Shuster v. Gov't of the Dist. of Columbia
Shuster v. Gov't of the Dist. of Columbia
2014 WL 12787713 (D.D.C. 2014)
August 6, 2014
Kay, Alan, United States Magistrate Judge
Summary
The court ordered Defendants to provide Plaintiff with the scale of the naval architectural drawings, or if a scale is not available, to confirm the freeboard height of the boat purported as being the vessel used by Officer Schaut during the incident. The court also ordered Defendants to specify what recording devices 804 and 805 were equipped with during the incident and indicate if any recordings, other than the radio run, were made during the incident. Plaintiff's requests for documents and ESI were granted in part and denied in part.
Forrest W.H. SHUSTER, Plaintiff,
v.
GOVERNMENT OF the DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, et al., Defendants
v.
GOVERNMENT OF the DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, et al., Defendants
Case Number: 1:11-cv-1149 (RJL-AK)
United States District Court, District of Columbia
Signed August 06, 2014
Counsel
Forrest W.H. Shuster, Arlington, VA, pro se.Martha J. Mullen, Office of the Attorney General for the District of Columbia, Washington, DC, for Defendants.
Kay, Alan, United States Magistrate Judge
MEMORANDUM ORDER
*1 Forrest W.H. Shuster (“Plaintiff”), pro se, brought this action against the Government of the District of Columbia (“D.C.”) and District of Columbia Metropolitan Police Department Officer Patrick Schaut (“Schaut”) (referred to collectively as “Defendants”) for, inter alia, violation of Plaintiff’s rights under the First, Fourth, and Eighth Amendments; false arrest; and assault and battery. The events giving rise to this case occurred when Plaintiff was sculling on the Potomac River. Schaut, an officer in the District of Columbia Harbor Patrol (“DCHP”), stopped, arrested, and detained Plaintiff. United States District Judge Richard J. Leon referred this case to the undersigned for management of discovery, pretrial scheduling, facilitation of settlement discussions, and all non-dispositive motions. (9/23/13 Minute Order.) This Memorandum Order addresses Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Discovery (“Motion”) [24] and Defendants' Memorandum in Opposition (“Opposition”) [26].
BACKGROUND
The events central to the underlying case came about as a result of an incident on the Potomac River on June 23, 2010, (“the Incident”), in which Plaintiff was single sculling without wearing a personal floatation device (“PFD”). (Complaint at ¶ 1 [1].) Officer Schaut of the DCHP stopped Plaintiff for not wearing a PFD. (Id. at ¶ 11; Opposition, Ex. 1 [“Defendants' Initial Disclosures”] at 7 [26-1].) Schaut was traveling in Harbor Cruiser 804 (“804”), (Defendants' Initial Disclosures at 15 [26-1] ), a 2008 Boston Whaler, (Opposition, Ex. 3 [“Fleet Chart”] [26-3] ), and had two ride-along passengers (“Ride-Alongs”) aboard his boat. (Complaint at ¶ 18 [1].) According to Plaintiff, Schaut attempted to pull Plaintiff aboard 804 single handedly. (Id. at ¶ 14.) After failing to do so, Schaut called for backup. (Id. at ¶ 16.) Officer Pratt of the DCHP (“Pratt”) arrived in Harbor Cruiser 805 (“805”), (Defendants' Initial Disclosures at 8 [26-1] ), a 2007 Zodiac, (Fleet Chart [26-3] ), to lend support. The two officers pulled Plaintiff onto the deck of 805. (Complaint at ¶ 19 [1].) Schaut subsequently arrested and detained Plaintiff. (Id. at ¶¶ 20, 27.)
Plaintiff alleges that during the course of his arrest and detainment, Schaut: (1) deprived Plaintiff of rights granted by federal regulations governing PFD requirements, (Complaint at ¶¶ 31-43 [1] ); (2) violated Plaintiff’s First, (id. at ¶¶ 44-50), Fourth, (id. at ¶¶ 51-56), and Eighth (id. at ¶¶ 57-61) Amendment Rights; (3) falsely arrested Plaintiff, (id. at ¶¶ 62-67); (4) assaulted and battered Plaintiff, (id. at ¶¶ 68-74); (5) and intentionally inflicted emotional distress on Plaintiff; (id. at ¶¶ 75-78). To support these allegations, Plaintiff claims Schaut verbally assailed Plaintiff, (id. at ¶ 12); capsized Plaintiff’s scull, (id. at ¶ 14); slung a heavy life ring at Plaintiff’s head, (id. at ¶ 17); slammed handcuffs onto Plaintiff, lacerating Plaintiff’s skin, (id. at ¶ 20); drove Plaintiff into the metal deck of a patrol boat, (id. at ¶ 21); failed to provide Plaintiff, while handcuffed, with a PFD, (id. at ¶ 22); and damaged the scull Plaintiff was using, (id. at ¶ 25).
