John Doe v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd. – Part 1

Lipcon, Margulies, Alsina & Winkleman, P.A

October 22, 2012

John Doe v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd. – Part 1

Motion to Compel

At Lipcon, Margulies, Alsina & Winkleman, P.A., our experienced team of maritime lawyers take time to ensure that all of our cases are prepared for trial. In this case involving an injured seafarer in binding arbitration, our lawyers ask the tribunal to compel the production of witness names in order to guarantee that our client is not subject to unfair surprise during trial proceedings.

IN ARBITRATION
INTERNATIONAL CENTER FOR DISPUTE RESOLUTION
JUDGE AMY DEAN
JOHN DOE,
Claimant,

v.

ROYAL CARIBBEAN CRUISES, LTD.,
Respondent.
______________________________________/

CLAIMANT JOHN DOE’S MOTION TO COMPEL NAMES OF WITNESSES

COMES NOW, Claimant, JOHN DOE, by and through undersigned counsel and hereby files his Motion to Compel names of witnesses, and for good cause states as follows:

1. RCCL’s Supplemental Witness Disclosure was served on September 21, 2012.
2. The Supplemental Witness Disclosure lists ten potential witnesses.
3. Witnesses seven through ten are listed as anonymous persons. For example, witness number seven is listed as, “[a]ny and all shipboard physicians who treated Claimant”.
4. Respondent’s Supplemental Witness Disclosure clearly violates this Honorable Tribunal’s Order of March 28, 2012, which specifically states that the witness disclosure should include, “the full name of each witness” along with “a short summary of anticipated testimony”.
5. Witnesses eight, nine, and ten all suffer from the same flaw. Witness eight is listed as RCCL’s corporate representative re: shore side medical treatment and maintenance and cure provided to Claimant. Witness nine is listed as RCCL’s corporate representative re: Shipboard Medical Treatment and Maintenance and Cure provided to Claimant. Lastly, witness ten is listed as any and all of Claimant’s treating physicians.
6. Without the proper disclosure of these witness’ names and intended testimony, the Claimant will be subject to unfair surprise.
7. Accordingly, Claimant asks this Honorable Tribunal to compel Respondent to disclose the full name and a brief summary of the intended testimony to be provided by witnesses seven through nine in Respondent’s Supplemental Witness Disclosure.

Respectfully Submitted,
LIPCON, MARGULIES,
ALSINA & WINKLEMAN P.A.
Attorneys for Claimant.
One Biscayne Tower, Suite 1776
2 South Biscayne Boulevard
Miami, Florida 33131
Telephone: (305) 373-3016

By: /s/ Carlos Felipe Llinás Negret______
CARLOS FELIPE LLINAS NEGRET
FL BAR NO. 7354