Judge Orders Discovery To Continue In Libertad Act Lawsuit Against Norwegian Cruise Lines

HAVANA DOCKS CORPORATION V. NORWEGIAN CRUISE LINE HOLDINGS, LTD. [1:19-cv-23591; Southern Florida District]

Colson Hicks Eidson, P.A. (plaintiff)
Margol & Margol, P.A. (plaintiff)
Hogan Lovells US LLP (defendant)

LINK To Order (27 August 2020)

LINK To Libertad Act Lawsuit Statistics

Excerpts From Order: 

THIS CAUSE comes before the Court upon Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Discovery concerning Other Cuban Ports (ECF No. 94).1 Plaintiff’s Motion seeks an order overruling Defendant’s objection to responding to certain discovery requests on the grounds that “this case concerns only transactions related to property in Havana – not Cuba generally” (the “geographical objection”).2 Plaintiff avers that the information requested is necessary to challenge Defendant’s asserted lawful travel defense. Defendant responded in opposition to the Motion (ECF No. 98), and generally argues that because the Subject Property is located in Havana, so too discovery should be limited to Defendant’s travel to Havana. 

If NCL was in fact instructed to use the dock for its travel to Havana, this may significantly narrow the scope of discovery relevant to disprove NCL’s assertion of necessity. However, neither the interrogatory answer nor counsel’s explanation at the hearing shed much light on the factual basis for this assertion: discovery has not revealed whether the government communicated this designation to NCL verbally or in writing, to whom, or when, or what was communicated other than NCL contends that it constituted designation of the Subject Property for use. Plaintiff contends it is far more likely the Property selected because of its desirable location in the City of Havana, where most passengers would want to disembark and visit. 

Defendant’s geographic objection to Document Request No. 7 is overruled. The request broadly seeks all documents and communications related to studies created by NCL before and after NCL commenced travel to Cuba. Plaintiff proffers that the documents are relevant to disproving Defendant’s travel defense. Specifically, Plaintiff avers that efforts undertaken by NCL to examine the feasibility of using the Subject Property and/or any alternative options undermine Defendant’s claim that it only used the Property because the Cuban Government told it to. 

With respect to Request No. 11, which seeks documents that would evidence violations of conditions of Defendant’s license to travel to Cuba, Defendant’s Response currently represents that Defendant will search for and produce responsive documents, “if such documents or communications exist.” At the hearing, counsel represented that there are no documents concerning any violation of law, regulation or condition of any license because no such violation has occurred. Defendant is ordered to amend its answer to Document Request No. 11 to accurately so state.7 Plaintiff’s Request to Compel Documents responsive to Document Request No. 11, subheadings (d) and (e), are denied.