Western Towboat Company v. Vigor Marine LLC

Opinion

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

9 WESTERN TOWBOAT COMPANY, 10 No. C20-0416-RSM Plaintiff, 11 ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF v. WESTERN TOWBOAT COMPANY’S VIGOR MARINE, LLC, 13 Defendant. 14

15 I. INTRODUCTION 16 17 This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff Western Towboat Company (Western)’s 18 unopposed Motion to Compel. Dkt. #23. On March 11, 2021, parties stipulated to extend the 19 time for Defendant Vigor Marine, LCC (“Vigor”) to file its response. Dkt. #26. However, as 20 of the date of this Order, Vigor has filed no response to Western’s Motion to Compel. 21 II. BACKGROUND 22 The Court need not set forth a complete background of this case for purposes of 23 resolving Western’s motion. This admiralty and maritime action arises out of the sinking of 24 25 Vigor’s Drydock YFD 70 (“Drydock”) on or about October 26, 2016 in the Monterey Bay 26 Marine Sanctuary. Dkt. #1. After the Drydock’s sinking, Vigor claims it took immediate action 1 to minimize its exposure to penalties levied by National Oceanic and Atmospheric 2 Administration (“NOAA”) under the National Marine Sanctuaries Act. Specifically, Vigor 3 claims that it arranged for a survey and worked with NOAA to identify the location of the 4 Drydock and assess the damage to the environment caused by the sinking. Dkt. #15 at ¶¶ 45. 5 On March 16, 2020, Western filed this action against Vigor alleging breach of maritime 6 contract and seeking a declaratory judgment that Western was not responsible for the sinking 7 8 of the Drydock in the Marine Sanctuary. Dkt. #1 at ¶¶ 17-26. On May 20, 2020, Vigor 9 answered the complaint with counterclaims, including a claim that Western was unjustly 10 enriched by Vigor’s expenditures incurred to reduce or minimize the amount of the NOAA 11 penalty assessment. Dkt. #15 at ¶¶ 40-45. On March 1, 2021, Western filed this unopposed 12 motion seeking to compel production of documents related to Vigor’s counterclaim for unjust 13 enrichment in connection with its work with NOAA. Dkt. #23. 14 III. DISCUSSION 15 16 A. Legal Standard 17 “Parties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to 18 any party’s claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case, considering the 19 importance of the issues at stake in the action, the amount in controversy, the parties’ relative 20 access to relevant information, the parties’ resources, the importance of the discovery in 21 resolving the issues, and whether the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs 22 23 its likely benefit.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). Information within this scope of discovery need 24 not be admissible in evidence to be discoverable. Id. “District courts have broad discretion in 25 determining relevancy for discovery purposes.” Surfvivor Media, Inc. v. Survivor Prods., 406 26 F.3d 625, 635 (9th Cir. 2005) (citing Hallett v. Morgan, 296 F.3d 732, 751 (9th Cir. 2002)). 1 If requested discovery is not answered, the requesting party may move for an order compelling 2 such discovery. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(1). The party that resists discovery has the burden to 3 show why the discovery request should be denied. Blankenship v. Hearst Corp., 519 F.2d 418, 4 429 (9th Cir. 1975). 5 B. Western’s Motion to Compel 6 Western’s motion to compel seeks production of documents related to Vigor’s unjust 7 8 enrichment counterclaim. Dkt. #23. Specifically, Western requests production of (1) any 9 documents related to the investigation it conducted with NOAA; (2) communications with 10 NOAA and/or with Drydock owner Amaya Curiel regarding the Drydock’s sinking, including 11 the ROV expedition Vigor conducted in July 2018; (3) communications related to the survey 12 Vigor participated in, including instant messages and chats; (4) any post-incident reports, 13 investigations, analysis or other evaluations that Vigor conducted related to the Drydock 14 sinking; (5) all photographs, videos, or digital or motion pictures relevant to this action; (6) all 15 16 documents that support or relate to Vigor’s counterclaims. Dkt. #23 at 4-10. Given that Vigor 17 has failed to file a response, Western’s motion is unopposed. 18 Under this district’s local rules, a party’s failure to file an opposition to a motion may 19 be construed as an admission that the motion has merit. Local Rules W.D. Wash. LCR 7(b)(2). 20 Having considered Western’s motion, the Court finds that the requested documents may 21 reasonably lead to information relevant to Vigor’s unjust enrichment counterclaim. Given 22 23 Vigor’s failure to respond to the instant motion, it has not met its burden to show why any of 24 these requests should be denied. Blankenship, 519 F.2d at 429. Accordingly, the Court 25 GRANTS Western’s motion. 26 // 2 Having reviewed Plaintiff’s motion, the exhibit attached thereto, and the remainder of 3 the record, the Court hereby finds and ORDERS that Plaintiff Western Towboat Company’s 4 Motion to Compel, Dkt. #23, is GRANTED. Within fourteen (14) days of the date of entry of 5 this Order, Defendant shall produce to Plaintiff the documents requested therein. 6

7 8 Dated this 13th day of May, 2021.

10 A 11 RICARDO S. MARTINEZ 12 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 13

14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26