Parties involved in maritime litigation commonly seek the personnel files of the employees involved in the incident from marine employers during discovery.

In a recent Jones Act case, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana held that blanket requests for complete maritime personnel files are overly broad and raise significant privacy concerns for non-parties.

This case emphasizes the considerations relevant to marine employers defending lawsuits filed against them when responding to discovery requests for personnel/employment files.

Factual Background of Pattin v. Jantran, Inc.

In Pattin v. Jantran, Inc., the plaintiff filed suit against Jantran, as his marine employer, under the Jones Act, claiming that he was injured while working as a member of the crew aboard the vessel to which he was assigned.¹ The plaintiff claimed that his injuries were caused by Jantran’s negligence because the crew was shorthanded due to an inappropriate relationship between the captain and another deckhand, which resulted in special treatment and unfair work arrangements.

The plaintiff issued discovery requests to Jantran, including requests for the complete personnel record and/or employment file for the captain and deckhand. In its responses to those discovery requests, Jantran objected on the grounds that the documents sought by the plaintiff were not relevant to the claims or defenses asserted in the case, outside the scope of discovery authorized by the law, and infringe upon the privacy rights of non-parties because the requested documents contain confidential information.

Motion to Compel

The plaintiff filed a Motion to Compel, requesting that the Court order Jantran to provide responsive information and documentation to several discovery requests, including the complete personnel and/or employment files of the requested crew members. The plaintiff argued that the requested personnel/employment files were discoverable because they may “shed light on” the alleged relationship between the captain and deckhand, specifically related to special treatment and work arrangements. The plaintiff further argued that the personnel files were not privileged, and could contain relevant information such as complaints and disciplinary actions against the crew members.

In response, Jantran argued that there was no evidence to corroborate the plaintiff’s allegations of an inappropriate relationship between the captain and deckhand, and the captain explicitly denied any such intimate relationship. Further, Jantran contended that the plaintiff could otherwise obtain information on the alleged inappropriate relationship by taking depositions.

Relevant Law

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 governs the scope of discovery in civil litigation. In defining the scope of discovery, Rule 26 provides that, “[p]arties 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, 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.”²

Under Rule 26, courts can limit the frequency or extent of otherwise discoverable information if: (1) the discovery sought is unreasonably cumulative or duplicative, or can be obtained from some other source that is more convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive; (2) the party seeking the discovery had ample opportunity to obtain the information; or (3) the proposed discovery is outside of the scope of that which is permitted under Rule 26.³

Test for Discoverability of Personnel Files

In evaluating the discoverability of the requested personnel files, the Court noted that the Fifth Circuit “affords a specific discovery test offering extra protections.”⁴ Fifth Circuit law requires a court resolving disputes regarding personnel files to “balance the competing interests of discovery and privacy in a considered matter, with regard for the breadth of the federal rules in civil actions between private parties.”⁵

Courts have highlighted the considerable weight conferred upon privacy concerns in the test to determine whether personnel files of non-parties are subject to discovery due to the “special concerns” related to the privacy rights of those non-parties. Given the importance of privacy concerns, “courts permit the disclosure of personnel records only when the personnel files contain material highly relevant to the theory of the case at hand and are requested with particularity because the information in personnel records invariably contains a significant privacy interest.”⁶

District Court Decision

With respect to the personnel files of the non-party maritime employees at issue, the Court determined that the plaintiff’s “blanket request” for complete personnel files of non-parties exceeded the boundaries of permissible discovery. In so holding, the Court reasoned that the “complete personnel and/or employment files” requested by the plaintiff likely contain confidential and irrelevant information related to non-parties, which presents “significant privacy concerns.” The Court specifically pointed out that such personnel/employment files generally contain personal and sensitive information including tax records and drug test results, which the plaintiff failed to show had any relevance to the issues giving rise to this lawsuit.

The Court noted that the plaintiff is not entitled to obtain full and complete personnel files on non-parties merely because he is “entitled to explore his theory” that an intimate relationship existed between the captain and the deckhand. Moreover, the Court determined that the plaintiff’s request failed to identify any specific information with particularity or limit the scope of the request to certain documents that pertain to the relationship between the captain and deckhand.

Ultimately, the Court sustained Jantran’s objection in part and granted the plaintiff’s Motion to Compel in part, limiting the scope of the plaintiff’s request and ordering Jantran to produce only the documents from the captain and deckhand’s personnel file that reveal or suggest an intimate relationship between them.

Significance for Maritime Employers

Courts in the Fifth Circuit uphold the critical importance of privacy concerns in evaluating whether the personnel files of non-parties are subject to discovery by employing a balancing test to weigh the competing interests of discovery and privacy.

When faced with discovery requests concerning personnel files, maritime employers should ensure that the requests are made with particularity to protect the personal and confidential information of their employees, especially when those requests are directed toward non-parties. Marine employers should confirm that the records contain material that is highly relevant to the theory of the case before producing any portion of an individual’s personnel/employment file.

____________________

¹Pattin v. Jantran, Inc., 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 76006 * (E.D. La. Apr. 22, 2025).
²Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1).
³Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(C)(i)-(iii).
⁴Dufrene v. Am. Tugs, Inc., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 207803, at *9 (E.D. La. Dec. 10, 2018).
⁵In re Complaint of Gulf Inland Contrs., Inc., 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 240358, at *3 (E.D. La. Sept. 25, 2023) (citing George v. Entergy Servs. Inc., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 108207, at *4 (E.D. La. Sept. 17, 2010)).
⁶Dufrene, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 207803, at *9 (emphasis added).