I. INTRODUCTION

*1 This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiffs, Jolyn Specter, David Wood and Marianne Wood's, Motion to Compel Defendant Recon Air Corporation's Discovery Responses (“Motion”).[1] Defendant, Recon Air Corporation (“Recon Air”), opposes the Motion.[2] This matter was fully briefed by the Parties.[3] Oral argument was not requested, nor is it necessary for the Court's determination. For the following reasons, Plaintiffs' Motion is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART AS MOOT.

II. BACKGROUND

This action arises out of a plane crash that occurred on September 15, 2015, shortly after takeoff from East Wind Lake, Alaska.[4] 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”).[5] The plane was owned and operated by Defendant, Rainbow King Lodge, Inc. (“Rainbow King”).[6] In April 2014, Recon Air modified the subject aircraft by installing a kit in the aircraft “known as Stol Kit STC SA00287NY, a Baron Stol Kit manufactured by Stolairus Aviation, Inc ... ” and converting the subject aircraft's piston engine to a turbine engine, among other modifications and repairs.[7]

Plaintiffs' Complaint alleges that Stolairus Aviation (“Stolairus”) “caused the aircraft to crash into the ground” because the 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.”[8] Plaintiffs' Complaint also alleges that “the modification of the aircraft designed and completed by” Texas Turbine Conversions, Inc. (“Texas Turbine”) and Recon Air “also 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.”[9] Recon Air agrees that it “installed the turbine engine conversion kit [in the subject aircraft] in accordance with the installation drawings and specifications provided by Texas Turbine Conversions, Inc., and in full compliance with applicable laws and regulations.”[10] Plaintiffs bring claims against Recon Air for negligence, strict liability, misrepresentation/breach of warranties, wrongful death, and personal injury.[11]

Previously, and because of a personal jurisdiction dispute regarding Stolairus, the Court ordered discovery “limited to Stolairus' contacts with Alaska having to do with Stolairus' STOL kits” and supplemental briefing with respect to specific jurisdiction over Stolairus.[12] As result of the Court's discovery order, Recon Air began production of documents to Plaintiffs.[13]

*2 Plaintiffs and Recon Air have continued engaging in discovery including exchanging initial disclosures, witness lists, interrogatories, requests for production (“RFP”), requests for admission, and depositions.[14] Specifically, Plaintiffs have propounded three sets of discovery requests, which contain 22 interrogatories, 31 RFPs, and three requests for admission.[15] Plaintiffs do not assert any deficiencies with respect to the first two sets of discovery requests; it appears that Recon Air responded to those requests without incident.[16]

On July 22, 2019, Plaintiffs served their third set of discovery requests on Recon Air to which Recon Air responded on August 26, 2019.[17] On August 30, 2019, Plaintiffs first notified Recon Air that the discovery responses were insufficient. Thereafter, Plaintiffs sought to meet and confer several times over the deficiencies they had identified.[18] Finally, on September 4, 2019, in their last communication regarding the discovery deficiencies, Recon Air emailed the following to Plaintiffs' counsel:

On September 9, 2019, in response to Recon Air's email, Plaintiffs filed the instant Motion to Compel seeking the Court's intervention to compel responses to five interrogatories, five RFPs, and three requests for admission.[20] Plaintiffs also seek to require Recon Air to bear the costs associated with further depositions if necessary based on Recon Air's supplemental responses.[21] On September 12 and 13, 2019, as previously scheduled, and pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(6), Plaintiffs deposed Ron Mercer, Director of Maintenance at Recon Air,[22] and Roy Leuenberger, President of Recon Air,[23] in their representative and individual capacities. On September 13, 2019, Plaintiffs also deposed Kevin Leuenberger, Quality Assurance Manager at Recon Air.[24]

*3 On September 27, 2019, Recon Air responded to Plaintiffs' Motion, arguing that Plaintiffs have wasted valuable time and resources in bringing this Motion because the topics in each of the discovery requests were explored by Plaintiffs during depositions with Recon Air's corporate representatives and employee witnesses.[25] Recon Air also provided specific objections and responses to each discovery request.[26]

In their Reply, Plaintiffs concede that during these depositions they had an opportunity to “obtain some answers” and “some of the discovery requests Plaintiffs moved to compel responses to are now moot.”[27] However, they continue to seek the Court's intervention to compel responses to Interrogatory 18 and RFP 27.[28]

III. LEGAL STANDARD

Federal Rules 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[.]”[29] 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).”[30]

