Energetic Tank, Inc. v. Unknown

Background

The U.S.S. John S. McCain, a U.S. Navy guided-missile destroyer, collided with the M/V ALNIC, a Liberian-flagged merchant tanker, in the Singapore Strait on August 21, 2017. Several sailors died and dozens were injured. Twenty-seven personal-injury claimants moved to compel Energetic Tank, Inc. and Stealth Maritime Corporation, along with their counsel, to produce letters, correspondence, documents, and attachments sent to the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) concerning the NTSB’s investigation and report.

The NTSB’s Office of Marine Safety investigated the accident under 49 U.S.C. § 1131(b)(1), which covers certain maritime accidents involving both a public and a non-public vessel. The court noted that 49 U.S.C. § 1114(a)(1) generally requires the NTSB to make specified records available to the public upon an identifiable request and for a reasonable cost. The court also noted that 49 U.S.C. § 1154(b) bars use of an NTSB accident report in a civil action for damages resulting from a matter mentioned in the report.

Parties’ Positions

The claimants did not seek the NTSB report itself. They sought communications sent to the NTSB by the ALNIC’s owner and operator. They argued that their reputations had been harmed by the NTSB report and that the communications could show whether the investigation was based on reliable information. They also argued that the public and government entities were entitled to know whether submissions to the NTSB were biased or misleading.

Energetic Tank argued that the requested material was not relevant to any claim or defense under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1). The court explained that Rule 26(b)(1) allows discovery of nonprivileged information relevant to a claim or defense and proportional to the case’s needs. The court also stated that Energetic Tank was not asserting a privilege; its objection was based on relevance.

Court’s Analysis

The court held that the claimants had not shown how the requested communications were relevant to fault, liability, damages, or any other claim or defense. Their stated goal of correcting what they viewed as a mistaken public record did not satisfy the discovery relevance requirement in this case.

The court rejected the claimants’ reliance on 49 U.S.C. § 1114(a)(1) because that provision places a disclosure obligation on the NTSB, not on Energetic Tank or Stealth. The claimants were seeking documents from those private entities, not documents from the NTSB. The court also stated that the bar on using the NTSB report in a civil damages action supported Energetic Tank’s position, although the court found the relevance objection sufficient by itself.

The court distinguished its earlier decision involving Coast Guard investigation materials because that dispute concerned a different statute and Coast Guard communications, not communications with the NTSB. The court stated that its ruling did not limit the claimants’ ability to seek the documents directly from the NTSB under § 1114(a)(1).

Disposition

Judge Paul A. Crotty denied the motion to compel filed by the 27 personal-injury claimants and directed the Clerk of Court to close the motion at Docket 212.