I. INTRODUCTION

*1 This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiffs Jolyn Specter, David Wood, and Marianne Wood's Motion to Compel Discovery from Defendant Texas Turbine Conversions, Inc. (“Motion to Compel”).[1] Defendant, Texas Turbine Conversions, Inc. (“TTC”), opposes the Motion.[2] This matter was fully briefed by the Parties.[3] On November 5, 2019, TTC requested oral argument. Because oral argument would not assist the Court in resolving this motion, Defendant's request is DENIED.[4] For the following reasons, Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART.

II. BACKGROUND

This action arises out of a plane crash that occurred on September 15, 2015, shortly after takeoff from East Wind Lake, Alaska.[5] Plaintiff's decedent, James E. Specter, and Plaintiff David W. Wood, Jr. were passengers on the plane, a DeHavilland DHC-3 “Otter” aircraft (“subject aircraft”).[6] The plane was owned and operated by Defendant Rainbow King Lodge, Inc. (“Rainbow King”).[7] TTC “provided a turbine conversion kit for the subject aircraft pursuant to its Supplemental Type Certificate (“STC”)”.[8] In April 2014, Defendant Recon Air Corporation (“Recon Air”) modified the subject aircraft by installing TTC's turbine conversion kit, which converted the subject aircraft's “radial engine to a turbine engine.”[9]

Plaintiffs' Complaint alleges that “the modification of the aircraft designed and completed by” TTC and Recon Air “changed the center of gravity of the accident aircraft” and Defendants “failed to inspect, identify and warn of the change in the center of gravity.”[10] Similarly, Plaintiffs' Complaint alleges that Defendant, Stolairus Aviation's (“Stolairus”) STOL Kit “changed the center of gravity, making the center of gravity too far aft and contributing to or causing a stall and or loss of control of the aircraft.”[11] TTC agrees that it “provided the turbine conversion kit for the subject aircraft” and that the installation occurred at Recon Air's facilities.[12] Plaintiffs bring claims against TTC for negligence, strict liability, misrepresentation/breach of warranties, negligent supervision of Recon Air, wrongful death, and personal injury.[13]

*2 Plaintiffs and TTC have engaged in discovery including exchanging initial disclosures, preliminary witness lists, interrogatories, requests for production (“RFP”), and depositions.[14] Specifically, Plaintiffs have propounded at least two sets of discovery requests, which contain 22 interrogatories, and 32 RFPs.[15] On September 12 and 25, 2019, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(6), Plaintiffs deposed Ron Mercer, Director of Maintenance at Recon Air,[16] and Bobby Bishop President of TTC.[17] On September 25, 2019, Plaintiffs also deposed Thomas Bishop.[18]

Plaintiffs have been unsatisfied with some of TTC's responses to their Second Set of Discovery Requests and refusal to answer questions during Bobby Bishop's deposition. In their letter dated October 4, 2019, Plaintiffs assert that the parties “have met and conferred” several times and the letter was the final attempt to obtain the documents before involving the Court.[19] Unsatisfied with TTC's response, on October 17, 2019, Plaintiffs filed the instant Motion to Compel seeking the Court's intervention to compel production of (1) TTC's installation drawings; (2) missing TTC documents bates labeled TTC101074-101125, 101293-101382, 101566; (3) a 30(b)(6) deposition regarding TTC's costs and profits of the TTC conversion; (4) identification of other DHC-3 Otter aircraft converted by TTC's STC; (5) complete crash investigation files; and (6) a privilege log for any documents withheld.[20] Plaintiffs also seek to require TTC to bear the costs associated with further depositions if necessary based on TTC's supplemental responses.[21]

*3 On October 31, 2019, TTC responded to Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel, arguing that Plaintiffs have failed to meet their burden to show the relevance of TTC's installation drawings; and that Alaska statute AS § 09.17.020 prevents Plaintiffs from obtaining discovery regarding TTC finances unless a jury finds TTC liable and identifies conduct on which to predicate punitive damages.[22] TTC also states its willingness meet some of Plaintiffs demands and states it will produce (1) a privilege log; (2) Bobby Bishop's crash investigation files; and (3) Bobby Bishop for a second telephonic 30(b)(6) deposition.[23] TTC also asserts that it has already produced all flight testing records, and the “missing documents” identified by bates labels in Plaintiffs' motion.[24]

