the Defendant tell me, you know, why it is that those 

e-mail addresses and phone numbers should not be provided. I 

noted that you did provide physical addresses for the 

passengers. I am not sure why at the same time you didn't 

Case 1:20-cv-22463-FAM Document 17-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/09/2020 Page 17 of 49
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

provide e-mail addresses and telephone numbers. 

You know, that looks to me like -- and I want you to 

explain why. It looks like it was a conscious decision not to 

do that because I think the same place you would get the 

physical addresses would also have e-mail addresses and 

telephone numbers if known. 

So, Mr. Friedman, why don't you tell me that. 

MR. FRIEDMAN: Okay. Well, two things, Your Honor.

First of all, certainly not a conscious decision. 

What I relayed was the exact information as it was given to us 

from the client. 

THE COURT: No, but I am saying a conscious decision 

on the part of the client. I am not saying a conscious 

decision --

MR. FRIEDMAN: I understand. 

THE COURT: -- on the part of the attorney. 

MR. FRIEDMAN: Sure. And I can't answer it today 

because I simply presented the information as it was presented 

to us. 

So I don't know whether or not e-mails or phone 

numbers are kept on a different screen, or a different page, or 

a different database. I simply don't have that answer today. 

The only answer I have is we presented the information as it 

was given to us, but in terms of the issue of why we don't 

believe production should be made at all, it is twofold, both 

Case 1:20-cv-22463-FAM Document 17-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/09/2020 Page 18 of 49
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

of which you have already touched upon. 

One is that it is simply overbroad to ask for all this 

information now because as you touched upon many of these 

people have nothing -- it wouldn't be substantially similar. 

It wouldn't be information that would eventually be admissible. 

It wouldn't be any information that could potentially support 

any of the claims of the Plaintiff.

And then, additionally, Your Honor, as you noted 

originally when there was a discussion concerning prior 

incidents, the Court was going to limit that discovery to this 

specific ship because the Court had noted, the ice, this 

specific ship, this specific location could be different than 

other vessels.

And Plaintiff raised this theory, I think their eighth 

different theory of how this accident may have occurred that 

concerned the bow thrusters and leaving the port. And so Your 

Honor said, well, then I could understand why other ships might 

be relevant because this may be sort of a systemic issue 

occurring on all the vessels.

Now that this has ruled out and now that we have 

learned that Mr. Lebron's accident occurred two hours after 

leaving port, I would go back to what Your Honor originally 

suggested, which would be just prior incidents occurring on 

this specific vessel. 

And I would suggest that if that limitation were going 

Case 1:20-cv-22463-FAM Document 17-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/09/2020 Page 19 of 49
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

to be made, and we can narrowly focus this, then I would ask my 

client to provide that more detailed contact information for 

those specific incidents that might lead to show something.

I'm not sure, as we sit here today, what is the 

purpose of any of this discovery, though. I will plainly admit 

to you today that lots of people fall while ice skating. It is 

sort of a known risk of strapping a blade to your foot and 

going on ice. 

So I don't understand the purpose of the discovery at 

all. And I do have a problem with the lawyers in this case now 

starting to e-mail and call a hundred plus prior guests to ask 

them about their falling while on the ice. Unless it is going 

to do something to contribute to the progress of this case and 

that's what I fail to see. 

THE COURT: Okay. Mr. Hayashi? 

MR. HAYASHI: Yes, Your Honor.

First, as to the issue of the descriptions not looking 

relevant, Plaintiff respectfully submits that in his counsel's 

experience -- and this was actually something that came up in 

the Goins case. The descriptions don't always match what the 

people tell the attorneys when they speak to them. 

In the Goins case, I forgot the name of this person, 

but one person said that there was -- in the description -- 

said there was a soda can or a beer bottle, I think it was. 

But when we actually spoke to this person and we took their 

Case 1:20-cv-22463-FAM Document 17-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/09/2020 Page 20 of 49
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

deposition, they didn't remember that being even there, let 

alone the cause of their fall, which was being represented in 

the description. 

So as to the description, Your Honor, Plaintiff 

respectfully submits that his attorneys are entitled to inquire 

deeper than just the Defendant's own investigation. Not that 

Defendant is necessarily intending to represent anything, but 

just how the Defendant describes the incidents is not always 

how these passengers remember them.

Second of all, as to the scope of the discovery, I 

believe there was more discussion other than just the issue of 

the ship leaving port and what time it was leaving port. One 

issue, I believe, was at Studio B which is essentially the same 

design and construction across all the ships that it is on. So 

I am not so sure why that would be an issue. 

