*1 THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon Defendant USA Marine Engines, LLC's Motion to Overrule Objections and to Compel Better Responses to Discovery (ECF No. 30) (the “Motion”). United States District William P. Dimitrouleas has referred this action to the undersigned for disposition of all discovery matters. See (ECF No. 10 at 6).

Having reviewed the record, the Motion, and the Response (ECF No. 37), and being otherwise duly advised in the matter, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Motion is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART as set forth below.

This matter involves claims arising from Defendant's alleged failure to properly overhaul the engines of M/Y Outta Touch on or about November 2021. See generally (ECF No. 1). As the owner of the vessel, Plaintiff Outta Touch Holdings, LLC filed its Complaint against Defendant alleging claims for breach of contract (Count I), breach of express warranty (Count II), breach of implied warranty of workmanlike performance (Count III), and breach of implied warranty of fitness for particular purpose (Count IV). Id. According to the Complaint, in December 2021, following Defendant's completion of the engine overhaul, the M/Y Outta Touch sailed for a scheduled charter from Fort Lauderdale to St. Thomas, via the Bahamas. Id. ¶ 20. After several alleged mechanical failures, the vessel docked in San Juan, Puerto Rico, where the engines were again overhauled by a third-party. Id. ¶¶ 21-47.

Relevant here, Defendant has served its First and Second Requests for Production. See generally (ECF No. 30). In response, although Plaintiff has produced some documents, Plaintiff has also asserted responses/objections to specific requests. The instant Motion followed.

A. First Request for Production Nos. 2, 3, 4, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12

The Requests and Plaintiff's responses are contained within Plaintiff's Amended/Supplemental Response to the First Request for Production (“Plaintiff's Response to First RFP”). (ECF No. 37-1); see also (ECF No. 30-1). Plaintiff's Response to the First RFP includes Dropbox links to Plaintiff's production of documents. See generally (ECF No. 37-1). The Dropbox links contain subfolders corresponding to the specific Requests. Although Plaintiff has produced some documents, some responses indicate that Plaintiff is not in possession of the requested documents (e.g., Requests 2, 4), and others advise that all responsive materials were produced and are accessible through the Dropbox (e.g., Requests 7, 8). Other responses reference third-parties who may have responsive documents (e.g., Requests 10, 11).

Further, in response to the Motion and these Requests, Plaintiff represents that it is “producing everything responsive in [its] possession, custody, or control and making numerous good faith efforts to obtain anything responsive in the exclusive custody of third-parties.” (ECF No. 37 at 6).

Based upon the Court's review of Plaintiff's Response to the First RFP contained at ECF No. 37-1, the materials produced in the Dropbox links, and Plaintiff's representation that it has produced everything responsive in its possession, custody, or control, the Motion as to these Requests is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. First, the Motion is DENIED as to Requests 2, 3, 4, 7, 8, and 9 based upon Plaintiff's representation that it has produced all responsive documents in its possession, custody, or control.

*2 The Motion, however, is GRANTED IN PART as to Request 10. In Request 10, Plaintiff references a storage/container unit in San Juan used for storing parts and asserts that any other responsive documents are with third-parties. (ECF No. 37-1 at 5). Accordingly, by the date set forth below, Plaintiff must serve an amended response to Request 10 describing its efforts to obtain responsive documents from the third-parties.

Similarly, the Motion is GRANTED IN PART as to Request 11. Although Plaintiff objects that the documents are already in Defendant's possession through third-parties, it nonetheless provides responsive documents through the Dropbox. Id. Plaintiff's objection, however, is improper. “The fact that a party's counsel may already possess some of the documents and information included in [a] discovery request[ ] does not excuse the responding party's failure to fully respond to the discovery request[ ].” Wilkins v. Ragoodial, No. 20-CV-14203, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 76527, at *13 (S.D. Fla. Apr. 21, 2021) (citation omitted). Accordingly, Plaintiff's objection to Request 11 is STRICKEN and Plaintiff's identification of documents responsive to Request 11 remains.

The Motion is also GRANTED IN PART as to Request 12. As to Request 12, Plaintiff has asserted a boilerplate objection followed by an explanation that it does not have the documents, but is making efforts to obtain them. (ECF No. 37-1 at 5). Accordingly, by the date set forth below, Plaintiff must serve an amended response to Request 12 describing its efforts to obtain responsive documents from the third-parties.

B. Second Request for Production Nos. 1, 2, 12, and 16

Requests Nos. 1, 2, 12, and 16 are contained within Plaintiff's Amended/Supplemental Response to the Second Request for Production (“Plaintiff's Response to Second RFP”). See (ECF No. 37-2); see also (ECF No. 30-2). As to Request 1 and 2, although Plaintiff objects to the use of the term “Voyage,” Plaintiff explains its understanding of the term (i.e., as meaning the trip from Fort Lauderdale to Puerto Rico) and responds that Plaintiff has no responsive documents. See (ECF No. 37-2 at 2). According to the Motion, Defendant defined “Voyage” in the same manner. (ECF No. 30 at 9). Based upon Plaintiff's assertion that it has no responsive documents, the Motion as to these Requests is DENIED AS MOOT.

Lastly, Requests 12 and 16, respectively, seek depreciation schedules and documentation regarding “running costs” for the five years prior to the December 2021 incident described in the Complaint. (ECF No. 37-2 at 4, 5). Plaintiff objects to these Requests as overbroad, unduly burdensome, and not proportional to the issues in this case. Id. Based upon the claims and defenses in this case, the Motion is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART as follows:

First, the time period for these Requests is limited to responsive documents dated between January 1, 2021 to the present. This limitation is based on the date of the alleged engine overhaul/failure, which occurred in November/December 2021. See generally (ECF No. 1). Second, Request 16 must be modified because the Court finds that the term “running costs” is vague. Accordingly, by the date set forth below, Defendant must amend Request 16 to better define/describe “running costs.” Plaintiff must then respond to the amended Request 16 by the date set forth below.

For the reasons set forth above, Defendant USA Marine Engines, LLC's Motion to Overrule Objections and to Compel Better Responses to Discovery (ECF No. 30) is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. Accordingly, within 7 days from the date of this Order, Defendant must amend its Request 16 in accordance with Court's ruling above. Thereafter, within 14 days from the date of Defendant's amended Request, Plaintiff must serve amended responses to the Requests as set forth above.

*3 DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Fort Lauderdale, Florida on May 26, 2023.