In their Reply, Plaintiffs continue to seek the Court's intervention to compel the production of the following: (1) TTC's installation drawings; (2) a 30(b)(6) deposition regarding TTC's costs and profits of the STC turbine conversion and expenses to certify the aircraft; (3) identification of other DHC-3 Otter aircraft converted by TTC's STC; (4) complete crash investigation files; and (5) a privilege log for any documents withheld.[25] Although TTC represented that they would produce categories four and five, Plaintiffs allege that as of November 7, 2019, TTC has failed to do so.[26]

III. LEGAL STANDARD

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1) defines the scope of discovery as follows:

“Broad discretion is vested in the trial court to permit or deny discovery[.]”[28] Under Rule 26(b)(2)(C), a court “must limit the frequency or extent of discovery” if “the proposed discovery is outside the scope permitted by Rule 26(b)(1).”[29]

One of the requirements of Rule 26 is relevance. “Relevancy for discovery purposes is construed broadly”[30] but “ ‘[e]ven if evidence is discoverable and relevant under Rules 34, 33, and 26, the Rules contain some express constraints, boundaries both ‘ultimate and necessary,’ on discovery's otherwise sprawling reach.’ ”[31] Specifically, under Rule 26(b)(1), discovery must be “proportional to the needs of the case.”[32] “ ‘Rule 26(b) has never been a license to engage in an unwieldy, burdensome, and speculative fishing expedition.’ ”[33] Rather, “the parties and the court have a collective responsibility to consider the proportionality of all discovery and consider it in resolving discovery disputes.”[34]

*4 Generally, a requesting party may move to compel the production of documents from a party that fails to make disclosures or cooperate in discovery.[35] Under Rule 37(a)(3)(B), a party may move to compel discovery if another party fails to answer an interrogatory submitted under Rule 33 or fails to respond to a request for production under Rule 34.[36] In so moving, “[t]he party seeking to compel discovery has the burden of establishing that its requests satisfy the relevancy requirements of Rule 26(b)(1).[37] By that same token, “the party opposing discovery has the burden of showing that discovery should not be allowed, and also has the burden of clarifying, explaining and supporting its objections with competent evidence.”[38] Here, because Plaintiffs have moved to compel discovery, they bear the burden of showing the relevance of their requests, while TTC—the party resisting discovery—bears the burden of clarifying, explaining, and supporting its objections to Plaintiffs' requests.

Just as a party seeking discovery may move to compel, Rule 26(c) provides that “[t]he court may, for good cause, issue an order to protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense.”[39] Similar to other discovery rules, “Rule 26(c) confers broad discretion on the trial court to decide when a protective order is appropriate and what degree of protection is required.”[40] “Under Rule 26(c), the party seeking the protective order must show good cause to preclude or limit the discovery.”[41] To establish good cause, the moving party must “point to specific facts that will support the request” and cannot rely on “conclusory or speculative statements” or a “mere showing that the discovery may involve some inconvenience or expense.”[42]

IV. ANALYSIS

The Court addresses each of the five categories of discovery Plaintiffs are seeking to compel in turn.

A. TTC's Installation Drawings

Plaintiffs seek to compel about 100 pages of installation drawings TTC created to instruct Recon Air how to install TTC's turbine conversion kit on the subject aircraft according to its Federal Aviation Administration (“FAA”) approved STC.[43] Through Bobby Bishop, TTC admitted that it submitted these drawings to the FAA to review and certify the aircraft,[44] and Recon Air admitted that TTC gave them the drawings in a binder along with the conversion kit.[45] TTC objects to the production of the drawings on relevance grounds.[46]

The Parties agree that Recon Air modified the subject aircraft and specifically installed TTC's turbine engine conversion kit converting the subject aircraft from a radial engine to a turbine engine.[47] Plaintiffs claim that this modification caused a shift in the plane's center of gravity, which contributed to or caused a stall and or loss of control of the plane. At the discovery stage, Plaintiffs' interest in a greater understanding of whether the engine conversion was properly completed is relevant to their claims. In order to evaluate this issue, Plaintiffs are entitled to examine the drawings to determine, for example, whether they are accurate. Ron Mercer testified that as an installer, Recon Air has an obligation to follow the STC installation drawings. Examining the drawings from TTC will permit Plaintiffs to assess whether they did so.[48]

*5 TTC cannot avoid cooperating in discovery simply by making a generalized objection as to relevance and citing an inapposite case.[49] In this Motion to Compel, Plaintiffs have demonstrated that the drawings are relevant and TTC failed to sufficiently support its objections. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel as to the installation drawings that TTC provided to Recon Air. TTC must produce the entirety of the estimated 100 pages of installation drawings to Plaintiffs within fourteen (14) days of this Order.

