January 9, 2015
CD v NCL (Bahamas) Ltd.
This is a motion that the maritime attorneys at Lipcon, Margulies & Winkleman, P.A., filed requiring Norwegian Cruise Lines, to produce a copy of the surveillance video showing a passenger’s incident. Ultimately, the cruise line agreed to provide us with a copy of the video after this motion was filed.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
Case No. 14-23750-CIV-MOORE/McALILEY
NCL (BAHAMAS) LTD.,
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANT TO PRODUCE A COPY OF THE SURVEILLANCE VIDEO DEPICTING THE SUBJECT INCIDENT
The Plaintiff, C.D., by and through undersigned counsel and pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, hereby respectfully moves for an Order from this Honorable Court compelling Defendant, NCL (BAHAMAS) LTD. (“NCL”), to produce a copy of the surveillance video depicting the subject incident, and in furtherance thereof, states as follows:
- The instant matter involves the personal injuries suffered by the Plaintiff during an NCL cruise. The circumstances of this case are unusual in the sense that the facts are unknown to everyone but NCL, and NCL has refused to cooperate thus far.
- Specifically, to provide the Court brief background, as the Plaintiff was walking back to her cabin during the cruise, she suffered a direct trauma to her head and face, which knocked her out and rendered her unconscious. [D.E. 1, ¶11]. As a result, the Plaintiff suffered a brain contusion. [Id.] To Plaintiff’s knowledge, no one witnessed the direct trauma. [Id.]
- Following the incident, the Plaintiff was treated by the shipboard doctor. [Id. at ¶12]. The ship’s doctor advised the Plaintiff that, according to the ship’s safety officer, NCL was in possession of a surveillance video of her incident. [ at ¶13]. The ship’s doctor also advised the Plaintiff that there would be no charge for her medical care and treatment onboard the ship. [Id.]
- The Plaintiff reasonably presumed that the complimentary medical treatment had something to do with the contents of the surveillance video. Therefore, she asked NCL if she could view the video, but NCL did not let her. [ at ¶14]. She instead asked NCL what caused the direct trauma to her head and face, but NCL also refused to provide the Plaintiff with that information [Id. at ¶15], which is when the undersigned counsel became involved.
- Specifically, since the above incident and before filing this lawsuit, the Plaintiff and her counsel repeatedly requested a copy of the surveillance video from NCL in order to determine the cause of the Plaintiff’s injuries. [Id. at ¶16]. NCL refused. [Id.]
- Accordingly, the Plaintiff initiated this lawsuit on October 10, 2014 [D.E. 1] and, on December 8, 2014, propounded her First Request for Production to NCL (attached as Exhibit 1). The First Request for Production only contained three requests – video(s) of the incident, photographs of the incident, and photographs of the accident site. [Exhibit 1]. NCL’s response to the First Request for Production was due on January 7, 2014. On that date, however, NCL did not respond but, rather, requested a 21-day extension [D.E. 21].
- In the course of conferring for the motion for extension [D.E. 21], defense counsel advised the undersigned counsel that the only way she would produce the surveillance video is if the Plaintiff signs the affidavit marked as Exhibit 2. The affidavit states, inter alia, that the Plaintiff has “absolutely no recollection of what occurred on [the date of the incident] June 9, 2014” [Id.]. Without the affidavit, defense counsel said NCL would object to producing the video.
- The Plaintiff therefore moves herein to compel NCL to produce a copy of the surveillance video. The Plaintiff needs such video in order to determine the cause of her injuries, including potential third parties who may be at fault.
WHEREFORE, based on the foregoing, the Plaintiff respectfully requests this Honorable Court enter an order granting this motion compelling NCL to produce a copy of the surveillance video, as well as any further relief this Court deems just and proper.
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE WITH LOCAL RULE 7.1(a)(3)(A)
I hereby certify that counsel for the movant has conferred with counsel for NCL in a good faith effort to resolve the issues raised in this motion, and the issues contained herein remain unresolved.
ALSINA & WINKLEMAN, P.A.
Attorneys for Plaintiff
One Biscayne Tower, Suite 1776
2 S. Biscayne Boulevard
Miami, Florida 33131
Tel.: (305) 373-3016
Fax: (305) 373-6204
By: /s/ Jacqueline Garcell
JASON R. MARGULIES
Florida Bar No. 57916
Florida Bar No. 104358
 The parties filed their Joint Scheduling Report on December 1, 2014 [D.E. 14], and the Court entered its Scheduling Order on December 8, 2014 [D.E. 15].