Abbott et al v. Austal USA, LLC

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
SOUTHERN DIVISION
DENNIS ABBOTT, et al., 	)
)
Plaintiffs, 	) 	CIVIL ACTION NOS.:
) 	1:22-cv-00267-KD-C
v. 	) 	1:22-cv-00328-KD-B
) 	1:22-cv-00329-KD-C
AUSTAL USA, LLC, et al., 	) 	1:23-cv-00040-KD-C
) 	CONSOLIDATED FOR
Defendants. 	) 	PURPOSES OF DISCOVERY
)
ORDER
This cause is before the Court on the Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel (Doc. 210); Defendant
Austal’ USA LLC’s Motion to Strike and Preliminary Response in Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion
to Compel (Doc. 212); Defendant Austal USA LLC’s Response to Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel
(Doc. 213); and Plaintiffs’ Reply in Support of Their Motion to Compel (Doc. 215). 	Upon
consideration of the foregoing motions and responses, and the record, it is determined that the
Defendant is correct for all reasons cited in Defendant’s Response to Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel,
and the Motion to Compel is due to be DENIED. It is further determined, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P.
12(f), that the Defendants’ Motion to Strike the Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel is also due to be
DENIED.
On July 4, 2022, the original plaintiffs filed this cause against Austal asserting claims that
Austal violated Title VII and/or the ADA and was negligent when it denied Plaintiffs’ requests for
religious and/or medical exemptions from Austal’s October 2022 COVID-19 vaccination mandate.
In August 2022, the initial action (CA 1:22-cv-00267-KD-C), which had fifty-four (54) plaintiffs,
was consolidated with two additional cases (CA 1:22-cv-00328-KD-B and CA 1:22-00329-KD-C)
for discovery purposes only. 	(Doc. 16). Thereafter, discovery was divided into two (2) phases.
Case 1:22-cv-00267-KD-C Doc# 216 Filed 10/22/24 Page 1 of 4 PageID#
<pageID>

2
(Doc. 29). Phase I discovery consisted of Plaintiffs’ discovery to Austal pertaining to the undue
hardship inquiry and spanned approximately five (5) months, closing on February 10, 2023. (Doc.
29). Following the close of Phase I discovery, a third case (CA 1:23-cv-00040-JB-MU) was
consolidated with this action for discovery purposes only. (Doc. 125). Phase II discovery was
related to Counts I-II, X and XI of Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint and closed on October
11, 2024. (Doc. 153; Doc. 195).
A review of the parties’ briefs indicates that the Plaintiffs seek an order compelling Austal
to provide a corporate representative to sit for a “Phase II” deposition on thirty-nine (39) topics of
inquiry, including government contracts. The Plaintiffs have had substantial time to seek the
information they need from the Defendant or bring any discovery issue(s) before the Court. It
seems the Plaintiffs knew or should have known they had a discovery issue, at least on the topic
of government contracts, as of March 7, 2023, which was well over one (1) year ago.1 But the
Plaintiffs did not issue a Rule 30(b)(6) notice to Austal requesting another deposition of a corporate
representative until September 16, 2024. The Plaintiffs did not seek the Court’s assistance until
October 8, 2024, by filing a Motion to Compel only three (3) days prior to the close of Phase II
discovery. The timing of the Motion to Compel did not give the Court adequate time to consider
the Motion prior to the close of discovery, as required by the Superseding Rule 16(b) Scheduling
Order. 	The Plaintiffs also did not request a conference with the undersigned to discuss any
outstanding discovery issues prior to filing their Motion with the Court, as required by section
11(b) of the Superseding Rule 16(b) Scheduling Order. (Doc. 153).
1 The Defendant claims that the topic of government contracts was addressed during the corporate
representative deposition of Rodney Patrick on March 7, 2023, and that following the close of
Phase I discovery in March 2023, Plaintiffs filed several motions to compel but did not address the
corporate representative deposition in those motions. (Doc. 213, PageID.4445).
Case 1:22-cv-00267-KD-C Doc# 216 Filed 10/22/24 Page 2 of 4 PageID#
<pageID>

3
Considering the complicated nature of this action with four (4) cases and a total of
approximately sixty-two (62) plaintiffs, the Court allowed the parties ample time to conduct
discovery and calendared the entire term of January 2025 for the trials of these actions. Extending
Phase II discovery to allow the Plaintiffs to conduct additional discovery would likely affect the
Court’s firm trial setting and delay this matter. The parties have been advised previously not to
anticipate a change in the firm trial setting.
Regarding the parties’ relevancy arguments, the undersigned looks to Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule
26(b)(1), which provides, in part, as follows:
Parties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to
any party’s claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case, considering
the importance of the issues at stake in the action, the amount in controversy, the
parties’ relative 	access 	to 	relevant 	information, 	the 	parties’ resources, 	the
importance of the discovery in resolving the issues, and whether the burden or
expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit.
The Plaintiffs assert the information sought is relevant to the claims in this proceeding,
especially to the “Phase II” issues of the sincerity of Plaintiffs’ religious beliefs (and the
Defendants’ 	consideration 	thereof), 	Plaintiffs’ 	claims 	under 	Section 	504 	of 	the
Rehabilitation Act, and Plaintiffs’ invasion of privacy claim. The Defendants argue that
the information requested by the Plaintiffs is not relevant to the question of whether Austal
unreasonably failed to accommodate Plaintiffs either due to disability or due to religion by
denying their requests to be exempt from the COVID-19 vaccine requirement. The
undersigned tends to agree with the Defendants, and the Plaintiffs have not provided a solid
basis for needing to go forward at the close of discovery with an additional corporate
representative deposition regarding thirty-nine (39) topics of information, many appearing
broad. Furthermore, additional discovery would increase expenses and as discussed supra,
Case 1:22-cv-00267-KD-C Doc# 216 Filed 10/22/24 Page 3 of 4 PageID#
<pageID>

4
would likely impact the trial setting. Thus, the expense, and especially the burden of the
proposed additional discovery, outweighs its likely benefit.
Based on the foregoing, the undersigned finds that the Plaintiffs’ request to compel
Austal to provide a corporate representative to sit for a “Phase II” deposition following the
close of Phase II discovery in this matter, and the Defendants’ Motion to Strike the
Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel are hereby DENIED.
DONE AND ORDERED this 22nd day of October, 2024.
s/WILLIAM E. CASSADY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 1:22-cv-00267-KD-C Doc# 216 Filed 10/22/24 Page 4 of 4 PageID#
<pageID>