*2 Plaintiff also alleges that the District of Columbia is liable for (1) violating Plaintiff’s Fourth, (id. at ¶¶ 88-92), and Eighth, (id. at ¶¶ 57-61) Amendment Rights; (2) Schaut’s unlawful actions under the doctrine of respondeat superior, (id. at ¶¶ 79-81); and (3) denying Plaintiff of his rights under federal regulations governing PFD requirements, (id. at ¶¶ 82-87).
Plaintiff and Defendants participated in mediation before Federal Magistrate Judge Deborah A. Robinson. (Scheduling Order Containing a Mediation Referral [11].) However, the parties failed to reach a settlement. Therefore, United States District Judge Richard J. Leon referred this case to the undersigned for management of discovery, pretrial scheduling, facilitation of settlement discussions, and all non-dispositive motions. (9/23/13 Minute Order.) The undersigned held two telephone status conferences on November 12, 2013 and December 18, 2013, respectively, and conducted an in-court status conference on December 20, 2013, to discuss the status of discovery. The undersigned then set a deadline of January 31, 2014, for the exchange of all written discovery. (12/26/14 Memorandum Order at 4 [21].) The undersigned held another status conference on April 11, 2014, to discuss the status of discovery (“the Conference”). (4/11/14 Minute Entry for Proceeding.) At the Conference, Plaintiff informed the Court that Defendants have failed to respond properly to several discovery requests, including refusing to turn over specifications and pictures of the DCHP boats present during Plaintiff’s arrest. Instead, Plaintiff claimed Defendants have shown Plaintiff boats not present at the Incident and therefore not relevant to the case. Defendants disagreed, arguing the boats described in Defendants' discovery responses and made available for Plaintiff’s viewing were the boats used by Schaut and Pratt during the incident.
The undersigned ordered that any motion to compel by Plaintiff should be filed by May 2, 2014, (4/25/14 Minute Order), and Plaintiff filed a timely motion to compel discovery. (Motion [24].) Defendants filed their opposition on June 17, 2014, pursuant to a motion for extension of time granted by the Court. (Opposition [26].)
ANALYSIS
I. Plaintiff’s Interrogatories
Interrogatories are governed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33, and may be used to inquire into any matter under Rule 26(b). Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(a)(2). The Court notes that neither Plaintiff nor Defendants attached a copy of Plaintiff’s original interrogatories and Defendants' original responses to Plaintiff’s interrogatories to their Motion and Opposition. As such, the Court will review the contested discovery in light of the arguments presented by both parties and utilize its “broad discretion in its resolution of [the] discovery problems ... pending before it.” Hussain v. Nicholson, 435 F.3d 359, 363 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (citing In re Multi-Piece Rim Prods. Liab. Litig., 653 F.2d 671, 679 (D.C. Cir. 1981)).
Interrogatory 1: “What are the make, model number[s], and (hull) identification[s] of Officer Schaut’s and Officer Pratt’s patrol boats, and their respective engines, that were used during the incident of June 23, 2010?”
(Motion at 2 [24].)
Defendants have already provided Plaintiff with copies of sworn statements by Schaut as to the vessel numbers of the boats used by Schaut and Pratt during the incident. (See Opposition at 2 [26]; Defendants' Initial Disclosures at 8, 15 [26-1].) Defendants also provided Plaintiff with a chart summarizing the DCHP Fleet, which includes each vessel’s number, make, model number, and hull identification. (Fleet Chart [26-3].)
*3 Defendants have provided Plaintiff with information which sufficiently answers most of Plaintiff’s Interrogatory One. (See Defendants' Initial Disclosures at 8, 15 [26-1]; Fleet Chart [26-3].) By cross referencing Schaut’s statements, (Defendants' Initial Disclosures at 8, 15 [26-1] ), with the DCHP fleet chart, (Fleet Chart [26-3] ), almost all the information requested is easily ascertainable. However, this response does not address the respective engines of each boat used during the Incident. As such, Plaintiff’s motion to compel response to Interrogatory One is DENIED with respect to the boats' make, model numbers, and hull identifications.
