NEW ORLEANS (LN) — A federal magistrate judge ordered LAD Services of Louisiana to produce specific trade secret identification statements and search for text messages in a commercial dispute over a floating dry dock for the U.S. Navy.
U.S. Magistrate Judge Donna Phillips Currault granted in part and denied in part a motion to compel filed by Defendant Dragados/Hawaiian Dredging/Orion Joint Venture, ruling that LAD Services’ discovery responses were too vague to satisfy local rules.
The case involves a contract to build a floating dry dock for the U.S. Navy’s use in Pearl Harbor, Honolulu, Hawaii. LAD Services filed its fourth amended complaint in December 2025, adding a cause of action for misappropriation of trade secrets.
Defendant Dragados/Hawaiian Dredging/Orion argued that LAD Services failed to produce all responsive electronically stored information and did not comply with Local Rule 26.3, which requires a detailed identification of trade secrets.
The defendant pointed to discrepancies between LAD Services’ initial PDF production and a later native format production, which contained over 800 documents with only 30 to 40 overlapping files.
LAD Services argued it had produced all responsive, non-privileged documents and that the differences between productions resulted from file conversion, not deliberate omissions. The plaintiff also claimed it had waived initial disclosures, including the trade secret identification requirement.
Currault rejected the waiver argument, noting that even if the parties had agreed to forego the Local Rule 26.3 statement, the defendant’s second set of discovery requests constituted sufficient demand for identification.
The judge ruled that LAD Services’ categorical references to proprietary design and engineering specifications were insufficient. Local Rule 26.3 requires more than general categories; it demands concrete information that clearly refers to tangible trade secret material.
“Plaintiff’s categorical reference is precisely the type of generalized allegation regularly found insufficient,” Currault wrote.
The magistrate judge also ordered LAD Services to search for and produce responsive communications from text messages and messaging applications, such as WhatsApp.
LAD Services had previously stated that searching for text messages from personal devices would entail lengthy forensic efforts that could not be accomplished in seven days.
Currault noted that the defendant’s requests were not limited to emails and sought all communications. She ruled that LAD Services was obliged to undertake an investigation of all reasonably available sources for responsive information.
The judge denied the defendant’s request to compel production of unspecified documents, stating that mere disbelief or suspicion is not a recognized ground for compelling discovery.
However, Currault required LAD Services to provide an unequivocal, sworn certification that it has produced all responsive documents in its possession and that no additional responsive documents exist.
The court ordered LAD Services to deliver supplemental discovery responses, including a trade secret identification statement compliant with Local Rule 26.3, within 14 days.
The current discovery deadline is July 21, 2026, with expert reports due in May and June 2026.