AESIR, LLC v. Piston & Rudder Service, Inc.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA
AESIR, LLC, an Alaska corporation,
Plaintiff,
vs.
PISTON & RUDDER SERVICE, INC,
an Alaska corporation,
Defendant.
Case No. 1:21-cv-00001-JMK
ORDER GRANTING IN PART
DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO
COMPEL
Pending before the Court at Docket 26 is Defendant Piston & Rudder
Service, Inc.’s Motion to Compel (the “Motion”). 	Plaintiff AESIR, LLC, responded in
opposition at Docket 28. 	Defendant replied at Docket 34. 	For the following reasons,
Defendant’s Motion is GRANTED IN PART.
I. 	BACKGROUND
Plaintiff is the owner of the F/V JODI MARIE .1 Defendant is a boat repair and
maintenance business.2 Plaintiff brought this action on January 26, 2021, asserting claims
1 Docket 1 at 2.
2 Docket 26 at 2.
Case 1:21-cv-00001-JMK Document 42 Filed 11/03/22 Page 1 of 9

AESIR, LLC v. Piston & Rudder Service, Inc. 	Case No. 1:21-cv-00001-JMK
Order Granting in Part Defendant’s Motion to Compel 	Page 2
for breach of contract and negligence in connection with a fire that occurred in the F/V J ODI
MARIE ’s engine room on October 1, 2018.3
On March 15, 2021, Defendant filed an Answer to the Complaint, asserting
several affirmative defenses, including comparative negligence.4 The parties then entered
discovery. 	On August 26, 2022, Defendant filed the present Motion, requesting that the
Court compel Plaintiff to provide “full and complete responses to Defendant’s Second Set
of Interrogatories and Requests for Production” (“RFP”)—specifically, Interrogatory Nos.
13–16 and RFP Nos. 17–21—within fourteen days of the Court’s Order.5 Defendant states
that Plaintiff’s responses to Defendant’s second set of discovery requests were due on
March 30, 2022, but that it was not until August 12, 2022, that Plaintiff actually served
those responses.6 	Defendant asserts that Plaintiff’s responses consisted mostly of
objections and Plaintiff did not produce any documents with the responses.7
On August 26, 2022, the parties met and conferred about Plaintiff’s discovery
responses.8 	Plaintiff agreed to supplement some, but not all, of their responses to
Defendant’s discovery requests.9 Defendant then filed the present Motion. 	In Plaintiff’s
Opposition, Plaintiff clarifies that it agreed to more substantively respond to Interrogatory
No. 13 and Requests for Production Nos. 17 and 21.10 For each of these requests, Plaintiff
3 Docket 1 at 2.
4 Docket 4 at 4.
5 Docket 26 at 1.
6 Id. at 4–5.
7 Id. at 5–7.
8 Id. at 7.
9 Id.
10 Docket 28 at 5, 8–9, 10–11.
Case 1:21-cv-00001-JMK Document 42 Filed 11/03/22 Page 2 of 9

AESIR, LLC v. Piston & Rudder Service, Inc. 	Case No. 1:21-cv-00001-JMK
Order Granting in Part Defendant’s Motion to Compel 	Page 3
agreed 	to 	supplement 	its 	responses 	because 	“even 	though 	[Plaintiff’s 	employee]
Mr. Severson was not aboard the vessel at the time of the fire, his involvement aboard the
vessel in the days leading up to the fire arguably puts his fire prevention training into the
realm of relevance.”11 	Accordingly, the present Motion is DENIED AS MOOT with
respect to Interrogatory No. 13 and Request for Production Nos. 17 and 21.12
II. 	LEGAL STANDARD
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26,
[p]arties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged
matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or defense and
proportional 	to 	the 	needs 	of 	the 	case, 	considering 	the
importance of the issues at stake in the action, the amount in
controversy, 	the 	parties’ 	relative 	access 	to 	relevant
information, the parties’ resources, the importance of the
discovery in resolving the issues, and whether the burden or
expense 	of 	the 	proposed 	discovery 	outweighs 	its 	likely
benefit.13
Rules 33 and 34 provide that an interrogatory and RFP may relate to any
matter that may be inquired into under Rule 26(b).14 Under Rule 37, a party may move for
an order compelling a discovery response when a party fails to respond to an interrogatory
or an RFP.15 An “evasive or incomplete disclosure, answer, or response must be treated as
a failure to disclose, answer, or respond.”16 	The party moving to compel has “the initial
11 Id. at 5, 8–9, 10–11.
12 In its Reply in Support of its Motion to Compel, Defendant asserts that “while Plaintiff
agreed to respond to Interrogatory No. 13 and Requests for Production Nos. 17 and 21, Plaintiff
still has not provided that information.” Docket 34 at 3. If Plaintiff has still not provided responses
to these discovery requests as promised, it is ordered to do so within thirty (30) days of this Order.
13 Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1).
14 Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(a)(2); Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(a).
15 Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(3)(B).
16 Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(4).
Case 1:21-cv-00001-JMK Document 42 Filed 11/03/22 Page 3 of 9