However, if Your Honor is inclined to limit the 

discovery of this other contact information, Plaintiff would 

request at least that all the information be given for the 

passengers on the Adventures Of The Seas.

And well -- 

MR. FRIEDMAN: Your Honor, I still don't see the 

point. They will call a hundred people, take a hundred 

depositions, and people are going to say, yes, I fell. I don't 

get it. I honestly don't. I don't see where all of this leads 

to any admissible evidence. 

Case 1:20-cv-22463-FAM Document 17-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/09/2020 Page 21 of 49
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

THE COURT: Okay. Well, the first thing that I want 

to do on this is, I want to know why you gave physical 

addresses and not e-mails and phone numbers. 

I am troubled by that and I am troubled by the fact 

that you said you sent the request to my client and this is 

what they sent back. I clearly required contact information.

And you know, maybe I didn't specifically said all 

contact information, but I think it is implicit that if you 

have easily accessible contact information that it should be 

provided. 

So I am troubled by your client's decision-making 

process. Now, there may be a good reason why they didn't. I 

don't know that and I don't know if you have the incident forms 

with you on any of these. 

I don't know if the incident form requests that 

information on the form or not. I have looked at them. I am 

sure you have looked at them. Maybe you know.

MR. FRIEDMAN: I can't tell you generally that 

incident forms would not have that information. 

THE COURT: Would they have a physical address or 

would they just have a cabin number? 

MR. FRIEDMAN: I believe they would have a physical 

address. They would not have a phone number and I can't think 

of a location for an e-mail either. They would have a cabin 

number as well and they would have a physical address. And 

Case 1:20-cv-22463-FAM Document 17-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/09/2020 Page 22 of 49
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

then, that very well may be an explanation. 

THE COURT: And Mr. Hayashi, you have seen your 

client's own incident report in this case? 

MR. HAYASHI: Yes, Your Honor. 

THE COURT: And did it have an e-mail address on it or 

do you recall? 

MR. HAYASHI: Well, just to make sure that I explain 

this accurately, I can pull this up in two seconds and I have 

this. Maybe slightly that two seconds. 

MR. FRIEDMAN: And I do know, Your Honor, just in 

discussions with my client about coming to this hearing today, 

they were somewhat troubled about having to turn over all this 

information about other guests. 

They are concerned about sort of a witch hunt and 

harassment of their other guests. And I have had cases before 

where judges have said the parties will jointly send a letter 

out to all hundred guests inviting those people to contact the 

lawyers if they want to give information, as opposed to just 

providing over e-mails, phone numbers. 

THE COURT: And I have had situations where people 

have requested that also. This wasn't one of them. 

MR. FRIEDMAN: Well -- 

THE COURT: In any event, I am just saying -- 

MR. FRIEDMAN: That was one of our concerns in turning 

over the information is that these individuals have privacy 

Case 1:20-cv-22463-FAM Document 17-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/09/2020 Page 23 of 49
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

rights.

THE COURT: And I can respect that. 

Mr. Hayashi? 

MR. HAYASHI: Yes, Your Honor. 

I've located the incident report and it does have the 

e-mail and the phone number of our client. 

MR. FRIEDMAN: I stand corrected, then. 

THE COURT: Mr. Hayashi, will you show that to Mr. 

Friedman? 

MR. HAYASHI: Yes, Your Honor.

May the record reflect that I am showing it to Mr. 

Friedman. 

MR. FRIEDMAN: This form does. He's correct. 

THE COURT: Okay. So it seems like it was a conscious 

decision on your client's part to arbitrarily not include the 

contact information that was readily available to them.

And I didn't require turning over the incident reports 

because despite the fact that I find that you claim there is no 

anticipation of litigation that would require you to preserve 

items -- and this isn't limited to you. I have the same 

situation in another case. 

They say, well, we didn't anticipate litigation and so 

we didn't feel a need to preserve it. I am just saying I've 

had cases -- I mean, it seems like the cruise lines are doing 

it both ways. We didn't anticipate litigation and we didn't 

Case 1:20-cv-22463-FAM Document 17-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/09/2020 Page 24 of 49
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

preserve. And we did anticipate litigation when we're being 

required to turn over the incident reports requested on that 

date.

So I'm just saying -- 

MR. FRIEDMAN: Well, I would certainly -- 

THE COURT: I'm confused. 

MR. FRIEDMAN: I would say in this case we certainly 

did anticipate litigation. 

THE COURT: Okay. 

MR. FRIEDMAN: I mean, that's always the contention 

that I've made in terms of accident reports because we 

generally know when people fall on their rears on the ice 

they're probably going to sue over it anyway. And photographs 

were taken and video was preserved. 

