Costa v. Kerzner International Resorts, Inc.
277 F.R.D. 468
S.D. Fla.2011Background
- Plaintiff moves to compel production of documents and supplement interrogatory responses from Defendants, asserting control over Bahamian Affiliates’ materials under Rule 26, 33, and 34.
- Defendants contend they lack control over Bahamian Affiliates’ documents and that discovery should proceed via the Hague Convention.
- Plaintiff seeks documents from Bahamian Affiliates related to the “mandatory housekeeping gratuity and utility service fee” charged at Atlantis Resort in the Bahamas.
- The Bahamian Affiliates are allegedly connected to the same business and transaction, and may receive or process the fees.
- Court analyzes whether a domestic defendant has control over nonparty affiliates’ documents under the Federal Rules, and whether Hague Convention procedures are required.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Defendants control Bahamian Affiliates’ documents | Costa argues control exists via common ownership and transactional need | Kerzner argues no control over nonparties | Yes, Defendants control Bahamian Affiliates’ documents |
| Whether to apply Hague Convention procedures | Discovery may proceed under Rules rather than Hague Convention | Defendants urged Hague Convention first | Not required; discovery may proceed under the Federal Rules |
| Scope of document/interrogatory reach to affiliates | Broadly seeks materials connected to the transaction | Limits to documents actually in control | Broad scope permitted for Bahamian Affiliates’ materials |
Key Cases Cited
- Searock v. Stripling, 736 F.2d 650 (11th Cir. 1984) (control includes legal right to obtain documents on demand)
- Cooper Industries, Inc. v. British Aerospace, 102 F.R.D. 918 (S.D.N.Y. 1984) (foreign affiliates’ documents may be compelled when connected to the ordinary course of business)
- Uniden America Corp. v. Ericsson, Inc., 181 F.R.D. 302 (M.D.N.C. 1998) (sister corporation discovery possible due to shared business interests)
- Wilson v. Volkswagen of America, Inc., 561 F.2d 494 (4th Cir. 1977) (Rule 33/34 scope inclusive and interchangeable in application)