AESIR, LLC v. Piston & Rudder Service, Inc. 	Case No. 1:21-cv-00001-JMK
Order Granting in Part Defendant’s Motion to Compel 	Page 4
burden of demonstrating relevance.”17 Once the “minimal showing of relevance is made,”
the party resisting discovery “has the burden to show that discovery should not be allowed,
and has the burden of clarifying, explaining, and supporting its objections.”18 	District
courts generally have “broad discretion to manage discovery and control the course of
litigation.”19 	Specifically, district courts enjoy wide discretion in determining relevancy
for discovery purposes.20
III. 	DISCUSSION
As a preliminary matter, Defendant argues that Plaintiff failed to timely
respond to Defendant’s discovery requests and, therefore, Plaintiff’s objections to those
requests are waived.21 Plaintiff, in turn, responds that Defendant also was late in providing
responses to Plaintiff’s discovery requests.22 	The Court lacks sufficient information to
determine what, if any, understanding was reached between the parties regarding discovery
deadlines. 	As such, the Court will not find that Plaintiff has waived all objections to
Defendant’s second set of discovery requests. Instead, the Court addresses the discovery
requests at issue individually below.
17 Garibay v. Caravan Realty, LLC, No. 2:19-cv-10910-JDE, 2021 WL 4620954, at *2
(C.D. Cal. June 21, 2021) (quoting United States v. McGraw-Hill Cos, Inc., No. CV 13-779-DOC
JCGX, 2014 WL 1647385, at *8 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 15, 2014)).
18 Id. (quoting DIRECTV, Inc. v. Trone, 209 F.R.D. 455, 458 (C.D. Cal. 2002)).
19 Hunt v. Cnty. of Orange, 672 F.3d 606, 616 (9th Cir. 2012) (quoting Avila v. Willits
Envtl. Remediation Trust, 633 F.3d 828, 833 (9th Cir. 2011)).
20 Surfvivor Media, Inc. v. Survivor Prods., 406 F.3d 625, 635 (9th Cir. 2005).
21 Docket 26 at 8; see also Docket 34 at 4.
22 Docket 28 at 2.
Case 1:21-cv-00001-JMK Document 42 Filed 11/03/22 Page 4 of 9