With respect to the engines equipped to Patrol Boats 804 and 805, the engines' specifications are not within the scope of discovery. Interrogatories may relate to any matter under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b). Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(a)(2). Accordingly, parties may obtain discovery regarding any non-privileged matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or defense. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b). The engines used by DCHP are not relevant to any of Plaintiff’s claims or any conceivable defense. As such, Plaintiff’s motion to compel response to Interrogatory One is DENIED with respect to information about the boat engines.
In Plaintiff’s Motion, Plaintiff included a request under the heading “Renewed Request,” seeking certain clarifications of Defendants' disclosures. (Motion at 2 [24].) First, Plaintiff sought a certified statement that particular identified boats were the vessels used by Schaut and Pratt during the Incident. (Id.) As discussed above, Defendants have already provided this information. (Defendants' Initial Disclosures at 8 [26-1].) As such, this section of Plaintiff’s Interrogatory One is DENIED.
Plaintiff also requested that each photograph and naval architectural drawing already provided be labeled with a defense number, initials, and a brief statement as to its content, attested to by the officer making the claim. (Id.) This request is not a proper interrogatory. Additionally, the photographs and diagrams attached to Defendants' Opposition clearly identify which vessel is pictured. (See Opposition, Ex. 2 [“Vessel Pictures and Diagrams”] at 2-6 [26-2].) Plaintiff can attach his own exhibit numbers and admit the depictions into evidence as exhibits, subject to the Federal Rules of Evidence, if he so chooses. As such, this section of Plaintiff’s clarified Interrogatory One is DENIED.
Plaintiff requested a scale for the naval architectural drawings provided by Defendants. (Motion at 3 [24].) Plaintiff is entitled to the scale of the drawings as the dimensions of the boats may be highly relevant to Plaintiff’s claims at trial. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(a)(2) (interrogatories may relate to any matter under Rule 26(b)); Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b) (parties may obtain discovery regarding any non-privileged matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or defense). Therefore, by August 20, 2014, Defendants must either provide the scale of the naval architectural drawings, or if a scale is not available, “confirm that the freeboard height (waterline to the top of the gunwales), of the boat purported as being the vessel used by Officer Schaut during the incident of June 23, [2]010, at the beam, 4 points on bow, and dead-ahead are about 25", about 28", and 30+" respectively.” (Id.) As such, this section of Plaintiff’s clarified Interrogatory One is GRANTED.
Plaintiff requested the photographs of 804 and 805 already provided to Plaintiff electronically be sent to him by mail to preserve legibility. (Id. at 2.) After reviewing the photographs attached to Defendants' Opposition, (Vessel Pictures and Diagrams at 7-20 [26-2] ), this Court concludes that the photographs are of an acceptable quality. As such, this section of Plaintiff’s clarified Interrogatory One is DENIED.
*4 Plaintiff requested that Defendants confirm the vessel used by Officer Schaut during the Incident “has a ‘dive door’ located at the port aft quarter.” (Motion at 3 [24].) Plaintiff is entitled to Defendants' response to this request and Defendants should respond to this interrogatory even if the diagram of 804 depicts a dive door. As such, this section of Plaintiff’s clarified Interrogatory One is GRANTED.
Interrogatory 2: “Was an audio or audio-visual tape of any kind made of the incident of June 23, 2010?”
(Motion at 3 [24].)
Plaintiff acknowledged that Defendants provided an audio taping (“radio run”) of Schaut’s radio communications. (Id.) Plaintiff objected to Defendants' response, in that “Defen[dants] must answer whether either vessel was equipped with an audio, audio-visual camera, a GPS locator, or any other recording device.” (Id.) Defendants responded that the diagrams of each boat sufficiently specify what recording devices are equipped to each vessel. (Opposition at 5 [26].) Further, Defendants proffered that according to “the previously produced MPD [Metropolitan Police Department] General Order 204.04 ... ‘under no circumstances shall a recording device be used during a Ride-Along.’ ” (Id. (brackets removed))[1]
The records Defendants have produced do not answer Plaintiff’s interrogatory. Although the diagrams Defendants have provided depict what recording equipment a standard 2008 Boston Whaler and 2007 Zodiac are equipped with, and the MPD General Order states a policy for recording devices, boats may be equipped with additional equipment and policies are sometimes ignored. As such, Plaintiff’s motion to compel an answer to Interrogatory Two is GRANTED. Defendants must specify what recording devices 804 and 805 were equipped with during the Incident and indicate if any recordings, other than the radio run, were made during the Incident.
