REC Marine Logistics, LLC v. Richard
2:19-cv-11149
E.D. La.May 15, 2020Background
- Plaintiff Richard, a former deckhand, sought maintenance and cure and alleged negligence/unseaworthiness; REC Marine filed a declaratory action denying injury and alleging fabrication.
- Richard moved for sanctions based on REC Marine’s failure to comply with discovery and on counsel Fred Salley’s obstructive conduct during REC Marine’s Rule 30(b)(6) deposition of corporate designee Blaine Russell.
- The Magistrate Judge (Mar. 27, 2020) granted sanctions in part: REC Marine and Salley to pay fees/costs for a second deposition and for drafting the sanctions motion, REC Marine to fully answer interrogatories within 60 days, and Salley individually fined $1,000.
- District court reviewed REC Marine’s motion to modify/eliminate the magistrate’s order under the “clearly erroneous or contrary to law” standard.
- The deposition transcript showed frequent improper objections, instructions not to answer, interruptions by Salley, and that Russell was inadequately prepared to testify to the noticed topics.
- The district court denied REC Marine’s motion: it found the magistrate’s sanctions were neither clearly erroneous nor contrary to law and rejected Salley’s late-raised health excuse as waived and unsupported.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Magistrate’s sanctions order was clearly erroneous or contrary to law | Sanctions appropriate for obstruction and inadequate 30(b)(6) prep | Magistrate erred in imposing sanctions and should modify/eliminate order | Denied — Magistrate’s order affirmed as not clearly erroneous or contrary to law |
| Whether Salley’s conduct at the deposition warranted sanction under Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(d)(2) | Deposition transcript shows obstructive behavior warranting fees and fine | Salley contends illness caused abnormal conduct and disputes characterization | Held sanctionable: Salley made numerous improper objections/instructions and interruptions; sanction affirmed |
| Whether REC Marine violated the duty to prepare a Rule 30(b)(6) designee (basis for Rule 37 sanctions) | Russell was unprepared on noticed topics; REC failed to designate a knowledgeable witness | REC contends designee cannot know everything and lacked notice of revised topics | Held failure to prepare was sanctionable; designee lacked reasonably available corporate knowledge and no other witness was designated |
| Whether Salley’s alleged illness excuses his conduct or justifies relief from sanctions | Illness caused conduct and may have prevented timely opposition | Illness was raised late, unsupported by medical evidence, and conduct continued in case filings | Held waived and unpersuasive; illness does not excuse failure to oppose or justify relief |
Key Cases Cited
- Moore v. Ford Motor Co., 755 F.3d 802 (5th Cir. 2014) (standard of review for magistrate non-dispositive orders)
- In re Mid-S. Towing Co., 418 F.3d 526 (5th Cir. 2005) (definition of “clearly erroneous” on review)
- Brazos River Auth. v. GE Ionics, Inc., 469 F.3d 416 (5th Cir. 2006) (scope of duty to prepare Rule 30(b)(6) designee)
- Resolution Trust Corp. v. S. Union Co., 985 F.2d 196 (5th Cir. 1993) (treating inadequate 30(b)(6) appearance as failure to appear)
- Bank of New York v. Meridien BIAO Bank Tanzania Ltd., 171 F.R.D. 135 (S.D.N.Y. 1997) (Rule 30(b)(6) preparation principles)
- Omega Hosp., LLC v. Cmty. Ins. Co., 310 F.R.D. 319 (E.D. La. 2015) (applying sanctions for inadequate 30(b)(6) designation and deposition misconduct)