AESIR, LLC v. Piston & Rudder Service, Inc. 	Case No. 1:21-cv-00001-JMK
Order Granting in Part Defendant’s Motion to Compel 	Page 5
A. 	Interrogatory No. 14 and RFP No. 18
Interrogatory No. 14 requests information relating to whether a job hazard
analysis was conducted on the vessel by Plaintiff prior to the fire, as well as the dates that
analysis (or analyses) was performed and the names of the individuals involved.23 Plaintiff
objects that this Interrogatory is overbroad; seeks information that is not relevant; and is
unduly burdensome, as “it seeks information regarding any job hazard analysis performed
by Plaintiff aboard the F/V J ODI MARIE from the time it purchased the vessel (in 2013) to
the date of the fire in October 2018.”24 RFP No. 18 requests that Plaintiff “[p]roduce copies
of job hazard analysis identified your answer [sic] to Interrogatory No.14”25 	Plaintiff
responded to this RFP by referring Defendant to its answer to Interrogatory No. 14.26
Defendant argues that Plaintiff’s policies and procedures relating to fire
prevention and fire watch are relevant to its affirmative defense of comparative fault.27
Plaintiff responds that Defendant did not explicitly address Interrogatory No. 14 and RFP
No. 18 in its Motion to Compel and has thus waived any argument that these discovery
requests are relevant to this action.28 The Court disagrees. A job hazard analysis and any
other steps Plaintiff took to prevent fires aboard the F/V JODI MARIE , including Plaintiff’s
fire 	prevention 	policies, is 	relevant 	to 	the 	issue 	of 	whether 	Plaintiff’s 	negligence
contributed to the fire. 	Regarding the burdensomeness of these requests, Defendant
23 Docket 26 at 5.
24 Docket 28 at 6.
25 Docket 26 at 6.
26 Id.
27 Docket 26 at 8; Docket 34 at 5.
28 Docket 28 at 6.
Case 1:21-cv-00001-JMK Document 42 Filed 11/03/22 Page 5 of 9

AESIR, LLC v. Piston & Rudder Service, Inc. 	Case No. 1:21-cv-00001-JMK
Order Granting in Part Defendant’s Motion to Compel 	Page 6
acknowledged that this Interrogatory and RFP lack a temporal limit, but claimed that
Interrogatory No. 14 clearly “shows Defendant was seeking information about whether
Plaintiff conducted a job hazardous [sic] analysis shortly before the fire.”29 	The issue
surrounding the temporal scope of this Interrogatory and RFP is precisely the type of issue
that should be negotiated and resolved between the parties without Court involvement.
Nonetheless, the Court agrees that this Interrogatory and RFP would be more proportional
to the needs of the case with a temporal limit. Accordingly, Defendant’s Motion to Compel
is GRANTED IN PART as to Interrogatory No. 14 and RFP 18. 	Plaintiff is ordered to
provide responsive information and documents relating to any job hazard analysis
performed aboard the F/V JODI MARIE during the year prior to the fire within thirty (30)
days of this Order.
B. 	Interrogatory Number 15 and RFP No. 19
Interrogatory No. 15 asks Plaintiff to describe “all Plaintiff’s policies and
procedures regarding the prevention of fires aboard the F/V JODI MARIE .”30 	Plaintiff
objects to this Interrogatory, arguing that it seeks information that is not relevant and is
unduly burdensome.31 	Plaintiff points out that it is undisputed that (1) Plaintiff and
Defendant are subject to different regulatory regimes, (2) at the time of the fire the vessel
was in Defendant’s shipyard, and (3) no employee of Plaintiff’s was aboard the vessel
during the day leading up to the fire.32 	However, it also is undisputed that Plaintiff’s
29 Docket 34 at 6.
30 Docket 26 at 5.
31 Id. at 6.
32 Docket 28 at 7.
Case 1:21-cv-00001-JMK Document 42 Filed 11/03/22 Page 6 of 9

AESIR, LLC v. Piston & Rudder Service, Inc. 	Case No. 1:21-cv-00001-JMK
Order Granting in Part Defendant’s Motion to Compel 	Page 7
employee, Mark Severson, was aboard the vessel in the days before the fire and
Mr. Severson set up the bedsheet that eventually caught fire on October 1, 2018.33 Plaintiff
acknowledges that Mr. Severson’s “involvement aboard the vessel in the days leading up
to the fire arguably puts his fire prevention training into the realm of relevance.”34 	As
described above, Defendant has asserted an affirmative defense of comparative fault.35 The
policies and procedures relating to fire prevention aboard the F/V JODI MARIE certainly is
relevant to this affirmative defense and the general inquiry whether Mr. Severson, or any
other of Plaintiff’s employees that were aboard the vessel in the days before the fire,
negligently violated Plaintiff’s policies, thus making a fire more likely.
RFP No. 19 requests that Plaintiff “[p]roduce all documents evidencing or
relating to Plaintiff’s policies and procedures regarding the prevention of fires aboard
vessels.”36 Plaintiff objected that this RFP was overly broad, unduly burdensome, and not
reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.37 	As described
above, the documents requested are relevant to this litigation. 	Further, Plaintiff has not
articulated why producing responsive documents is so burdensome as to outweigh the
relevance of these documents. 	However, to the extent Plaintiff owns other vessels,
documents relating to fire prevention aboard vessels other than the F/V JODI MARIE are not
relevant. 	Accordingly, Defendant’s Motion to Compel is GRANTED as to Interrogatory
33 Docket 26 at 2; Docket 28 at 2, 5.
34 Docket 28 at 5, 8–9, 10–11.
35 Docket 4 at 4.
36 Docket 26 at 6.
37 Id.
Case 1:21-cv-00001-JMK Document 42 Filed 11/03/22 Page 7 of 9