One of the requirements of Rule 26 is relevancy. “Relevancy for discovery purposes is construed broadly”[31] 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.’ ”[32] Specifically, under Rule 26(b)(1), discovery must be “proportional to the needs of the case.”[33] “ ‘Rule 26(b) has never been a license to engage in an unwieldy, burdensome, and speculative fishing expedition.’ ”[34] Rather, “the parties and the court have a collective responsibility to consider the proportionality of all discovery and consider it in resolving discovery disputes.”[35]

Generally, a requesting party may move to compel the production of documents from a party that fails to make disclosures or cooperate in discovery.[36] 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.[37] 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).[38] 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.”[39] Here, because Plaintiffs have moved to compel discovery, they bear the burden of showing the relevancy of their requests, while Recon Air—the party resisting discovery—bears the burden of clarifying, explaining, and supporting its objections to Plaintiffs' requests.

*4 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.”[40] 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.”[41] “Under Rule 26(c), the party seeking the protective order must show good cause to preclude or limit the discovery.”[42] 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.”[43]

IV. ANALYSIS

The Court addresses each of Plaintiffs' discovery requests in turn.

A. Interrogatory 18

Plaintiffs ask Recon Air to “[p]lease describe the steps, in sequential order, of the modification of the subject aircraft from a piston aircraft to a turbine aircraft.”[44] Recon Air objects on relevance grounds and because the request would cause it “to spend an inordinate amount of time to regurgitate the sequence of work outlined in the records already produced. Plaintiffs are in the same position as [Recon Air] in terms of creating the requested timeline.”[45]

The Parties agree that Recon Air modified the subject aircraft and specifically installed the turbine engine conversion kit.[46] 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 greater understanding of how Recon Air carried out the modification of the plane is relevant to their claims. During Ron Mercer's deposition as a representative of Recon Air, he testified that

Mercer also testified that the piston to turbine conversion supplemental type certificate (“STC”) or installation drawings would explain the precise sequence, and that as an installer, Recon Air has an obligation to follow the STC installation instructions.[48]

Given that it was Recon Air, and not Plaintiffs, who installed the turbine conversion kit, Recon Air's response that “Plaintiffs are in the same position as [Recon Air] in terms of creating the requested timeline” is incorrect.[49] Mercer further testified that Recon Air does not currently have any such STC installation drawings.[50] However, that Recon Air does not currently have the drawings does not mean it cannot respond to Interrogatory 18, nor does it render Plaintiffs' request irrelevant. Recon Air cannot avoid cooperating in discovery simply by making a generalized complaint that this request will take up their time. In this Motion, Recon Air bears the burden to support its objections, but has failed to do so.

Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel as to Interrogatory 18. Recon Air must produce to Plaintiffs a sequence of work, but only with respect to the piston to turbine conversion. Recon Air may do so by relying on documents it already produced, creating a new document demonstrating the sequence, or another method; but it must meaningfully respond to Interrogatory 18.

B. Request for Production 27

*5 With respect to RFP 27, Plaintiffs seek “any and all correspondence with Texas Turbines (sic) regarding flight testing.”[51] Recon Air objects on relevance grounds and because the term “flight testing” is undefined and vague.[52] Recon Air further responds stating it “is aware that Texas Turbine conducted flight testing which was provided to the FAA in support of its STC. See Texas Turbine's production of their flight testing.”[53]

Despite Recon Air's objection, this request is relevant to address Plaintiffs' claim that Recon Air failed to inspect, identify and warn of the change in the center of gravity allegedly caused by their modification. This request seeks the production of communication between Recon Air and Texas Turbine regarding a particular subject. Recon Air's response acknowledging that Texas Turbine has conducted flight testing is non-responsive to the request, which asks for correspondence. Moreover, Recon Air's response does not demonstrate whether it has conducted a search for the correspondence at issue in Plaintiffs' request, and if so, whether any such search was electronic or by paper.

Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel as to RFP 27. Recon Air must produce to Plaintiffs any correspondence with Texas Turbine regarding flight testing of the subject aircraft. If no such correspondence exists, Recon Air must so state.

V. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs' Motion at docket 120 is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. The Court DENIES Plaintiffs' Motion as moot with respect to Interrogatory Nos. 19-22, RFP Nos. 28-31 and Requests for Admission Nos. 1-3 because these discovery issues have been resolved by the Parties. The Court GRANTS Plaintiffs' Motion with respect to Interrogatory 18 and RFP 27. Within fourteen (14) days of this Order, Recon Air must supply responses to Plaintiffs' Interrogatory 18 and RFP 27 in accordance with this Order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated at Anchorage, Alaska, this 13th day of November, 2019.