Interrogatory 6: “What was the stated purpose of the two witnesses of the incident of June 23, 2010, for being a part of the DC MPD ‘Ride-Along Program[?]’ ”
(Motion at 4 [24].)
Defendants responded to Interrogatory Six by producing the Metropolitan Police General Order for the Ride-Along Program. (Id.; Opposition, Ex. 4 [“MPD Ride Along Program General Order”] [26-4].) Plaintiff argued “Defen[dants'] response is non-responsive.” (Motion at 4 [24].) Plaintiff requested the specific “ ‘reason you request a ride’ as stated by the two witnesses on MPD form 369, ‘Ride-Along’ Program application.” (Id.) Defendants proffer that they are checking to determine whether the relevant Ride-Along applications are on file. (Opposition at 6 [26].)
Defendants shall supplement its response to Interrogatory Six and either provide Plaintiff with the information requested or indicate under oath that the relevant Ride-Alongs applications are not on file. As such, Plaintiff’s motion to compel an answer to Interrogatory Six is GRANTED.
Interrogatory 7: “Does the DC MPD have a policy that requires Officers to thoroughly sanitize and disinfect handcuffs after being bloodied, and to inform, and otherwise reassure, a prisoner in handcuffs that such is the policy and that such has been performed?”
(Motion at 4 [24].)
Plaintiff requested “a simple yes or no” in response to Interrogatory Seven. In Defendants' opposition, Defendants stated that “there is no written sanitization policy per se but that all officers are given alcohol wipes for cleaning handcuffs that have been used on suspects in custody.” (Opposition at 6 [26].) The Court will deem this response adequate. As such, Plaintiff’s motion to compel an answer to Interrogatory Seven is DENIED.
II. Plaintiff’s Requests to Produce Documents
*5 Neither Plaintiff nor Defendants attached a copy of Plaintiff’s original document requests to the Motion or the Opposition. In the Motion, Plaintiff numbered some of his document requests, listed some under the heading “Renewed Request,” and listed some under “New Request.” (Motion at 4-7 [24].) In some cases, Defendants objected to Plaintiff’s requests as untimely, proffering that these requests were served for the first time in Plaintiff’s Motion, (Opposition at 7, 8 [26] ), after the close of written discovery on January 31, 2014, (12/26/14 Memorandum Order at 4 [21].)
Document requests and requests for electronically stored information are governed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 34, and may be used to inquire into any matter under Rule 26(b). Fed. R. Civ. P. 43(a). This Court will utilize its “broad discretion in its resolution of [the] discovery problems ... pending before it.” Hussain v. Nicholson, 435 F.3d 359, 363 (D.C. Cir. 2006)(citing In re Multi-Piece Rim Prods. Liab. Litig., 653 F.2d 671, 679 (D.C. Cir. 1981)).
Document Request 1: “Any audio or audiovisual tape, GPS recording, or any other recording of the incident of June 23, 2010.”
(Motion at 4 [24].)
Plaintiff acknowledged that Defendants have “provided a ‘radio run’ of Officer Schaut’s request to Harbor Patrol HQ.” (Id.) However, Plaintiff requested the radio run in a form Plaintiff may use at trial. (Id.) Defendants argued that it turned over “an audible WAV document,” which is the how radio runs are kept in Defendants' usual course of business. (Opposition at 4 [26].)
A request for electronically stored information “may specify the form or forms in which electronically stored information is to be produced.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(b)(1)(C). However, “[i]f a request does not specify a form for producing electronically stored information, a party must produce it in a form or forms in which it is ordinarily maintained or in a reasonably usable form or forms.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(b)(2)(E)(ii). “A party need not produce the same electronically stored information in more than one form.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(b)(2)(E)(iii).
Plaintiff failed to specify the form in which the requested electronically stored information should be produced. Therefore, Defendants properly produced the radio run in its ordinarily maintained form, and need not produce the same information in another form. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(b)(2)(E)(ii-iii). Further, Plaintiff may easily transfer the recording to a CD or other audio player for use at trial. Directions for this process are readily available for free online. As such, Plaintiff’s Motion to compel compliance with Document Request One, as to the form of the radio run, is DENIED.