THE COURT: Well, in any event, here's what I am going 

to do. In light of the way the case has evolved, it would seem 

to me that your theory now of the case there was something 

wrong with the ice on this ship and the refrigeration equipment 

on this ship that might not have been working well, or the ice 

may not have been maintained properly on this ship. 

And so what I am going to do is I am going to limit 

the e-mail addresses and phone numbers, if known, to the -- I 

think there were -- let me count them. I think there were 

roughly, a little less than 25, but let me make sure.

Okay. To these 22 passengers -- and I will let 

Case 1:20-cv-22463-FAM Document 17-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/09/2020 Page 25 of 49
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

Plaintiff select eight additional passengers from the sister 

ships if you think there is something. 

MR. HAYASHI: Let me just ask one question, Your 

Honor. 

THE COURT: Yes. 

MR. HAYASHI: Correct me if I'm wrong, but my 

understanding was that not all of these ships are sister ships. 

I believe these were all ships that had a Studio B. 

THE COURT: I am using the term to refer to the other 

ships, which were provided in response; Explorer Of The Seas, 

Mariner Of The Seas, Navigator Of The Seas. 

I thought they were all sister ships, but whatever -- 

Voyager Of The Seas, but whatever the other ships were in 

response for production number 64, so you can pick eight 

additional passengers from the other ships. And the e-mail 

addresses and phone numbers, if known, with respect to the 22 

passengers and eight additional passengers from the other 

ships.

And as to the rest -- and I think I am being very 

generous by allowing any passengers from the other ships 

because in light of your present theory of the case, I am not 

sure that any of them would be sufficiently similar to what was 

occurring on this ship at that time, but it gives you a little 

bit to explore. It makes it a total of 30 out of the 108 

incidents that you will get as an even number. 

Case 1:20-cv-22463-FAM Document 17-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/09/2020 Page 26 of 49
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

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

THE COURT: Yes. 

MR. HAYASHI: Yes. Do you -- excuse me if I was a 

little confused from the previous hearing, but I believe you 

said that you have limited authority to grant a discovery 

extension based on your rulings? 

THE COURT: Correct. 

MR. HAYASHI: Plaintiff -- 

THE COURT: I cannot give a -- let me put it this way. 

If you have set a deposition for the day before the discovery 

cutoff date and there is an objection to that deposition going 

forward for whatever reason. And you want to take it the next 

week and you set it down for a hearing because you think the 

deposition should go forward and the other side thinks it 

shouldn't go forward. 

Let's say it's an apex deposition and the Defendant is 

saying the CEO of NCL has no or RCL -- RCL sorry. The CEO of 

RCL has no knowledge of this. And you say, I want that 

deposition. I'm setting it for the day before the discovery 

cutoff. We've exhausted all of our other means. And I set it 

down for a hearing and I say, well, I think the CEO of RCL 

should be deposed. I will let him be deposed the week after 

the discovery deadline. 

So if there is a specific discovery request and the 

request is disputed and I make a ruling saying I think you 

Case 1:20-cv-22463-FAM Document 17-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/09/2020 Page 27 of 49
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

should get that discovery, then, I have limited authority to 

say this specific item of discovery that was properly requested 

and should have been produced within the discovery cutoff 

period, can be extended. So that's my authority. 

If it goes beyond that, then that is within the 

discretion of Judge Williams. Unless she sends it to me. 

Sometimes she sends it to me and sometimes she doesn't. 

And so how much time, Mr. Friedman, do you need to 

provide both the requests for production, those responses that 

I have previously ordered, as well as these e-mail addresses? 

MR. FRIEDMAN: Can we do 14 days? 

MR. HAYASHI: Your Honor, I believe 14 days is just a 

few days prior to the discovery cutoff. 

THE COURT: Okay. Well -- 

MR. HAYASHI: I don't believe Plaintiff will have 

enough time to even set these depositions. 

THE COURT: I don't know that you will have enough 

time no matter what, but if they don't voluntarily respond, but 

in any event -- 

MR. FRIEDMAN: Under any scenario he won't be able to 

timely take depositions. I also imagine they are going to be 

moving for an extension to reopen expert disclosures. 

THE COURT: Well, I am not sure they will get it, but 

in any event, the discovery cutoff is October the 27th. So why 

don't you do it in seven days. October the 18th.

Case 1:20-cv-22463-FAM Document 17-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/09/2020 Page 28 of 49
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

And in part with respect to the e-mail addresses, it 

should have been provided before or it should have been, you 

know, an issue that was raised before me before, but it wasn't 

so. 

