Herman v. SeaWorld Parks & Entertainment, Inc.
8:14-cv-03028
M.D. Fla.Jul 13, 2016Background
- Plaintiffs (four named) allege SeaWorld sold one‑year EZpay passes paid in 12 installments that contain an automatic renewal clause; plaintiffs claim SeaWorld renewed some passes even when customers paid off early and continued charging their cards.
- Plaintiffs assert breach of contract and EFTA (15 U.S.C. §1693e(a)) claims based on unauthorized post‑payoff charges.
- SeaWorld moved to compel production of “Non‑Party Contracts” (contracts between plaintiffs and unrelated vendors like Dish, SiriusXM, AT&T) that involve recurring/automatic payments, arguing they show plaintiffs’ intent and interpretation of EZpay renewal language.
- Plaintiffs opposed, arguing the non‑party contracts are irrelevant, not proportional, and that extrinsic evidence is improper because the EZpay clause is unambiguous.
- The court held a hearing and denied SeaWorld’s motion to compel, finding the requested contracts irrelevant and the request an improper fishing expedition; it also found production not proportional to the needs of the case.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Relevance of non‑party contracts to interpretation of EZpay renewal clause | Non‑party contracts involve different parties, terms, contexts and thus are irrelevant | Plaintiffs’ experience with similar recurring‑payment contracts informs their intent and the meaning of EZpay clause | Denied — non‑party contracts not shown relevant to claims/defenses |
| Use of extrinsic evidence to interpret contract ambiguity | EZpay clause is unambiguous; extrinsic evidence unnecessary and non‑party contracts are not proper extrinsic evidence | Extrinsic evidence (including similar contracts) may be used if EZpay clause is ambiguous | Court declined to decide ambiguity or governing law now; nonetheless found non‑party contracts are not the type of permissible extrinsic evidence and irrelevant |
| Proportionality/burden of production | Production of limited, specific contracts is not unduly burdensome | The contracts are necessary and discovery is appropriate | Denied — discovery not proportional because low likely benefit and risk of fishing expedition |
| Request for fees/costs for motion to compel | Not separately argued in detail in opinion | Sought fees and costs for bringing the motion | Denied (motion to compel denied; no fees awarded in this order) |
Key Cases Cited
- Farnsworth v. Procter & Gamble Co., 758 F.2d 1545 (11th Cir.) (trial court has wide discretion setting discovery limits)
- Commercial Union Ins. Co. v. Westrope, 730 F.2d 729 (11th Cir.) (motions to compel committed to trial court discretion)
- Oppenheimer Fund, Inc. v. Sanders, 437 U.S. 340 (discovery relevance construed broadly)
- Chudasama v. Mazda Motor Corp., 123 F.3d 1353 (11th Cir.) (scope of discovery determined by claims and defenses)
- Porter v. Ray, 461 F.3d 1315 (11th Cir.) (discovery limits prevent fishing expeditions)
- Kellogg Brown & Root Servs., Inc. v. United States, 284 F.R.D. 22 (D.D.C.) (contracts with different parties/times/purposes are not necessarily relevant)
- World Wrestling Fed’n Entm’t, Inc. v. William Morris Agency, Inc., 204 F.R.D. 263 (S.D.N.Y.) (contracts with non‑parties do not illuminate interpretation of the disputed contract)
- Washington Nat. Ins. Corp. v. Ruderman, 117 So. 3d 943 (Fla.) (extrinsic evidence defined; must relate to the contract or circumstances surrounding formation)