Plaintiff is entitled to all other recordings of the incident on June 23, 2010. To the extent that other recordings exist, Defendants must provide Plaintiff with copies such other recordings. If no other recordings exist, Defendants must state so explicitly. Therefore, Plaintiff’s Motion to compel compliance with Document Request One, as to recordings other than the radio run, is GRANTED.
Document Request 3.3: “Plaintiff asks Defense for the DC Register entry for the removal of the exemptions for racing shells and sculls from DC Harbor regulations.”
(Motion at 5 [24].)
Plaintiff listed this document request under the heading “New Request.” (Id.) This indicates Document Request 3.3 was not served on Defendants prior to Plaintiff filing the instant Motion on May 2, 2014. (Id. at 7.) The undersigned previously ordered that “all written discovery should be exchanged no later than January 31, 2014. (12/26/14 Memorandum Order at 4 [21].) Therefore, Plaintiff’s new request is beyond the scheduled written-discovery deadline. As such, Plaintiff’s motion to compel compliance with Document Request 3.3 is DENIED.
*6 Document Request 4: “All documents relevant to the issue of why two Department of Defense employees—the two ride-along witnesses—were on Officer Schaut's patrol boat.... Documents inclusive of, but not limited to, the ride-along applications ... and correspondence between members of the Dept. of Defense and the District of Columbia as per the ride alongs, and efforts of cooperation and liaison between D.o.D. and DC Harbor Patrol.”
(Motion at 5 (ellipsis in original) [24].)
Plaintiff complained that Defendants only provided Plaintiff with the “ ‘Ride-Along Program’ General Order, thus otherwise evading Plaintiff’s request.” (Id.) Plaintiff specifically requested the ride-along applications for the two Ride-Alongs aboard 804 during the incident. (Id.) As previously discussed, see supra p.6 (discussing Interrogatory Six), Defendants cannot be forced to provide documents that Defendants cannot locate. Defendants must continue to search for the two witnesses' ride-along program applications and should provide Plaintiff with copies of the Ride-Alongs' applications, if located. As such, Document Request Four, as to Plaintiff’s request for the Ride-Alongs' applications, is GRANTED.
Plaintiff also made a general request for “[a]ll documents relevant to the issue of why two Department of Defense employees—the two ride-along witnesses—were on Officer Schaut's patrol boat.” (Motion at 5 [24].) Plaintiff specifically requested correspondence between members of the Department of Defense and the District of Columbia as per ride-alongs. (Motion at 5 [24].) Plaintiff requested all documents memorializing efforts of cooperation and liaison between the Department of Defense and the DCHP. (Id.)
In general, “[a] party may serve on any other party a request [for production of documents] within the scope of Rule 26(b).” Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(a). The scope of discovery includes “any non-privileged matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or defense.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). However, even if requested documents are within this broad scope,
the court must limit the frequency or extent of discovery otherwise allowed by these rules or by local rule if it determines that ... the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit, considering the needs of the case, the amount in controversy, the parties' resources, the importance of the issues at stake in the action, and the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(C).
Correspondence and efforts of cooperation between the Department of Defense and the DCHP appear irrelevant to any claim or defense. Plaintiff’s claims relate primarily to whether Schaut acted improperly in his arrest of Plaintiff and whether the District of Columbia’s regulation governing PFD requirements was preempted by federal statute. None of Plaintiffs claims relate to the ride-along passenger program or Department of Defense correspondence or cooperation with DCHP. To the extent Plaintiff’s requests could possibly be construed as relevant to a claim or defense, “the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit,” considering the relevant factors under the federal rule, especially the needs of the case and the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues. SeeFed. R. Civ. P 26(b)(2)(C). It is undisputed that two ride-along passengers were aboard 804. (Compl. at ¶ 18 [1]; Answer at ¶ 18 [6].) To the extent possible, Defendants will inform Plaintiff of the Ride-Alongs purpose for being there, if the Ride-Alongs' applications are located. All other communications or cooperation between the Department of Defense and DCHP are wholly irrelevant, or at least not worth the expense of production, given the nature of this case and the disputed issues. Therefore, Plaintiff’s motion to compel compliance with Document Request Four is DENIED.
