⚓ B R E A K I N G U P D A T E ⚓
Investigative Coverage of Sea Tow Services International, Inc.
March 2026 · Middle District of Florida Edition
⚠ T H E W A R M O V E S S O U T H ⚠
Sea Tow Opens Three New Fronts in
Florida Three separate miscellaneous cases filed in Tampa — targeting non-party witnesses with sweeping document demands and deposition commands Ahoy, mateys. For those of ye who have been following the ongoing saga of Sea Tow Services International, Inc. v. Tampa Bay Marine Recovery, Inc., et al. (Case No. 2:20-cv-02877-WFK-SIL, E.D.N.Y.) — the battle has now sailed south. Three brand-new miscellaneous cases have been opened in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, each a separate action by Sea Tow Services International seeking to compel non-party witnesses to produce documents and submit to depositions. They were filed on or around March 4, 2026.
⚓ The Three New Cases
C A S E N O . 1 O F 3
Sea Tow Services International, Inc. v. Hurley
Case No. 8:2026mc00010 · U.S. District Court, Middle District of Florida Filed: March 4, 2026
C A S E N O . 2 O F 3
Sea Tow Services International, Inc. v. L'Hommedieu
Case No. 8:2026mc00008 · U.S. District Court, Middle District of Florida Filed: March 2026
C A S E N O . 3 O F 3
Sea Tow Services International, Inc. v. Russ L'Hommedieu
Case No. 8:2026mc00009 · U.S. District Court, Middle District of Florida Filed: March 4, 2026 Each of these is a separate miscellaneous proceeding — not joined, not consolidated. Sea Tow has chosen to file individual cases against individual nonparty witnesses in a court far from where the underlying litigation sits. Make no mistake about what this is: a coordinated effort to compel people who are not parties to the New York case to hand over documents and sit for depositions — on Sea Tow's terms, on Sea Tow's schedule.
"Three separate cases. Three separate dockets. Three non- party witnesses. All in Florida. All filed the same week."
⚓ What Sea Tow Is Asking For The full contents of the newly-filed documents are still being reviewed — these filings are fresh off the docket and it will take some time to work through them thoroughly. But the outline is already clear. In each case, Sea Tow is asking the Florida court to: 1. Compel document production. The demands appear far-reaching — potentially sweeping in communications, records, and materials well beyond what has been authorized in the underlying New York proceedings.
2. Compel depositions. Sea Tow wants the Florida court to force these non-party witnesses into the deposition chair — witnesses who have already asserted their rights under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45 and challenged the subpoenas on multiple grounds.
⚠ WHY FLORIDA? WHY NOW?
The underlying case is in New York. The trial judge is Judge William F. Kuntz, II. The discovery magistrate is Judge Steven I. Locke. Both are in the Eastern District of New York.
Under the Federal Rules, non-party subpoenas must be enforced in the district where compliance is required — in this case, the Middle District of Florida, where the witnesses reside or work. Sea Tow appears to be using this procedural mechanism to drag the fight into a new venue, before a new judge who lacks the full context of six years of contested litigation in New York.
Judge Locke has already ruled on the scope of non-party discovery in this case. The question now is whether a Florida court will be asked to second-guess — or simply re-litigate — what a New York magistrate has already decided.
⚓ What Has Already Been Decided in New York It is worth stepping back for a moment and noting what the New York court has already addressed. Judge Locke's February 25, 2026 Order (Doc. 314) authorized only four additional non-party depositions — and did so while expressly preserving each witness's independent right to raise objections in the appropriate court. That court is now Florida.
Objections to the underlying subpoenas were timely filed in February 2026 under Rule 45(d)(2)(B). Those objections raised substantial grounds — including temporal impossibility (key entities did not exist during the periods Sea Tow is demanding documents about), disproportionality to the needs of the case, and cumulative/duplicative requests that have already been denied by the court. Many of these issues have been argued and addressed before Judge Locke in New York. Sea Tow is now attempting to relitigate them — or an end-run around them — in Tampa.