Okay. Now, moving along, with respect to the 

Defendant's notice of hearing, you want a protective order 

regarding the fifth request for production and a third request 

for admissions. 

Okay. Mr. Friedman. 

MR. FRIEDMAN: Yes, Your Honor. 

Our argument is Plaintiff -- well, one, they are on 

their fifth request for production. We have already responded 

to, I think it is 70 requests for production at this point in 

terms of admissions. They're on their third set. We have 

already responded to 60 admissions. 

They're now asking for an additional 130. If this 

couldn't be any more of a textbook example of proportionality. 

It's overbroad. It is harassing. It is burdensome. And just 

to give some examples, if we were to actually get to the 

specifics of the case, I don't even understand what they are 

trying to do. 

THE COURT: Well, with respect to the requests for 

admissions, it seemed to me what they were looking for what 

they want to know if you are going to agree that these are 

business records that could be introduced into evidence at 

Case 1:20-cv-22463-FAM Document 17-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/09/2020 Page 29 of 49
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

trial. 

And when I looked at them, it looks to me like they 

have gone through with respect to each of the documents all of 

the predicates that you would need to introduce a business 

record. And so they want to know if it was made, you know, by 

a person with knowledge. 

And so my guess is that if the parties got together, 

which you will have to do in any event prior to the pretrial 

conference, they will know. And they will also know prior to 

the close of discovery if they need to take somebody's 

deposition.

MR. FRIEDMAN: Here's what I've already told them 

because we've had these discussions. I said any document 

created by my client which is a policy, or procedure, or 

manual, or anything of that nature, no argument. 

If it's a document that was produced that is from 

somebody else, like the manufacturer of the ice skating rink, 

or the manufacturer of the refrigerator, I can't authenticate 

it because it is not mine. 

And then, any document that might be a medical record, 

I can authenticate that the document came from the ship, if it 

was the ship's medical record, but I would not agree to 

admissibility because there might be hearsay statements within 

the document itself. And that is the discussion I had with 

counsel and, nonetheless, we are here. 

Case 1:20-cv-22463-FAM Document 17-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/09/2020 Page 30 of 49
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

THE COURT: Okay. Well, I think you need to answer to 

the best you can. I think you need to answer those requests 

for admissions, then.

Because to say that you can't authenticate it doesn't 

mean that you don't admit that it is authentic. And as you 

know, it doesn't have to be your document to agree that it is 

an authentic document. 

I mean, you have been at this business for a long 

time, Mr. Friedman. There are many documents that there is no 

question of their authenticity, or that they are business 

records and they are not your client's. 

Now I understand why, you know, maybe you don't want 

to admit it and that's fine, but what that means is that you 

have to pay for the cost of them proving that up. 

If there is no genuine dispute and you haven't 

admitted it, it is like if your client provides a 

manufacturer's manual regarding your product, no, it is not 

your document, but do you really contest its authenticity? 

I mean, give me a break. Of course you don't. Unless 

there is some reason to and there may be a reason to. And you 

know, I can't tell because -- and I thank you for this 

actually. 

You didn't attach, you know, the 86 pages of exhibits 

that were attached to the requests for admissions and I thank 

you for that in one sense, but in the other sense it is hard 

Case 1:20-cv-22463-FAM Document 17-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/09/2020 Page 31 of 49
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

for me to go really request by request for the admissions. And 

so I think that, you know, requests for admissions are 

generally a way of getting at this. 

I mean, you could probably agree, you know, you could 

probably look at them and agree to them. These are all things 

that you will have to go through in the pretrial -- not the 

pretrial conference. 

The meeting before you prepare your pretrial 

stipulation where you are listing your exhibit list and you 

have to describe whether you object based on authenticity if 

these are all going to be exhibits. 

MR. FRIEDMAN: Your Honor, if I may, because I don't 

want to have to do this again, but if we could just look at 

some of these admissions, you could see some of the problems 

that I may have going forward. 

Let's look at the first one. Admit the document is 

the document that the Plaintiff requested and, therefore, are 

what they are purported to be.

This is gibberish. That is not an answer that can be 

responded to. The second one is another great example.

Admit the document was made at or near the time. What 

time? I mean, that's all it says. 

And from information transmitted by someone with 

knowledge. Knowledge of what? At what time? I don't know how 

I can answer any of these. 

Case 1:20-cv-22463-FAM Document 17-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/09/2020 Page 32 of 49
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

THE COURT: Here's what I am going to do.

And basically, I am holding in abeyance the responses 

to the requests for admissions. I am requiring the parties to 

meet in person and determine whether Defendant has any 

objection to the documents based on authenticity, or the use as 

business records under the applicable hearsay exception.

