Opinion ID: 2757407
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Pre-suit correspondence

Text: At the heart of this dispute is a series of letters, mostly exchanged via email, between RLB’s two lawyers, Andrew Schulz and Wayne Pickering, and 2 Sigle joined the suit on October 24, 2012, on his own behalf and as next friend of B.S., and Linda Butler, S.B.’s mother, joined the suit as an additional plaintiff on December 12, 2012. 3 Case: 14-40326 Document: 00512856802 Page: 4 Date Filed: 12/03/2014 No. 14-40326 Butler’s counsel, Frank Daniel. On July 26, 2011, a few weeks after the accident, Daniel sent Schulz a letter via fax, informing him that Daniel had been retained by the Butlers. 3 He asked Schulz for “any information [he] or [RLB] may have regarding the cause of the accident, in addition to all witnesses and interested parties.” He also made an overture toward settlement, informing Schulz that Daniel “would welcome the opportunity to discuss with [Schulz] [his] thoughts moving forward.” Finally, Daniel wrote that “[t]his letter will also serve as notice to your client to preserve all evidence as listed in the attached notice.” An attachment to the letter, titled “Notice to RLB Contracting, Inc.,” gave Schulz and RLB “notice not to destroy, conceal or alter any paper or electronic files or other data.” The attachment further noted that “failure to comply with this notice can result in severe sanctions being imposed by the Court {and liability in tort} for spoliation of evidence or potential evidence.” Daniel advised that he expected to obtain this evidence “[t]hrough discovery.” Schulz responded to Daniel the same day via email. In it, he stated that because “the investigation [was] ongoing, . . . any substantive information w[ould] remain part of [his firm’s] work product until the investigation [was] complete.” These references to “the investigation” meant the Coast Guard investigation of the accident. On August 19, 2011, Daniel sent Schulz an email stating that “it might behoove [them] to seriously consider mediation before any lawsuit.” Daniel expressly based this recommendation on information that he had gathered about “the nature of the injuries, bystander claims, graphic photos, [and] the PTSD claims” of his clients and other witnesses, as well as from a meeting with 3 Schulz represents all claimants except Linda Butler, who is represented by Darwin Seidel. 4 Case: 14-40326 Document: 00512856802 Page: 5 Date Filed: 12/03/2014 No. 14-40326 Linda Butler’s attorney. Daniel referenced the additional pain that his clients would have to endure “if [they] are forced to litigate and go through depositions.” On August 24, 2011, Schulz wrote to Daniel, rejecting his proposal to mediate and noting that “any attempt to evaluate the case would be futile” until the Coast Guard investigation was complete. Daniel wrote back the next day, reiterating that mediation was their “best option” as “investigations will only tell us so much.” Schulz responded: “Okay. But I cannot imagine a carrier just throwing out your number of $3M, without more, just to your clients.” He added that they could “keep the dialogue going.” There was another exchange of emails on October 28, primarily dealing with preservation of the fishing boat for any future litigation. The record reflects no correspondence for the next seven months. Then, on May 30, 2012, Daniel sent one last mediation offer to Schulz, noting that, as the Coast Guard investigator had released his report, Daniel “wanted to check with [Schulz] one last time about pre-suit mediation.” Schulz replied that he would check with Pickering and the “carrier” (presumably, RLB’s insurance carrier). Later that day, Daniel wrote to Schulz requesting an RLB safety manual and a witness’s name in preparation for any possible mediation. He also advised Schulz that he would be taking a statement from a boater who had allided with the dredge pipe on the same day as had his client. Finally, Daniel’s email addressed possible state and federal venues for the lawsuit. On June 8, 2012, Schulz received an email from Daniel that he had been instructed to file suit. 4 On June 14, Daniel wrote to Schulz and Pickering, 4 The Butlers claim that RLB can be presumed to have received service on June 22, as a notice of suit to RLB from the Chambers County clerk’s office appears to state a mailing date of June 19. According to the Butlers, in Texas state court, service is complete as of mailing and may be presumed after “the three day grace period” in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(d). This reasoning is unconvincing. The Butlers conflate service under the state 5 Case: 14-40326 Document: 00512856802 Page: 6 Date Filed: 12/03/2014 No. 14-40326 advising them that the lawsuit would be heard “in the 253rd with Judge Cain” and indicating that he would send a “courtesy copy of the file-stamped petition.” (There is no evidence in the record that Daniel actually sent the petition before RLB was served on July 2, 2012.)