⚓ ⚓ ⚓ ⚓ What This Means for the Broader Picture Sea Tow has now opened litigation on multiple simultaneous fronts: the main case in New York, the Jaegers' parallel motion (Doc. 311, with a hearing on March 11, 2026), and now three separate miscellaneous proceedings in Florida. This is not a company acting like it has a strong, clean case. This is a company using the federal courts as an instrument of attrition.
Non-party witnesses have rights. Rule 45(d) exists precisely to protect people who are dragged into litigation they are not parties to. The costs, burdens, and disruptions imposed on non-party witnesses must be proportionate to the legitimate needs of the case. Whether a Florida judge will agree that these demands clear that bar remains to be seen.
We will be working through these new filings carefully over the coming days. The documents look, as one observer put it, pretty nasty. We will report what we find.
📋 CASE REFERENCE SUMMARY
Underlying Case: Sea Tow Services International, Inc. v. Tampa Bay Marine Recovery, Inc., et al. — Case No. 2:20-cv-02877-WFK-SIL (E.D.N.Y.) New Florida Cases:
• 8:2026mc00008 — v. L'Hommedieu (M.D. Fla.)
• 8:2026mc00009 — v. Russ L'Hommedieu (M.D. Fla., filed 03/04/2026) • 8:2026mc00010 — v. Hurley (M.D. Fla., filed 03/04/2026) All cases are accessible via PACER. We encourage readers to review original filings directly.
As always, Hornswaggled reports only on publicly available court records. All case numbers, docket references, and factual claims herein are drawn from public PACER filings. Readers are encouraged to verify all information independently. ⚓ First Blush: The L'Hommedieu Story Is About to Come Into the Light We want to be careful here — these filings are fresh, and we are still working through them. But on first blush, it looks like we are finally going to get the full story on what happened to the L'Hommedieu's.
Who are the L'Hommedieu's? That is precisely what these proceedings may force into the public record. Based on what we know going in, theirs appears to be a story that Sea Tow would very much prefer remain untold — a story of people who were approached by Sea Tow's principals, who trusted the promises that were made to them, who made significant life decisions in reliance on those promises, and who ultimately found themselves on the receiving end of conduct that no one who entered into a legitimate business arrangement should ever have to experience. "Sea Tow filed these cases to get documents and depositions.
They may get more than they bargained for."
There is a certain irony in Sea Tow's decision to drag this fight to Florida. In seeking to compel these witnesses — in opening three separate dockets in the Middle District of Florida — Sea Tow has created a new public record. A Florida record. A record in which the L'Hommedieu's will have the opportunity to tell their story, present their evidence, and make their case for why these subpoenas represent an abuse of the discovery process rather than a legitimate search for truth.
The emerging picture — and we will report on this in detail as we work through the documents — is one of people who appear to have suffered real and documented harm at the hands of Sea Tow. The nature of that harm, the timeline of events, and the conduct of Sea Tow's principals in relation to that harm are matters we expect these proceedings to illuminate. Stay tuned. This chapter of the story is just beginning.
We be watchin' the dockets, mateys. Every new filing. Every new case number. Every new attempt to extend this dragnet south of the Mason-Dixon.
Fair winds and following seas —
Hornswaggled
We may or may not be a crew.
We may or may not be near ye right now.
We definitely be committed to transparency...
even if we be mysteriously opaque about ourselves.
"In a world of corporate plunder, sometimes ye need pirates to restore honor to the seas." Sources & Methods: All information in this newsletter is based on publicly available court documents, PACER filings, and federal court docket entries. Readers are strongly encouraged to review source documents independently. Case documents may be accessed via PACER at pacer.gov. Not Legal Advice: Hornswaggled is an investigative newsletter and commentary publication. Nothing herein constitutes legal advice. Consult a licensed attorney for advice specific to your situation. Satire & Commentary: We may engage in satire, parody, and rhetorical flourish for the purpose of provoking thought, which is our First Amendment right. Interpretations and commentary represent one editorial perspective on publicly documented facts.