If the Defendant agrees that the documents are 

admissible at trial, there is no need to answer the requests 

for admissions because I think that will accomplish the purpose 

that I saw.

Is that correct, Mr. Hayashi? 

MR. HAYASHI: That's absolutely correct, Your Honor. 

THE COURT: Okay. If the Defendant does not agree 

that the document is admissible, absent some reason, you know, 

that I can't fathom at this point, the requests for admissions 

should be answered. 

Okay. If there is a reason you should not answer 

based on that guidance, then, you can either, you know, then, 

you can respond as such. And then, I will hear any dispute and 

you can file a motion. 

And the briefing schedule that I am setting for any 

motions that need to be filed is I want a -- if a motion is 

filed I want a response in seven calendar days and a reply in 

seven calendar days. That will be an expedited briefing 

schedule. 

Case 1:20-cv-22463-FAM Document 17-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/09/2020 Page 33 of 49
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

MR. HAYASHI: And if I may ask, Your Honor, the rule 

about falling on the weekends, would that still apply? 

THE COURT: Weekends count. These are calendar days.

MR. HAYASHI: Okay.

THE COURT: We're at the end of discovery. 

MR. HAYASHI: Okay. 

THE COURT: Seven calendar days. 

That includes calendar days includes weekends. If I 

meant to exclude weekends and holidays I would say business 

days. 

MR. HAYASHI: I apologize, Your Honor. 

I meant to ask, for example, if the last day, the 

fifth day of a reply falls on a Saturday, does that mean the 

response is due on Monday, or it is due on Saturday? 

THE COURT: Then the rule regarding falling on the 

holiday applies and the response is due on the next business 

day. 

MR. HAYASHI: Thank you, Your Honor. That was my 

question. 

THE COURT: Okay. And that way at least the issue 

will get before me on that.

And I understand that, you know, this is something 

that would normally occur at, you know, your meeting to prepare 

your pretrial stipulation, but in any event -- and I will also 

say that I think that, you know, as you point out these 

Case 1:20-cv-22463-FAM Document 17-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/09/2020 Page 34 of 49
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

requests for admissions are frequently difficult to understand. 

They are worded in kind of an obscure fashion and I understand 

that. 

So what I would just say is that if you are responding 

to something and you are confused about what it means, you can 

talk about it. And I understand that there are a huge number 

of requests for admissions, far more than is usually seen, but 

it is pretty much document by document. 

There are some that are clearly inappropriate. Like, 

129, admit that all the documents contained in responses that 

you have not yet made. I mean, that one is not appropriate 

because you cannot ask for admissions with respect to document 

production that has not yet been made. 

And so any of the requests for admissions, re: 

documents not yet produced are stricken. I mean, you just 

can't do that. You can't. And again, this is all -- most of 

them look like they go to issues regarding business records and 

authenticity.

And so, you know, with respect to your fourth request 

or your fifth request for production of documents, I will hear 

you on it, Mr. Hayashi, but I think this case is overkill. I 

think you have requested far more in view of a fishing 

expedition than what is appropriate.

But I don't feel comfortable just arbitrarily saying 

at this point you can't propound, you know, any number of 

Case 1:20-cv-22463-FAM Document 17-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/09/2020 Page 35 of 49
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

requests for production. There is no specific objection, but 

in light of what is at stake in this case, what I am going to 

do is -- in other words, I think an after-the-fact limitation 

is not necessarily a good thing, but I do think your requests 

are overbroad and disproportionate to the needs of the case, 

from what I have seen, and you are grasping at straws. 

And so, you know, I need to find a way to narrow it. 

And so I have required -- and I will just go through them. I 

have required a response to number 1, which is the document 

that indicates the model number of the refrigeration equipment.

And I am not sure what number 2 means, so I am not 

going -- it's a document or documents that indicate the make, 

model, type and that otherwise indicate the kind of equipment 

that the refrigeration equipment is for the ice rink at issue 

in Plaintiff's incident. 

That's incomprehensible to me. You are getting the 

document that indicates the model number of the refrigeration 

equipment for the ice rink at issue. 

I think I previously required or said you should make 

a request for all documents that indicate how the equipment was 

maintained, inspected, repaired, and stored. 

I am not sure what that means, but I did say 

maintenance logs would be required and that I expected that the 

maintenance logs would be with the refrigeration equipment.

And so number 3 is okay. And that's actually what you 

Case 1:20-cv-22463-FAM Document 17-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/09/2020 Page 36 of 49
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

have on number 5. These are duplicative in large request, you 

know, it seems to me.

Mr. Friedman? 

MR. FRIEDMAN: A timeframe, Your Honor? 

