Torrent Gulf Coast III, LLC v. Gulf Oceanic Marine Contractors, Inc. et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
TORRENT GULF COAST III, LLC
VERSUS
GULF OCEANIC MARINE
CONTRACTORS, INC., ET AL.
*
*
*
CIVIL ACTION
NO. 26-588
SECTION “O” (2)
ORDER AND REASONS
Pending before me is the Defendants’ Joint Motion to Compel Plaintiff’s Supplemental
Initial Disclosures filed by Defendants Gulf Oceanic Marine Contractors, Inc. and Caillou Island
Towing Company, Inc. 	ECF No. 31. 	Plaintiff Torrent Gulf Coast III, LLC filed an opposition
memorandum. 	ECF No. 32. 	No party requested oral argument in accordance with Local Rule
78.1, and the Court agrees that oral argument is unnecessary.
Having considered the record, the submissions and arguments of counsel, and the
applicable law, Defendants’ Joint Motion to Compel Plaintiff’s Supplemental Initial Disclosures
is GRANTED.
I. 	BACKGROUND
Plaintiff Torrent Gulf Coast III, LLC (“Torrent”) filed suit to recover damages after an
allision involving the M/V CHRISTI C, assist vessel M/V JOAN CENAC, and its well SL 21645
#1. ECF No. 1 ¶¶ 10, 12, 18. In Plaintiff’s initial disclosures, served on July 2, 2026, Plaintiff
described its computation of damages as follows:
Plaintiff sustained damages, including, but not limited to, repair
costs and expenses, inspections and survey costs and expenses,
salvage 	and/or 	removal 	costs, 	lost, 	delayed 	and/or 	deferred
production, diminution of market value of its assets, loss of revenue,
loss of business opportunity, downtime, lost overhead, internal costs
incurred responding to the incident and subsequent salvage and
repairs, lost/deferred/delayed production, damage to wells and or
reservoirs, operating expenses, repair costs, shut-in payments, force
Case 2:26-cv-00588-BSL-DPC Document 33 Filed 10/14/26 Page 1 of 6

2
majeure payments, insurance deductibles, attorneys’ fees, and all
other expenses, costs, and damages to be proven at trial, the
computation of these damages is ongoing and will be supplemented.
Plaintiff reserves the right to supplement this disclosure as discovery
continues.
ECF No. 31-2, at 6–7.
After Defendants objected to Plaintiff’s initial computation of damages, Plaintiff’s counsel
indicated that she would reach out to her client for more information. ECF No. 31-3, at 6. After
numerous follow-up efforts, Plaintiff advised it would “have something” the week following its
September 18, 2026 response. Id. at 1–5.
Defendants filed this motion to compel on September 25, 2026, and Plaintiff supplemented
its initial disclosure that same day: “Plaintiff’s final damages computation will be provided in its
expert reports. However, for purposes of satisfying Rule 26(a)(1), Plaintiff provides the following
preliminary computation of damages:”
ECF Nos. 31, 32-1. The Deferred Revenue/Production line item included a footnoted disclaimer:
“The damages computation for deferred production involves a highly technical calculation
performed by an expert. 	This is a preliminary estimate only for purposes of these initial
disclosures. Plaintiff explicitly reserves its right to amend this damages computation.” ECF No.
Case 2:26-cv-00588-BSL-DPC Document 33 Filed 10/14/26 Page 2 of 6

3
32-1, at 2.
II. 	THE MOTION TO COMPEL
In this motion, Defendants argue that Plaintiff should supplement its initial disclosures to
provide a computation of damages and produce all documents supporting its computation as
required by Rule 26(a)(1)(A)(iii) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. ECF No. 31, at 1. They
object to Plaintiff repeating vague damages allegations from the complaint in place of a
computation of damages. ECF No. 31-1, at 1. Defendants explain that Plaintiff’s “claims could
be worth four figures or seven, and Defendants would be none the wiser.” Id. at 3. Defendants
contend that they are prejudiced by Plaintiff’s insufficient disclosures because they cannot target
discovery, pursue prompt third-party discovery, or make reasoned decisions on expert discovery.
Id. at 4–5.
Plaintiff argues that this motion should be denied as moot because it has supplemented its
initial disclosures and produced the supporting documents. ECF No. 32, at 1. Plaintiff notes that
it promised its supplement by the end of the week but, Defendants filed their motion to compel
that Friday morning, while Plaintiff, as promised, supplemented the disclosure by the end of that
day. 	Id. 	While some categories of damages are listed as “not yet quantified/expert opinion
needed,” Plaintiff contends that it has fulfilled its Rule 26 obligations by disclosing what is
“reasonably available.” Id. at 2–3. It explains that its complicated damages calculations must be
computed by experts. Id. at 4. As one example, it explains that “economic loss resulting from
interruption of a producing gas well requires more than multiplying a period of downtime by a
historic daily-production figure.” Id.
Case 2:26-cv-00588-BSL-DPC Document 33 Filed 10/14/26 Page 3 of 6