B. Deposition Regarding TTC Financial Information

Plaintiffs seek a 30(b)(6) deposition regarding TTC's costs and profits of the STC turbine conversion and expenses to certify the aircraft.[50] Plaintiffs assert that this information is relevant to whether there were alternatives to the engine conversion, whether there is a defect and whether punitive damages should be assessed.[51] Both Parties discuss whether this Court must apply an Alaska Statute limiting discovery of information regarding punitive damages in AS § 09.17.020.[52]

In relevant part, AS § 09.17.020(e) states,

“Under the Erie doctrine, federal courts sitting in diversity apply state substantive law and federal procedural law.”[53] Defendant argues that the Alaska statute is substantive rather than procedural and therefore, under the Erie doctrine, should apply to this case, preventing Plaintiffs from probing into TTC's financial information.[54] In response, Plaintiffs argue that this provision does not apply because “restrictions on when discovery may occur is on its face procedural and not substantive.”[55]

There is no federal case applying AS § 09.17.020 in a diversity action to limit the scope of discovery and the Court need not do so now. By the plain language of the statute, AS § 09.17.020(e) only limits discovery if the evidence sought is not relevant to another issue in the case. Here, TTC's costs and profits with respect to the turbine conversion STC and TTC's expenditures to certify the aircraft design as modified by the turbine conversion are relevant to Plaintiffs' various theories of negligence and strict liability. Therefore, regardless of whether AS § 09.17.020(e) is substantive or procedural, it does not prevent the discovery sought by Plaintiffs in this case. These financial topics are limited to the turbine conversion used in the subject aircraft and the certification of the subject aircraft.

Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel as to a 30(b)(6) deposition regarding TTC's costs and profits with respect to the turbine conversion STC and TTC's expenditures to certify the aircraft design as modified by the turbine conversion. Within fourteen (14) days of this Order, TTC must schedule a mutually agreeable date to conduct a telephonic deposition of a TTC representative who must be prepared to discuss these two topics.

C. Identification of Other DHC-3 Aircraft Converted by TTC

*6 Plaintiffs seek to compel Defendants to identify DHC-3 Otter aircraft modified with TTC's turbine conversion kit, and assert that this information is responsive to RFP 53 and Interrogatories 26 and 27. Defendants object because the NTSB investigations of other DHC-3 Otter plane crashes did not result in findings that TTC's turbine conversion “had anything to do with causing” the crashes. In this Motion to Compel, Plaintiffs' bear the burden to show that their requests are relevant, but neither Party provided the Court a copy of the language of the specific requests and the Parties characterize the information sought differently.[56] Given the available information, the Court is not convinced that Plaintiffs have met their burden to show proportional relevance considering the six factors outlined in Rule 26(b)(1).[57]

Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel with respect to identification of other DHC-3 Otter aircraft converted by TTC's STC.

D. Complete TTC Crash Investigation Files

With respect to the TTC crash investigation files created by Bobby Bishop, there is no active dispute. TTC admitted such crash investigation files exist during the deposition of Bobby Bishop,[58] and without objection, agreed to produce such files in its Response to Plaintiffs' Motion.[59] However, Plaintiffs assert that TTC has failed to do so as of November 7, 2019. Accordingly, if TTC has not already done so by the date of this Order, the Court HEREBY ORDERS TTC to produce the investigative files Mr. Bishop described during his deposition on September 26, 2019, within seven (7) days of this Order.

E. Privilege Log

With respect to a privilege log, there is also no active dispute. On October 31, 2019, TTC represented to the Court that it was “in the process of drafting a privilege log and [was going to] produce it to Plaintiffs upon completion.”[60] However, Plaintiffs assert that TTC has failed to do so as of November 7, 2019. Accordingly, if TTC has not already done so by the date of this Order, the Court HEREBY ORDERS TTC to produce a privilege log that conforms to the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(5) within seven (7) days of this Order.

V. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel at docket 125 is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. The Court GRANTS Plaintiffs' Motion with respect to TTC's installation drawings, a 30(b)(6) deposition regarding TTC's costs and profits of the STC turbine conversion and expenses to certify the aircraft, complete crash investigation files; and a privilege log for any documents withheld. The Court HEREBY ORDERS Defendant to produce information, documents, and a representative for deposition in accordance with this Order. The Court DENIES Plaintiffs' Motion with respect to compelling Defendant to identify other DHC-3 Otter aircraft converted by TTC's STC.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated at Anchorage, Alaska, this 16th day of December, 2019.