They're asking for five years worth of logs. That 

seems overbroad to me. 

THE COURT: For refrigeration equipment? 

MR. FRIEDMAN: Correct. 

THE COURT: Okay. I will limit that to three years.

I am not giving a personnel file for all crew members 

responsible. I think that is overbroad. 

There is nothing that indicates any problem with the 

refrigeration equipment that I can see in this case. 

What were the prior requests for production? I mean, 

you had 63 prior requests for -- 

MR. FRIEDMAN: I think it was 68, actually.

THE COURT: You had 68 prior requests for production 

and now you are adding an additional 21. I mean, I guess maybe 

the best way of doing this is to just say that I am giving you 

ten additional requests for production. 

I think in a case like this, the number of requests 

for production is just way overbroad. I think if I give you 

ten additional requests for production, plus 1, 3 and 5 won't 

count because I am giving you those based upon the failure to 

communicate in decisions regarding the inspection of the ship. 

Case 1:20-cv-22463-FAM Document 17-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/09/2020 Page 37 of 49
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

MR. FRIEDMAN: So he can -- 

THE COURT: So he can pick ten more. 

And you can object on an individual basis, but in 

terms of all of these, I think they're redundant. I think they 

are overkill. I think that has been a trend throughout this 

case. And you know, the ship's position log at the time of the 

incident. I mean, I am not sure, if you want it -- you know, 

if you want it, that's fine, but I am just -- 

MR. FRIEDMAN: And if I may, Your Honor, that's a 

perfect example. The deck log has already been produced. 

THE COURT: So you need to look at what you've got and 

what you need and you get ten more requests and that's it, end 

of story. And that would be it anyway because you don't have 

time to propound anything else before the close of this 

discovery. So pick your best ten. 

MR. HAYASHI: Yes. If I may just briefly.

One reason why there is a lot of requests is that 

between the first and fourth request for production, the second 

and third, Defendant didn't produce any documents. So there is 

actually a lot less responded to requests than it seems. 

THE COURT: Well, you know, it is your choice. 

I mean, there is a limit. You know, the reason that 

the rules have a limit on the interrogatories is because people 

ran amuck on their interrogatory requests. And they were 

propounding, you know, hundreds of interrogatory requests in 

Case 1:20-cv-22463-FAM Document 17-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/09/2020 Page 38 of 49
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

cases. And the Courts said, no, that's too much. You can 

limit it to 25. 

So now what is happening is, instead of propounding 

what would normally be interrogatory requests, they have been 

converted to requests for production.

And so because there is no limit on request for 

production. And I can't think of any scenario on a case such 

as this, which involves a relatively discreet incident where 

you would need to propound 68 and 21; 79 requests for 

production. 

And I am giving you -- no, excuse me. It would be 89 

requests for production. And I am essentially giving you 68 

and 3 is 71 and 10, I am giving you 81. A total of 81. You 

need to plan your discovery better because there comes a point 

when it is simply harassing. And if there is something that 

you really, really need you should be able to get it by 

selecting which of these ten requests you want.

As I went through it the relevant information is 

perhaps contained in one and you've got four requests that go 

all around that relevant information. 

MR. HAYASHI: Understood, Your Honor. 

THE COURT: And if you think that you pick your ten 

and you think there is one more that you really, really need, 

you can file a motion. And you can explain why you really, 

really need it and, you know -- 

Case 1:20-cv-22463-FAM Document 17-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/09/2020 Page 39 of 49
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

40

MR. FRIEDMAN: In terms of timing, Your Honor, when do 

they need to let us know the ten and how many days do we have 

to respond? 

THE COURT: They can let you know the ten whenever 

they want to let you know the ten and your response will be two 

weeks after they provide the ten RFPs.

If you want me to give them a deadline I will. I will 

give you one week. That way we will make sure we have a 

definite end to discovery. You have one week to identify the 

ones that you want. 

And so that would be by October the 18th and, then, 

you have two weeks after October the 18th to respond. And that 

is an example of my discretion to extend the discovery 

deadline. 

MR. HAYASHI: Understood, Your Honor. 

THE COURT: And the ten additional ones are in 

addition to 1, 3, and 5 which I am giving you because of the 

failed inspection issue. 

Okay. And I think that takes care of Defendant's 

notice of hearing.

Is that correct, Mr. Friedman? 

MR. FRIEDMAN: Yes, Your Honor. 

THE COURT: And now, with respect to Plaintiff's 

notice of hearing, I think we've got the corporate 

representative deposition is the issue that is left. 