4
III. 	APPLICABLE LAW AND ANALYSIS
Damages discovery begins with initial disclosures, which may be supplemented as
necessary.1 Rule 37(a)(3)(A) and (B) authorize a party to move for an order compelling disclosure
when the responding party fails to provide full and complete disclosures.
Rule 26(a)(1)(A)(iii) mandates the disclosure of
a computation of each category of damages claimed by the disclosing party—who
must also make available for inspection and copying as under Rule 34 the
documents or other evidentiary material, unless privileged or protected from
disclosure, on which each computation is based, including materials bearing on the
nature and extent of injuries suffered[.]
The purpose of this provision, which requires a party to disclose damages information without
awaiting a discovery request, is to “accelerate the exchange of basic information about the case
and to eliminate the paper work involved in requesting such information.”2 “A party claiming
damages has the obligation, when it makes its initial disclosures, to disclose to the other parties
the best information then available to it concerning that claim, however limited and potentially
changing it may be.”3
Rule 26(a)(1)(A)(iii) “does not elaborate on the level of specificity required in the initial
damages disclosure,”4 but “[a] party must make its initial disclosures based on the information
then reasonably available to it.”5 “‘Computation’ at a minimum requires a disclosure of a specific
dollar figure. Simply reciting a dollar figure, however, is not enough.”6 	Likewise, identifying
1 FED. R. CIV. P. 26(a)(1)(A)(iii) & (e).
2 FED. R. CIV. P. 26(a), advisory committee’s note to 1993 Amendment.
3 Tendeka, Inc. v. Glover, No. 13-1764, 2015 WL 2212601, at *16 (S.D. Tex. May 11, 2015) (quoting Joseph v. Las
Vegas Metro. Police Dep’t, No. 09-0966, 2010 WL 3238992, at *2 (D. Nev. Aug. 13, 2010)).
4 4R4 Sons, LLC v. Tru G. Wilhelm, Inc., No. 21-1081, 2021 WL 4507451, at *1 (D. Nev. Oct. 1, 2021) (quoting City
& Cnty. of S.F. v. Tutor-Saliba Corp., 218 F.R.D. 219, 220 (N.D. Cal. 2003)).
5 FED. R. CIV. P. 26(a)(1)(E).
6 Borroum v. RJM Acquisition LLC, No. 07-613, 2008 WL 11415899, at *3 (W.D. Tex. Mar. 28, 2008) (citations
omitted) (collecting cases).
Case 2:26-cv-00588-BSL-DPC Document 33 Filed 10/14/26 Page 4 of 6

5
categories of damages with an indication that the calculation depends on expert analyses is
insufficient.7
Parties are then required to “supplement or correct [their] disclosure or response . . . in a
timely manner if the party learns that in some material respect the disclosure or response is
incomplete or incorrect, and if the additional or corrective information has not otherwise been
made known to the other parties during the discovery process or in writing.”8 Even when a party
will rely on an expert to calculate damages, it cannot refuse to disclose its computation of damages
before expert disclosures are due.9
Plaintiff supplemented its initial disclosures on the same day that Defendant filed this
motion. Plaintiff’s supplement, however, still does not comply with its obligations under Rule 26.
At a minimum, a computation of damages requires “a disclosure of a specific dollar figure.”10
While Plaintiff identified approximate values for three categories of damages, at least six
categories remain completely unquantified. Plaintiff must supplement its initial disclosures with
currently estimated specific dollar amounts based on currently available information for its
categories of damages. 	Of course, Plaintiff can later supplement its initial disclosures as its
investigation and expert analysis continues.
IV. 	CONCLUSION
Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons,
7 LW Air I, L.L.C. v. Air 7, L.L.C., No. 16-546, 2017 WL 3209398, at *2 (N.D. Tex. Apr. 20, 2017).
8 FED. R. CIV. P. 26(e).
9 In & Out Welders, Inc. v. H & E Equip. Servs., Inc., No. 16-86, 2018 WL 1370600, at *6 (M.D. La. Mar. 16, 2018);
see also Broussard v. Go-Devil Mfg. Co. of La., Inc., No. 08-124, 2009 WL 10669961, at *1 n.2 (M.D. La. Aug. 13,
2009) (“Under the federal rules of civil procedure, however, [defendant] is not required to wait until the expert report
deadlines to obtain [plaintiff’s] damage computations and is permitted to obtain that information through initial
disclosures and discovery requests preceding the production of expert reports.”).
10 Borroum, 2008 WL 11415899, at *3.
Case 2:26-cv-00588-BSL-DPC Document 33 Filed 10/14/26 Page 5 of 6

6
IT IS ORDERED that the Defendants’ Joint Motion to Compel Plaintiff’s Supplemental
Initial Disclosures filed by Defendants Gulf Oceanic Marine Contractors, Inc. and Caillou Island
Towing Company, Inc. (ECF No. 31) is GRANTED. 	Plaintiff must supplement its initial
disclosures within fourteen days to provide specific dollar figures for its computation of damages
based on its currently available information.
New Orleans, Louisiana, this 14th day of October, 2026.
___________________________________
DONNA PHILLIPS CURRAULT
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 2:26-cv-00588-BSL-DPC Document 33 Filed 10/14/26 Page 6 of 6