Liberty Global Logistics LLC v. Bomin Bunker Oil Corp.

Background

Liberty sought damages from Bomin arising from Bomin’s alleged supply of defective fuel oil to Liberty’s vessel, the M/V Liberty Peace. The court addressed the parties’ correspondence about discovery disputes, including document requests, depositions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(6), and an inspection of the vessel.

Bomin’s Discovery Objections

Bomin objected to 16 document requests and 10 deposition topics concerning Bomin’s supply of fuel to vessels other than the M/V Liberty Peace. Bomin also objected to two topics concerning its communications with underwriters about fuel supplied to the vessel.

The court agreed with Liberty that these subjects were relevant and that the requested discovery was appropriate because they concerned similar fuel supplies during the relevant period. The court did not categorically decide in advance whether attorney-client privilege would apply to communications with underwriters. Instead, it stated that Bomin could invoke the privilege and instruct its witness not to answer a particular question if a privilege concern arose during the deposition.

Liberty’s Discovery Objections

The court ruled as follows on Bomin’s proposed deposition topics:

- Topic 2: The proposed period for questioning about sub-charter parties was overly broad. Bomin could question Liberty about that subject from November 2017 through May 2019. - Topics 3 and 4: Questioning about Liberty’s responses and objections to Bomin’s discovery requests intruded into attorney work product and attorney-client privilege and was outside the proper scope of discovery. - Topics 12 and 31–39: Questioning about the factual bases for allegations and legal conclusions in the complaint likewise implicated attorney work product and attorney-client privilege and was outside the proper scope of discovery. - Topics 5 and 6: Questioning about Liberty’s organizational structure and related information could be relevant, so the court rejected Liberty’s objections to those topics. - Topic 14: Questioning about the vessel’s operation and management in 2017 and 2018 was generally appropriate, but the topic was too broad as written. Bomin had to specify the particular subjects it wanted to address in its deposition notice. - Topics 15, 17–19, and 30: Questioning about the existence and location of records could proceed only for the period from 2018 to the present. - Topics 16 and 29: Bomin could make a limited inquiry into the dispute between Liberty and the union representing the vessel’s engineers, but only as it related to whether Liberty properly crewed and maintained the vessel. The other proposed inquiries concerning the union dispute and Liberty’s accounting and tax treatment of its alleged costs were irrelevant and inappropriate for discovery. - Topic 20: The names of the people who entered into the alleged oral fuel-supply contract appeared in an exhibit to the complaint, which satisfied Bomin’s inquiry on that topic.

The court also agreed with Bomin’s request to inspect the vessel and directed Liberty to coordinate a date for that inspection.

Additional Rulings

Bomin asked the court to reconsider its earlier rejection of Bomin’s request for permission to file a motion for partial summary judgment on whether the parties’ writing created a written contract incorporating Bomin’s standard conditions of sale. The request remained denied.

The court granted Bomin’s request for a 90-day extension of the fact and expert discovery periods in part. It extended the fact-discovery deadline to March 23, 2020, extended the expert-discovery deadline to May 9, 2020, and adjourned the March 3, 2020 case-management conference to May 12, 2020, at 10:00 a.m.

Because Liberty said it had not been served with a final Rule 30(b)(6) deposition notice, the court directed Bomin to serve a final notice incorporating the court’s rulings, no later than February 3, 2020. The court also urged the lawyers to try to resolve any further discovery disputes without involving the court.

Disposition

The order resolved the specified discovery objections, required the vessel inspection and a revised deposition notice, granted Bomin’s request for extended discovery deadlines in part, and left denied Bomin’s request to seek partial summary judgment.