Sarjeant v. City of Long Beach

Background

This personal-injury lawsuit concerns James Sarjeant’s mesothelioma cancer, which he contends was caused by exposure to airborne asbestos dust. Sarjeant alleges that he was exposed to asbestos from various sources, including asbestos-containing equipment made by Foster Wheeler, such as marine boilers on ships constructed or repaired at Todd Shipyards from 1960 to 1964.

Sarjeant’s deposition was occurring in phases. During an early session, he recalled working on new construction at Todd Shipyards, including the USS England, but did not recall the names of ships undergoing repair. He testified that he remembered seeing work performed on Foster Wheeler boilers on ships under repair at the shipyard.

Sarjeant initially sought records concerning nine ships identified by his counsel as having Foster Wheeler boilers and having been repaired at Todd Shipyards during the relevant period. He later withdrew requests concerning three ships because he was not employed at the shipyard for much of 1962. The dispute therefore concerned six ships that had Foster Wheeler boilers and were under repair when Sarjeant worked there in 1961 and 1963–1964.

Discovery dispute

Sarjeant moved to compel Foster Wheeler to respond to requests for production. The requests sought information about Foster Wheeler’s equipment or personnel aboard the six ships. Foster Wheeler had produced documents concerning the USS England and one other ship, but responded only with objections to the later requests concerning the six ships.

Foster Wheeler argued that it had produced all documents concerning ships Sarjeant identified by name during his deposition. It characterized Sarjeant’s requests as requiring it to search all records concerning ships with Foster Wheeler equipment that passed through Todd Shipyards, even though Sarjeant had not shown that he was aboard those ships. Foster Wheeler also argued that the requested information was not relevant and proposed that Sarjeant use other discovery methods to confirm the presence of Foster Wheeler equipment.

Legal standard

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1) permits discovery of nonprivileged information relevant to a claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case. The proportionality factors include the importance of the issues, the amount at stake, the parties’ access to information and resources, the importance of the discovery, and whether its burden or expense outweighs its likely benefit.

The court explained that the party seeking discovery must establish relevance. The party opposing discovery must show why discovery should not be allowed and must support its objections with competent evidence.

Court’s analysis and ruling

The court found that the requested documents and information were relevant and discoverable. Sarjeant testified that he saw work performed on Foster Wheeler boilers on ships under repair at Todd Shipyards during the years he worked there. The requests were narrowly limited to the six ships matching those circumstances.

The court stated that the discovery could help determine whether Sarjeant was exposed to asbestos from Foster Wheeler boilers. Exposure could have resulted from direct work on the boilers or from being nearby while repairs occurred. The records could also corroborate whether Foster Wheeler boilers contained asbestos during the relevant period and could help Sarjeant identify ships on which he worked or where boiler repairs occurred while he was nearby.

The parties had not identified another way for Sarjeant to obtain the information. The court also found that Foster Wheeler had not shown that the burden or expense outweighed the likely benefit. Although Foster Wheeler referred to having to “scour its records,” it did not claim that the requests were burdensome or provide details about the burden of responding.

The court granted Sarjeant’s motion to compel and ordered Foster Wheeler to produce the requested documents within 10 days of the order.