Bourgeois et al v. Huntington Ingalls Incorporated et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
ERROL J. BOURGEOIS, SR., ET AL. 	CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS 	NUMBER: 25-526
HUNTINGTON INGALLS INCORPORATED, ET AL. 	SECTION: “G” (5)
ORDER AND REASONS
Before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Huntington Ingalls Incorporated.
(Rec. doc. 153). Huntington opposes the motion (rec. doc. 155), and Plaintiffs have filed a
reply. (Rec. doc. 157). Having reviewed the pleadings and the case law, the Court rules as
follows.
This is an asbestos exposure lawsuit. 	In short, Plaintiffs Errol J. Bourgeois, Jr. and
his wife Mary Anne Bourgeois Richardson allege that Emanuel Bourgeois – the deceased,
non-party brother of Errol – was exposed to asbestos and contracted mesothelioma
through his own work at Avondale as well as through the work of his brothers, Plaintiff
Errol and Joseph Bourgeois, Jr., who were also long-time Avondale employees. 	Errol and
his wife are Emanuel’s next of kin as he never married nor did he have children. Errol’s and
Emanuel’s brother, Joseph Bourgeois, Jr., is also deceased. (Rec. doc. 13, ¶ 4). Through the
motion before the Court, Plaintiffs seek the production of the employment file of Joseph
and/or Joseph’s personnel card that set forth the different job positions held by Joseph,
identifies 	the 	dates 	Joseph 	held 	the 	positions, 	and 	identifies 	Joseph’s 	foremen 	or
supervisors. 	Also, the files often identify vessels on which Joseph worked or locations
within the shipyard where he worked.
Avondale does not dispute the relevance of Joseph’s employment file and/or
personnel card. 	However, it has long been Avondale’s policy not to produce these files
Case 2:25-cv-00526-NJB-EJD Document 159 Filed 02/11/26 Page 1 of 3

2
without either a court order or a signed authorization by the employee or next of kin if
the employee is deceased. In this case, Joseph’s widow – his next of kin – has declined to
sign any authorization form to provide Joseph’s employment file to her in-laws.
Plaintiffs thus seek a court order to produce Joseph’s employment file and/or personnel
card to them and to assuage Avondale’s fear of legal retribution from his next of kin.
Because non-party personnel files are likely to contain confidential, personal, and
potentially embarrassing information, courts must balance the non-party's privacy interest
against the parties’ interest in obtaining relevant discovery. In re: Xarelto (Rivaroxaban)
Prod. Liab. Litig., 313 F.R.D. 32, 36-37 (E.D. La. 2016); Poseidon Oil Pipeline Co. v. Transocean
Sedco Forex, Inc., No. 00-2154, 2002 WL 1919797, at *4 (E.D. La. Aug. 20, 2002). Courts
have observed that “[p]ersonnel files also present thorny issues of corporate policy; many
files in a personnel file are not intended to be shared with an employee or disclosed outside
of the company.” Xarelto, 313 F.R.D. at 37. In balancing the interests, courts consider the
so-called Frankenhauser factors, six of which are relevant in a civil case against a private
defendant:
(1) “the impact upon persons who have given information of having their
identities disclosed;” (2) “whether the information sought is factual data or
evaluative summary;” (3) “whether the party seeking the discovery is an
actual or potential defendant in any criminal proceeding either pending or
reasonably likely to follow from the incident in question;” (4) “whether the
plaintiff's suit is non-frivolous and brought in good faith;” (5) “whether the
information sought is available through other discovery or from other
sources; and” (6) “the importance of the information sought to the plaintiff's
case.
Id. at 36 (quoting Frankenhauser v. Rizzo, 59 F.R.D. 339, 344 (E.D. Pa. 1973)).
Case 2:25-cv-00526-NJB-EJD Document 159 Filed 02/11/26 Page 2 of 3

3
When considered together, this Court finds – as it has so many times in the past1 –
that the Frankenhauser factors weigh in favor of production of Joseph’s personnel card. To
reduce the possible negative impacts, production of any such card will be limited as
follows: Avondale shall produce only relevant portions of the personnel card that bear on
the issues in this case, such as Joseph’s dates of employment, the trades he performed, the
locations where he worked, his exposure to asbestos, and his co-workers. Financial, health,
family status, and disciplinary information shall not be subject to production unless it bears
on the issues in this case. 	To the extent the production contains documents revealing
financial, health, family status, or disciplinary information, such documents shall be
produced as “Confidential” and subject to a protective order limiting disclosure of
confidential information to the participants in this case. 	If such a protective order is
necessary, the parties shall review the form protective order on the undersigned’s website
and submit it to the undersigned for consideration and issuance with any modifications
appropriate for this case. For these reasons,
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Huntington Ingalls Incorporated
(rec. doc. 153) is GRANTED IN PART as outlined above.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the oral hearing set on February 12, 2026 is
CANCELLED.
New Orleans, Louisiana, this 	day of 	, 2026.
MICHAEL B. NORTH
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
1 See Palermo v. Eagle, Inc., Civ. A. No. 23-5425, 2024 WL 4041317 (E.D. La. Sept. 4, 2024).
February	11th
Case 2:25-cv-00526-NJB-EJD Document 159 Filed 02/11/26 Page 3 of 3