AESIR, LLC v. Piston & Rudder Service, Inc. 	Case No. 1:21-cv-00001-JMK
Order Granting in Part Defendant’s Motion to Compel 	Page 8
No. 15 and GRANTED IN PART as to RFP No. 19. Plaintiff shall substantively respond
to Interrogatory No. 15 and shall produce all documents evidencing or relating to Plaintiff’s
policies and procedures regarding the prevention of fires aboard the F/V JODI MARIE in
response to RFP No. 19 within thirty (30) days of this Order.
C. 	Interrogatory Number 16 and RFP No. 20
Interrogatory No. 16 asks Plaintiff to describe “all training Plaintiff’s [sic]
provides to its employees regarding the prevention of fires aboard the F/V JODI MARIE .”38
Plaintiff objected, arguing that this Interrogatory is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and
not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.39 	Plaintiff
further argues that Plaintiff’s fire prevention training “is not relevant in any fashion to this
litigation given the facts of the incident.”40 	RFP No. 20 seeks the production of “all
documents evidencing or relating to training Plaintiff’s [sic] provides to its employees
regarding the prevention of fire aboard vessels.”41 The Court’s analysis is identical to that
for Interrogatory No. 15 and RFP No. 19—namely, that this information is relevant to
Defendant’s affirmative defense of comparative fault. 	Plaintiff’s employees’ training
regarding fire prevention aboard the F/V JODI MARIE is relevant to whether Mr. Severson,
or any other employee of Plaintiff’s, negligently contributed to the fire by violating the
training they received from Plaintiff. 	As above, the Court will limit the scope of RFP
No. 20 to require production of documents relating to fire prevention training aboard the
38 Id.
39 Id.
40 Docket 28 at 8.
41 Docket 26 at 6.
Case 1:21-cv-00001-JMK Document 42 Filed 11/03/22 Page 8 of 9

AESIR, LLC v. Piston & Rudder Service, Inc. 	Case No. 1:21-cv-00001-JMK
Order Granting in Part Defendant’s Motion to Compel 	Page 9
F/V JODI MARIE only. 	Accordingly, Defendant’s Motion to Compel is GRANTED as to
Interrogatory No. 16 and GRANTED IN PART as to RFP No. 20. 	Plaintiff shall
substantively respond to Interrogatory No. 16 and shall produce all documents evidencing
or relating to training Plaintiff provides to its employees regarding the prevention of fires
aboard the F/V JODI MARIE in response to RFP No. 20 within thirty (30) days of this Order.
IV. 	CONCLUSION
For 	the 	reasons 	articulated 	above, 	Defendant’s 	Motion 	to 	Compel 	is
GRANTED IN PART. 	The parties are encouraged to continue to try to resolve their
discovery disputes without Court involvement. 	A robust and thorough meet and confer
process could have resolved many of the disputes in the present Motion and the Court will
closely analyze the adequacy of the meet and confer process for future discovery-related
motions.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 3rd day of November, 2022, at Anchorage, Alaska.
/s/ Joshua M. Kindred
JOSHUA M. KINDRED
United States District Judge
Case 1:21-cv-00001-JMK Document 42 Filed 11/03/22 Page 9 of 9