AI Disclosure: Some content may be created or enhanced with the assistance of artificial intelligence tools as part of our research and editorial process.
Yes, we have Merch
Great to wear for depositions or annual meetings.
Ahoy, Mateys and Landlubbers Alike, Ye be askin' who be Hornswaggled?
Aye, that be a question worthy of ponderin', though we may or may not be obliged to give ye a straight answer.
(Ah - before we forget, if this message got to you in a bottle floatin' on the internet and you want the scoop directly from the crow's nest, respond to this email and we will add ya to the list!!!)
We may or may not be:
A single scallywag with a quill and a grudge
A motley crew of seafarin' souls who've been hornswaggled by corporate buccaneers Yer neighbor at the annual meeting, sippin' grog and takin' notes Someone dockin' at a certain harbor on Hummel Avenue as ye read this very scroll Current crew members who've grown weary of sailin' under a tattered flag Former hands what got marooned after years of loyal service Landlubbers with access to the ship's log Ghosts in the rigging what see all and say nothin'... until now Our Mission Be Crystal Clear (even if our identities be foggier than Point Judith): We sail these troubled waters to inspire thoughtful questions about yer business, yer future, and whether the ship ye be sailin' on has sprung more leaks than the captain be admittin'.
We may or may not have witnessed—or been keelhauled by—what some might call a "Frochise" business model (that be a franchise what acts more like a noose than a partnership, savvy?).
We believe the time has come for true transparency to be the new corporate culture. No more hidin' behind the legal fog.
Ye be heading for a legal Malstrom and Ye ought to know when to batten down and make fast the deck tackle.
No more makin' honest sailors walk the plank whilst the officers in the great cabin count their doubloons.
A Word on Our Tales:
Some of our yarns may feature composite characters—a bit of this captain mixed with that first mate, perhaps a dash of a deckhand thrown in for flavor. We do not acknowledge, confirm, or deny that these characters represent any person, living or dead, drowned or saved, real or imagined.
They be as fictional as mermaids... or as real as the Kraken, dependin' on who ye ask. About the Dangers of Our Trade:
Far too many brave souls risk their lives in the marine towing and salvage business.
They battle storms, rogue waves, and vessels in distress—and that be hard enough without also fightin' battles from within their own fleet.
When the greatest danger comes not from Poseidon himself, but from the corporate quarterdeck, something be terribly wrong with how we chart our course. Our Sources and Methods:
All information we provide be based on publicly available documents—court filings, federal records, treasure maps left in plain sight (also known as corporate filings), and such.
We be but humble researchers with library cards and internet connections. IMPORTANT DISCLAIMERS (The Boring But Necessary Stuff):
⚓ Document Accuracy:
We not be responsible for any errors, omissions, or deviations from the public record. We caution all readers to read the source documents for themselves. Don't take our word for it—verify with yer own eyes, savvy?
⚓ Satire and Commentary:
We may engage in satire, parody, and rhetorical flourishes for the purpose of provoking thought, which be our First Amendment right as a U.S.-based pirate crew. (Aye, even pirates can be patriots!)
⚓ AI Usage Disclaimer:
Some of our content may be created, enhanced, or assisted by artificial intelligence tools. We be livin' in the future, mateys, where even parrots be digital. Any AI-generated content should be considered part of our creative and analytical process.
⚓ AI Image Generation Disclaimer:
Images accompanying our publications may be generated wholly or partially by artificial intelligence.
These images be for illustrative, satirical, or commentary purposes only. They do not represent real people, real events, or real photographs unless explicitly stated otherwise.
No AI-generated image should be construed as documentary evidence. ⚓ No Legal or Financial Advice:
We not be lawyers, accountants, or licensed advisors of any sort.
We be storytellers, researchers, and question-askers.
Seek ye professional counsel for matters of law and coin.
So, who be Hornswaggled?
We be the voice in the crow's nest yellin' "Hard Alee!" when the corporate ship be headin' for the rocks.
