GILBERTSON
v.
ROYAL CARIBBEAN CRUISES, LTD.
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court denied Plaintiff's motion to compel witness statements and incident reports, finding them protected by the work product doctrine, but ordered disclosure of certain witness employment and contact information.
Plaintiff sought to compel discovery of witness statements and incident reports related to an incident. The court reviewed the documents in camera and…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Substantial Need cases and more on FLexlaw
3396410, at *4 (S.D. Fla. Aug. 8, 2017) (same). Likewise, the reports prepared by Security Officer Dinesh Chettupotula, RCL Risk Management and Legal Department, Security Officer, and Igor Sekula, were prepared in anticipation of litigation as part of Defendant's investigation of the subject incident and are protected by the work product privilege for the reasons set forth in the privilege log. Courts in this district have held that the work product privilege protects incident reports. See Meyer, 2017 WL 3396410, at *2 (listing cases).
Nevertheless, factual work product may be discoverable if Plaintiff can establish “substantial need” and the inability to otherwise obtain substantially equivalent evidence “without undue hardship." Barham v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd., No. 20-22627-CIV, 2022 WL 4465407, at *5 (S.D. Fla. Sept. 26, 2022). The undersigned finds that Plaintiff's request is premature because Plaintiff has not specified any efforts made to obtain substantially equivalent evidence and has stated only that the evidence is necessary to cross-examine these witnesses during their depositions. It is well established that the mere possibility that the statements may have impeachment value does not demonstrate substantial need. Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495, 513 (1947).
If Defendant has not already done so, Defendant shall provide Plaintiff with a brief notice identifying (on a witness-by-witness basis) which witnesses are employed by Defendant and which ones are not. For those witnesses who are current employees, Defendant shall disclose when their current contract ends, if there is a possibility of them returning for a renewed contract, and, if so, when the renewed contract is expected to begin. For those witnesses who are not current employees, Defendant shall disclose whether the witness is expected to return on a new contract and, if so, when. Finally, for those witnesses who are not employees, Defendant shall provide that
2
witness's most recent contact information, including cell phone number, email address, actual residence, and any social media contact that isa known to the Defendant.
If Plaintiff wishes to renew his substantial need argument with specific information about his efforts to contact the witnesses or to schedule depositions, then Plaintiff may contact my Chambers to set this matter for a follow-up discovery hearing. Prior to contacting Chambers to request a hearing, the parties shall engage in a good faith conferral pursuant to Southern District of Florida Local Rule 7.1(a)(3).
SIGNED this 16th day of April, 2024.
LISETTE M. REID
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
cc: Chief U.S. District Judge Cecilia M. Altonaga; and All Counsel of Record
3
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (13 total)
-
Gilbertson v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd., 286 F.R.D. 636 (S.D. Fla. 2024)…were prepared in anticipation of litigation and are therefore protected by the work product doctrine. “A witness statement taken by a party's attorney or agent in anticipation of litigation is protected work product.” Bridgewater v. Carnival Corp., 286 F.R.D. 636, 644 (S.D. Fla. 2011) (citing United States v. Chatham City Corp., 72 F.R.D. 640, 642 (S.D. Ga. 1976). See also Meyer v. NCL (Bahamas), Ltd., 16-23238-CIV, 2017 WL ---PAGE 1--- Case 1:23-cv-23244-CMA Document 55 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/16/2024 Pa…
-
Holladay v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd., 2019 WL 4929915 (S.D. Fla. 2020)…the unique facts of this specific fact pattern. Ninth, the party claiming a privilege must provide the Court with underlying facts demonstrating the existence of the privilege, which may be accomplished by affidavit. Bridgewater v. Carnival Corp., 286 F.R.D. 636, 639 (S.D. Fla. 2011). In other words, “the onus is on the party claiming immunity to provide competent evidence that the materials in question were created in anticipation of litigation.” Place St. Michel, 2007 WL 1059561, at *3 (emphasis added).…
-
Montes v. Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co. (M.D. Fla. 2023)…spurious claims could never be exposed.’ The party claiming the privilege must provide the court with underlying facts demonstrating the existence of the privilege, which may be accomplished by affidavit.” Bridgewater v. Carnival Corp., 286 F.R.D. 636, 639 (S.D. Fla. 2011) (first quoting In re Bonanno, 344 F. 2d 830, 833 (2d Cir. 1965), then citing United States v. Osborn, 561 F. 2d 1334, 1339 (9th Cir. 1977)). See also Johnson v. Westgate Vacation Villas, LLC, No. 6:17-cv-2141-Orl-37GJK, 2018…
Previewing 3 of 13 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495 (U.S. 1947)
- Gilbertson v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd., 286 F.R.D. 636 (S.D. Fla. 2024)