Case 1:20-cv-22463-FAM Document 17-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/09/2020 Page 40 of 49
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

41

I will let you go through a couple of them and you can 

point me to the deposition and where it is and why you think 

she was inappropriate. And the rest of them you can file a 

motion and explain why you think that she was not sufficiently 

prepared.

And I am not sure if I have the notice, the corporate 

representative's notice. I don't know that that was provided 

as source materials. 

MR. HAYASHI: You are absolutely correct, Your Honor. 

And I apologize. I sent an e-mail before this hearing 

letting you know that that was inadvertently not included. 

THE COURT: Of course, I have been in court all 

morning. 

MR. HAYASHI: Understood.

However, I will note that the attorney who prepared 

this notice very thoughtfully included the exact language from 

the notice of deposition. So all of the information should be 

between the deposition and the notice, but for the record, 

we -- 

THE COURT: Well, part of it is, one of the things 

that I look at in determining whether a corporate 

representative's responses were adequate or not, I look at the 

scope of what the corporate representative was requested to be 

prepared for. 

So if you list a hundred topics for a corporate 

Case 1:20-cv-22463-FAM Document 17-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/09/2020 Page 41 of 49
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

42

representative to be prepared for, that is generally 

unreasonable. And so, I don't know if that happened here or 

not, but that's why I like the whole notice of deposition. 

MR. FRIEDMAN: Your Honor -- 

THE COURT: So I could look at what was requested and 

what could reasonably be expected of a corporate representative 

under these circumstances and then whether another deposition 

should be ordered under the circumstances. 

MR. FRIEDMAN: Your Honor, I would be happy to share 

my copy. 

THE COURT: Does it have notes on it? 

MR. FRIEDMAN: No. 

THE COURT: Okay. 

MR. FRIEDMAN: May I approach? 

THE COURT: Yes. 

MR. HAYASHI: Second re-notice. 

THE COURT: Okay. Let me take a look. 

Okay. So pick your one area and, then, I am going to 

need to recess. And for the rest of it I am going to require 

that you file a brief. 

File a motion within seven days. They will have five 

days to respond. You will have three days to reply and you can 

explain in that where it was that she was deficient in -- 

MR. FRIEDMAN: Your Honor, if I may? 

THE COURT: Yes. 

Case 1:20-cv-22463-FAM Document 17-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/09/2020 Page 42 of 49
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

43

MR. FRIEDMAN: You had previously said you wanted the 

schedule to be seven days for responses and you just said five. 

So I am happy to do it either way but -- 

THE COURT: Yes, that is right. Response in seven 

days and reply in five. 

MR. FRIEDMAN: Okay. 

THE COURT: And the motion, I want the motion in seven 

days on this issue. Response in seven days and reply in five 

days and that's regarding the corporate representative 

deposition. 

Now, a lot of things that you might want a corporate 

representative to be prepared for are really things that are 

better requested in requests for production and in documents 

because one person could not reasonably be required to have all 

of the knowledge but, in any event, why don't you pick what you 

want me to rule on, Mr. Hayashi. 

MR. HAYASHI: Well, if I may, Your Honor, for 

simplicity sake, Plaintiff would not object to simply putting 

it all in the motion. We could imagine that it might get 

confusing if there was some issue addressed here at the hearing 

and omitted in the motion, but if you want us to address it now 

we have no objection to that. 

THE COURT: Well, I want to get an idea of what you're 

looking at. 

MR. HAYASHI: Okay. 

Case 1:20-cv-22463-FAM Document 17-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/09/2020 Page 43 of 49
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

44

THE COURT: Well, I guess you can put it all in the 

motion if you want and, then, he can respond and you can 

explain to me what you thought she should know that she didn't 

know. And then, the Defendant can explain why it was that she 

shouldn't have been required to be prepared on that topic. 

MR. FRIEDMAN: If I may, Your Honor? 

THE COURT: Yes. 

MR. FRIEDMAN: Just so you have a gist, they actually 

provided to me after the deposition a list of 25 questions that 

they felt the witness wasn't prepared for and why it justified 

a second deposition. 

To give you an example of the type of things they did, 

they complained that the witness did not know the exact 

humidity numbers in the room on the day of the incident and did 

not have a measurement of the exact thickness of the ice. 

They complained that the witness did not know the 

exact count of how many people had utilized this ice skating 

rink within a 12-month calendar year. 

They complained that she did not know the exact dates 

when these specific pair of skates had been sharpened last. 

A number of discussions concerned prior incidents. 

And this, Your Honor, if you recall, you entered an order for 

us to provide those prior incidents which we did. The 

deposition was noticed for before that discovery was due. 