*7 Unlabeled Renewed Request: “[P]ortions of the Harbor Patrol Training Manual that cover specifically the Sport of Rowing. Also the pages of the Training Manuel which set the procedure for sanitizing bloodied handcuffs, and for handcuffing prisoners while on uniquely hazardous waters.”
(Motion at 5 [24].)
Plaintiff moved to compel compliance with this Unlabeled Document Request under the heading “Renewed Request.” (Id.) Defendants proffered that Plaintiff’s initial request was very different, in that “it requested documents related to oversight of racing shells and rowing sculls.” (Opposition at 8 (internal quotation marks and brackets omitted) [26].) Defendants responded to the initial request by “stating that there were no responsive documents to this request.” (Id.) Therefore, Defendants properly denied the existence of any responsive documents to the original request.
Defendants have provided a safety book used by DCHP in response to this new request. (Id.) The Court will not compel Defendants to respond further to Plaintiff’s revised document request, served for the first time after the close of written discovery. Therefore, Plaintiff’s motion to compel compliance with the Unlabeled Document Request is DENIED.
Document Request 6: “A copy of the Oath of Office for a Harbor Patrol Officer.”
(Motion at 6 [24].)
Defendants contended that Document Request Six “is also new and untimely and should be denied.” (Opposition at 8 [26].) Regardless of the timeliness of Document Request Six, the oath of office for a harbor patrol officer is not relevant to any claim or defense. As such, Plaintiff is not entitled to this information. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(a), 26(b). Therefore, Plaintiff’s motion to compel compliance with Document Request Six is DENIED.
III. Plaintiff’s Requests for Admissions
Plaintiff requested that Defendants make nine admissions which Plaintiff claimed represent the substance of facts previously admitted by Defendants, admitted by Defendants' counsel, witnessed by Defendants' counsel, or established by the Municipal Police Department property records. (Motion at 6-7 [24].) Plaintiff also requested the Court compel a response to a proposition based on Defendants' representations in court and in Defendants' written communications. (Id.) Plaintiff requested Defendants admit that, “[a]ttempting to bring Plaintiff aboard Officer Schaut’s boat while in uniquely hazardous waters, while Plaintiff was without a [PFD], and while Officer Schaut was acting alone, represents a highly unsafe and highly risky procedure.” (Id. at 7.)
Defendants proffered that Plaintiff submitted the requests for admissions for the first time in Plaintiff’s Motion, four months after the close of written discovery. (Opposition at 9 [26].) Plaintiff has offered nothing to indicate otherwise and failed to reply to Defendants' opposition. As such, the undersigned will treat Defendants contention, that the requests for admission were untimely, as correct. Therefore, Plaintiff’s motion to compel responses to Plaintiff’s requests for admission is DENIED.
CONCLUSION AND ORDER
*8 For the aforementioned reasons, it is this fifth day of August, 2014,
ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Discovery [24] is hereby GRANTED in part and DENIED in part:
i. As to Interrogatory One, on or before August 20, 2014, Defendants must (1) provide Plaintiff with a scale for the naval architectural drawings already produced or confirm the freeboard heights as proposed by Plaintiff; and (2) confirm or deny that the vessel used by Schaut during the Incident has a dive door.
ii. As to Interrogatory Two, on or before August 20, 2014, Defendants must specify what recording devices 804 and 805 were equipped with during the Incident.
iii. As to Interrogatory Six, defendants must continue to search for the applications of the two Ride-Alongs present during the Incident. If found, Defendants must provide Plaintiff with a copy of the applications.
iv. As to Interrogatory Seven, Defendants' response is sufficient.
v. As to Document Request One, on or before August 20, 2014, Defendants must provide Plaintiff with copies of all recordings of the incident, excluding the radio run already provided. If no other recordings exist, Defendants must state so explicitly.
vi. As to Document Request 3.3, the request is beyond the written-discovery deadline.
vii. As to Document Request Four, defendants must continue to search for the applications of the two Ride-Alongs present during the Incident. If found, Defendants must provide Plaintiff with a copy of the applications.
viii. As to Plaintiff’s Unlabeled Document Request, Defendant properly denied the existence of responsive documents to the original request and the new request is beyond the written-discovery deadline.
ix. As to Document Request Six, the request is beyond the scope of discovery.
x. Plaintiff’s requests for admissions were untimely and Defendants need not respond.