1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION – IN ADMIRALTY 

IN RE SKANSKA USA CIVIL 

SOUTHEAST INC. AND 

SKANSKA USA, INC., AS 

OWNERS OF THE BARGE M8030 

PRAYING FOR EXONERATION 

FROM OR FOR LIMITATION OF 

LIABILITY

§

§

§

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

ADMIRALTY RULE 9(H) 

CIVIL ACTION NO. 

3:20-CV-05980 – RV/MJF 

SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE 

LACEY A. COLLIER 

MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

HOPE THAI CANNON 

CLAIMANTS’ OPPOSITION TO SKANSKA’S MOTION 

FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND TO CLAIMANTS’ 

SPOLIATION AND RULE 37 MOTION FOR SANCTIONS 

COMES NOW, Claimants, by and through undersigned counsel, who object 

to Skanska’s motion for an extension of time to respond to Claimants’ Spoliation 

and Rule 37 Motion for Sanction (“Spoliation Motion”). 

The Court has “inherent power to ‘control the disposition of the causes on its 

docket with economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel and for litigants.’” 

L.E.A. Dynatech, Inc. v. Allina, 49 F.3d 1527, 1530 (11th Cir. 1995) (quoting Landis

v. N. Am. Co. ̧ 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936)). On August 2, 2021 Claimants properly

Case 3:20-cv-05980-LC-HTC Document 1230 Filed 08/03/21 Page 1 of 6
2 

filed their Spoliation Motion.1 This Court entered the First Amendment to Final 

Scheduling Order (“Final Scheduling Order”) on July 29, 2021 requiring that “[a]ll 

responses or objections to a discovery motion must be filed within 24 hours of the 

motion being served.” Skanska requests an extension of ten days to respond to 

Claimants’ Spoliation Motion. Skanska’s request should be denied. 

Skanska contends that Claimants have been working on their Spoliation 

Motion for weeks and that Skanska has insufficient time to respond. But Skanska 

knew that Claimants may file a spoliation motion the day that Skanska notified 

Claimants, and the Court, of the spoliation. On June 16, 2021, Skanska first 

notified the Court and Claimants of details concerning the spoliation. Your Honor 

at that hearing indicated that if Claimants had a concern about preservation, 

Claimants would need to file a motion.2 Spoliation has since been regularly 

discussed at discovery conferences, and Claimants took a 30(b)(6) deposition 

of Skanska’s corporate representative specifically directed to the issue of 

spoliation, which was first noticed on June 28, 2021.3 

This Court has, on repeated occasions, emphasized the importance to move 

expeditiously on matters of discovery in light of the September 13, 2021 trial. 

1

 Skanska contends that Claimants’ motion “attaches 946 pages of exhibits.” 

Claimants cite to deposition and discovery conference transcripts throughout the 

motion, which were provided in full as exhibits. 

2

 Ex. 1, June 16, 2021 Discovery Conference Transcript at 29:2-8. 3

 Ex. 2, June 28, 2020 30(b)(6) notice.

Case 3:20-cv-05980-LC-HTC Document 1230 Filed 08/03/21 Page 2 of 6
3 

Accordingly, Skanska is not entitled to nearly two weeks to respond, further delaying 

the Court’s resolution of a matter so crucial to Claimants’ ability to prove their case 

in a trial that is to commence in just over a month. 

Given that Skanska has had exactly as much time to prepare for a spoliation 

motion as Claimants have, Claimants respectfully submit that Skanska’s motion for 

a ten-day extension to respond should be denied and a scheduling order requiring 

Skanska to respond no later than August 6, 2021 should be entered. 

Dated: August 3, 2021 Respectfully Submitted, 

/s/ D. Nicole Guntner 

D. NICOLE GUNTNER, FBN 1028925

E. SAMUEL GEISLER, FBN 83817

BRYAN F. AYLSTOCK, FBN 78263

Aylstock, Witkin, Kreis & Overholtz, PLLC

17 East Main Street, Second floor

Pensacola, Florida 32502

Office: (850) 202-1010

Fax: (850) 916-7449

nguntner@awkolaw.com

sgeisler@awkolaw.com

baylstock@awkolaw.com

sallyteam@awkolaw.com

/s/ Thomas F. Gonzalez 

THOMAS F. GONZALEZ, FL Bar #173878 

J. NIXON DANIEL, III, FL Bar # 228761

Beggs & Lane, RLLP

501 Commendencia Street

Pensacola, Florida 32502

Office: (850) 432-2451

tfg@beggslane.com

jnd@beggslane.com

Case 3:20-cv-05980-LC-HTC Document 1230 Filed 08/03/21 Page 3 of 6
4 

/s/ Brian H. Barr 

BRIAN H. BARR, FL Bar 493041 

EMMANUELLA J. PAULOS, FL Bar 99010 

Levin Papantonio Rafferty Proctor 

Buchanan O’Brien Barr & Mougey, P.A. 

316 S. Baylen Street, Suite 600 

Pensacola, FL 32502 

Office: (850) 435-7000 

bbarr@levinlaw.com 

epaulos@levinlaw.com

Attorneys for Claimants 

Case 3:20-cv-05980-LC-HTC Document 1230 Filed 08/03/21 Page 4 of 6
5 

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE WITH COURT’S WORD LIMIT

I hereby certify that the foregoing contains 447 words and complies with Local 

Rule Local Rule 7.1(F). 

/s/ D. Nicole Guntner 

D. NICOLE GUNTNER

Aylstock Witkin Kreis & Overholtz, PLLC

CERTIFICATE OF COUNSEL CONFERENCE 

I hereby certify that Counsel for Claimants have conferred with Counsel for 

Petitioners prior to filing this motion, pursuant to Local Rule 7.1(B), and have not 

been able to resolve the issues raised. Claimants oppose Skanska’s request for 10 

days to respond, but offered agreement to not oppose a request by Skanska to 

respond by Friday, August 6, 2021 and with Claimants’ Reply (if leave is sought and 

granted) due by close of business, August 9, 2021. 

/s/ D. Nicole Guntner 

D. NICOLE GUNTNER

Aylstock Witkin Kreis & Overholtz, PLLC

Case 3:20-cv-05980-LC-HTC Document 1230 Filed 08/03/21 Page 5 of 6
6 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify, on this 3rd day of August 2021, that the foregoing was filed 

via the Court’s CM/ECF system, which will automatically serve and send 

notification of such filing to all registered attorneys of record. 

/s/ D. Nicole Guntner 

D. NICOLE GUNTNER 

Aylstock Witkin Kreis & Overholtz, PLLC 

Case 3:20-cv-05980-LC-HTC Document 1230 Filed 08/03/21 Page 6 of 6