I contacted opposing counsel and said, why don't we 

Case 1:20-cv-22463-FAM Document 17-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/09/2020 Page 44 of 49
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

45

wait on the corporate rep until after the discovery comes due 

because you are going to ask her questions that we won't have 

the answers for yet. And they said, no, we will go forward and 

we will deal with the Court at a later date. 

THE COURT: Okay. 

MR. HAYASHI: If I may, Your Honor? 

THE COURT: Okay. 

MR. HAYASHI: At the time the expert disclosure was 

just days away from when the corporate representative was 

noticed. So just to put that out there. 

THE COURT: Well, whatever your reasons are, you can 

put all of this in your motion. You can put that in response. 

You can attach your list of questions as an exhibit to your 

response if you want me to consider them. 

MR. FRIEDMAN: Okay. 

THE COURT: And some things are unknowable. 

I mean, there are certain things that there is nobody 

who knows and can't be found out. And I don't know if that's 

the case for anything or not, or whether it's a situation where 

it's an undue burden.

The other thing that I always suggest to everybody is 

when you are talking about insufficient answers at a corporate 

representative's deposition, sometimes you might want to 

consider whether to supplement the deposition with an affidavit 

that answers the basic questions that can be answered and 

Case 1:20-cv-22463-FAM Document 17-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/09/2020 Page 45 of 49
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

46

sometimes that resolves the issue without the need of a second 

corporate representative's deposition. 

And I will tell you that, in general, I find that is 

sufficient. Even though I know it deprives the Plaintiff the 

ability to follow up and ask followup questions and so forth, 

sometimes I think followup questions are necessary. And I 

require a second deposition, but frequently I don't and 

frequently I don't with regard to specific issues. 

MR. FRIEDMAN: We did offer to answer a number of 

these questions in interrogatory form and Plaintiff was not 

interested in that. 

THE COURT: And that is something that you can discuss 

in filing your motion. 

MR. HAYASHI: I thought for some of them we did agree. 

I thought I saw an e-mail. 

THE COURT: You need to figure that out.

I am just telling you that in general when I find a 

corporate representative's deposition is insufficient, I 

require the answers to be in interrogatory form by the 

corporate representative. And then, if that is not sufficient 

the Plaintiff can seek a second deposition. 

There are some matters that are simply not answerable 

as to which there is an objection that can't be resolved 

because the Defendant will not answer those questions. 

You know, you're at the end of your discovery period. 

Case 1:20-cv-22463-FAM Document 17-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/09/2020 Page 46 of 49
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

47

I know there was a brief interruption due to Hurricane Irma, 

which was maybe not so brief as to some people. It certainly 

wasn't that brief as to the Court, but in any event. And I 

know that that has disrupted things to some extent, but you are 

at the end of your discovery. You have limited ability to do a 

followup on answers to questions in any event, but I do 

understand that, you know, there may be things that you need. 

And then, there are times, Mr. Hayashi, when you might 

not get everything that you want, but recognizing that your 

expert deadlines are approaching, you might want to take what 

you can get in time to meet whatever deadlines there are. And 

I don't know if those are deadlines that have passed or not 

passed at this point. 

MR. HAYASHI: Yes -- well, the expert disclosure 

deadline has passed, Your Honor. 

THE COURT: Okay. 

MR. HAYASHI: And I understand and thank you very much 

for that wisdom. 

THE COURT: So sometimes expedience is a way to go and 

other times it is not. I mean, it just depends on what it is 

you are fighting about, but I am just giving you the benefit of 

what I generally do. 

And you know, you can't get everything three ways from 

Sunday. You know, you sometimes have to take your best route. 

So, as I said, I will consider your motion, you know, whatever 

Case 1:20-cv-22463-FAM Document 17-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/09/2020 Page 47 of 49
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

48

motions you have to file with respect to any of these. 

Thank you. 

MR. HAYASHI: Absolutely. 

And I meant expert disclosure. I apologize if I said 

expert discovery, but in any case. 

THE COURT: Right. 

MR. HAYASHI: Thank you, Your Honor. 

THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. We will be in recess. 

(Thereupon, the proceedings concluded.)

Case 1:20-cv-22463-FAM Document 17-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/09/2020 Page 48 of 49
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

49

CERTIFICATE

I hereby certify that the foregoing transcript is an 

accurate transcript of the audio recorded proceedings in the 

above-entitled matter. 

 

12/05/17 Bonnie Joy Lewis, 

 Registered Professional Reporter

 CASE LAW REPORTING, INC.

 7001 Southwest 13 Street,

 Pembroke Pines, Florida 33023

 954-985-8875

Case 1:20-cv-22463-FAM Document 17-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/09/2020 Page 49 of 49