Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

IN THE MATTER OF THE COMPLAINT CIVIL ACTION

OF HARBOR DREDGING LA, INC., AS

OWNER AND OPERATOR OF THE DREDGE NO. 24-742-BAJ-EWD

GLENN MARKS IN A CAUSE OF ACTION

FOR EXONERATION FROM OR

LIMITATION OF LIABILITY

ORDER

Before the Court is the Motion to Compel Deposition of Corporate Representative of

Harbor Dredging LA, Inc. (“Motion to Compel”),1 filed by Kedrich Stewart, Lawrence Noel, Sr.,

and Lawrence Noel, Jr. (together, “Claimants”). As Claimants now seek an order administratively

staying this case until the personal injury litigation Claimants filed in state court is resolved, the

Motion to Compel will be terminated without prejudice.

Harbor Dredging LA, Inc. (“Plaintiff”) filed this limitation action after it was sued in state

court by Claimants for injuries Claimants allegedly sustained in a boating accident. Plaintiff

alleges that it hired Tom’s Marine & Salvage, LLC (“Tom’s Marine”) to tow Plaintiff’s vessel, the

Dredge GLENN MARKS, and dredge pipe.2 Claimants were allegedly injured when they allided

with the dredge pipe while traveling in a fishing boat.3 Claimants filed suit for injuries in Louisiana

state court.4 Additionally, RLI Insurance Company has sought defense and indemnification from

Plaintiff for Claimant’s state court claims on behalf of its inured, Tom’s Marine.5 Plaintiff believes

Claimants seek to recover an amount that is more than the value of the Dredge GLENN MARKS

1 R. Doc. 46.

2 R. Doc. 1, ¶ 5

3 Id., ¶ 6.

4 Id., ¶7; see also R. Doc. 51-1 (Claimants’ state court Petition for Damages).

5 Id., ¶ 9.

and her pending freight.6 Plaintiff further alleges that it is without fault for Claimants injuries and

such damages occurred without Plaintiff’s privity or knowledge.7 Plaintiff claims exoneration from

liability for any damages occurring as a result of the incident. Alternatively, Plaintiff seeks to have

any liability for the incident limited to the value of the Dredge GLENN MARKS and its pending

freight, and has tendered $250,000 into the Court registry, “representing the total value of the

Dredge GLENN MARKS, its appurtenances, and pending freight” following the incident.8

Plaintiff has also filed a motion seeking to have this case transferred to the United States District

Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana,9 which Claimants have opposed.10

As noted by this Court, “[t]he Limitation of Liability Act, 46 U.S.C. §§ 30501-30512,

permits a vessel owner, in the wake of a maritime accident, to file a petition in federal court to

limit its liability to ‘the value of the vessel and pending freight.’ See 46 U.S.C §§ 30501-30512;

46 U.S.C. § 30523(a). ‘The limitation proceeding is … comprised of a two-step analysis: the court

must first, determine wither the vessel’s acts render it liable to the injured claimant and, second,

whether the shipowner had knowledge or privity of these negligent acts.” In re Double C. Marine

LLC, No. 14-2273, 2019 WL 1495754, at *1 (W.D. La. Apr. 3, 2019) (citation omitted). ‘[I]f

liability is limited, [the court] distributes the limited fund among the claimants.’ Lewis v Lewis &

Clark Marine, Inc., 531 U.S. 438, 448 (2001).”11

Claimants’ Motion to Compel seeks an order requiring Plaintiff to produce a corporate

representative to testify at a Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6) deposition, specifically focused on liability

6 Id., ¶ 10.

7 Id., ¶ 12.

8 Id., ¶ 17; p. 7 (prayer for relief).

9 R. Doc. 41.

10 R. Doc. 42.

11 R. Doc. 36, pp. 3-4.

and Plaintiff’s “privity or knowledge,” as Claimants contend that a vessel owner is not entitled to

limit its liability when the negligent acts occur within the “privity or knowledge” of the vessel

owner.12 Claimants argue that “privity or knowledge” exists when the vessel owner knew or should

have known about the “conditions or actions likely to cause the loss,” and the central issue in a

“privity or knowledge” determination revolves around what the corporation knew or should have

known, which Claimants seek to learn at the deposition.13 The Motion to Compel was discussed

during a telephone conference with the Court and was taken under advisement, as the parties

indicated that they were attempting to resolve Claimants’ request for the deposition.14

More recently, Claimants filed a Motion to Dissolve the Limitation Injunction (the “Motion

to Dissolve”).15 If granted, the Motion to Dissolve would lift the limitation of liability injunction

and allow Claimants to pursue their previously filed state court case. This limitation action would

also be administratively stayed until the Claimants’ state court case was concluded.16

Claimants have asked this Court for a stay of this case so that they can pursue their personal

injury claims in state court. Considering Claimants’ request for a stay of this limitation proceeding,

which involves the “privity or knowledge” issue that is the basis for Claimant’s request for

Plaintiff’s corporate deposition addressed in the Motion to Compel, it is appropriate to terminate

12 R. Doc. 46-2, p. 1, citing 46 U.S.C. § 30523(b).

13 Id., citing Brunet v. United Gas Pipeline Co., 15 F.3d 500, 504 (5th Cir. 1994).

14 See R. Doc. 48. As noted in the minutes of the telephone conference, Plaintiff does not dispute that Claimants are

entitled to take a corporate deposition, but Plaintiff’s designated corporate representative is now deceased. As Plaintiff

is a sole proprietorship, Plaintiff’s counsel has had difficulty securing another corporate representative.

15 R. Doc. 51.

16 Plaintiff opposes the Motion to Dissolve. R. Doc. 52. Tom’s Marine also opposes Claimant’s Motion to Dissolve,

adopting Plaintiff’s arguments, to the extent Tom’s Marine has not yet been dismissed from the case and has standing

to oppose. R. Doc. 53. Pending before the Court is a Joint Motion to Dismiss, seeking dismissal of all claims against

Tom’s Marine in this case. R. Doc. 50.

the Motion to Compel at this time, without prejudice to re-urging, if the Motion to Dissolve is not

granted, or once the state court litigation is resolved, as appropriate.17

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that the Motion to Compel Deposition of Corporate Representative of

Harbor Dredging LA, Inc.,18 filed by Kedrich Stewart, Lawrence Noel, Sr., and Lawrence Noel,

Jr., is TERMINATED WITHOUT PREJUDICE to re-urging, as applicable, after resolution of

Claimant’s Motion to Dissolve the Limitation Injunction or once the state court litigation is

resolved.

Signed in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, on August 27, 2026.

S

ERIN WILDER-DOOMES

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

17 Claimants’ Motion to Compel expressly references 26 U.S.C. § 30523(b), which states: “Unless otherwise excluded

by law, claims, debts, and liabilities subject to limitation under subsection (a) are those arising from any

embezzlement, loss, or destruction of any property, goods, or merchandise shipped or put on board the vessel, any

loss, damage, or injury by collision, or any act, matter, or thing, loss, damage, or forfeiture, done, occasioned, or

incurred, without the privity or knowledge of the owner.” (emphasis added). Claimants’ state court Petition does not

specifically state what purported acts or omissions Plaintiff is responsible for but refers collectively to “Defendants.”

To the extent the issues of Plaintiff’s privity and/or knowledge are relevant in the state court action, Claimants could

also conduct discovery on those issues in that case, if the Motion to Dissolve is granted.

18 R. Doc. 46.