We be the conscience that asks uncomfortable questions at midnight when the watch changes.
We be whoever needs to be, whenever truth needs tellin'.
Or perhaps we be nobody at all—just the wind whistlin' through the riggin', carryin' tales that needed to be told.
The only certainty?
We may or may not be watchin'.
We may or may not be listenin'.
And we may or may not have more stories to tell.
Fair winds and following seas, Hornswaggled We may or may not be a crew.
We may or may not be near ye right now.
We definitely be committed to transparency...
even if we be mysteriously opaque about ourselves.
"In a world of corporate plunder, sometimes ye need pirates to restore honor to the seas."
AI-GENERATED CONTENT DISCLAIMER
AI Involvement
This document was generated using Claude (Anthropic), an artificial intelligence language model, based on analysis of legal documents, court filings, and other materials provided in a project knowledge base. The AI synthesized information from these source documents to create a narrative analysis of the legal proceedings described herein.
Source Materials
The content is derived from:
Court documents filed in Case 2:20-cv-02877-WFK-SIL (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of New York) Court documents filed in Case 2:25-cv-02145 (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of New York) Legal pleadings, motions, memoranda, and orders Docket entries and case transcripts Attorney correspondence and discovery documents Analytical articles based on public PACER filings All dates, case numbers, document references, and quoted material are derived from these source documents to the best of the AI's ability to accurately represent them.
Not Legal Advice
This document is for informational and analytical purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice, and should not be relied upon as such. The analysis, interpretations, and conclusions presented represent one perspective on complex legal proceedings and should not be considered definitive or authoritative. Readers should:
Consult with licensed attorneys for legal advice specific to their situations Independently verify all factual claims and legal citations Review original court documents and filings through PACER or other official sources Recognize that legal proceedings are ongoing and facts may change Limitations and Caveats 1. Interpretation Bias: The narrative structure and framing reflect editorial choices made in synthesizing the material. Other reasonable interpretations of the same documents may exist. 2. Document Access: The AI's analysis is limited to documents provided in the project knowledge base. Other relevant documents may exist that were not analyzed.
3. Temporal Snapshot: This document reflects information available as of October 31, 2025. Court proceedings continue to evolve, and rulings or developments after this date are not included. 4. No Attorney-Client Relationship: Nothing in this document creates an attorney-client relationship between any reader and any person or entity.
5. Verification Recommended: While efforts were made to accurately represent source materials, readers should independently verify all claims, especially before taking any action based on this information. Purpose This document was created to:
Provide a comprehensive narrative timeline of the legal proceedings Synthesize complex legal documents into accessible prose Highlight patterns and connections across multiple filings Support informed discussion of franchise law compliance issues Parties' Rights All parties named in this document retain their full legal rights. Nothing herein should be construed as prejudging the outcome of pending litigation. Courts of competent jurisdiction will make final determinations on all disputed matters.
Public Records
The legal proceedings described herein are matters of public record. Court documents referenced can be accessed through the Public Access to Court Electronic Records (PACER) system at https://pacer.uscourts.gov or by visiting the clerk's office of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York. Questions or Corrections If you believe any factual statement in this document misrepresents source materials or contains errors, please consult the original court filings for authoritative information.
AI-GENERATED CONTENT DISCLAIMER
Document Creation Date: October 31, 2025
AI Involvement
This document was generated using Claude (Anthropic), an artificial intelligence language model, based on analysis of legal documents, court filings, and other materials provided in a project knowledge base. The AI synthesized information from these source documents to create a narrative analysis of the legal proceedings described herein.
Source Materials
The content is derived from:
Court documents filed in Case 2:20-cv-02877-WFK-SIL (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of New York) Court documents filed in Case 2:25-cv-02145 (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of New York) Legal pleadings, motions, memoranda, and orders Docket entries and case transcripts Attorney correspondence and discovery documents Analytical articles based on public PACER filings All dates, case numbers, document references, and quoted material are derived from these source documents to the best of the AI's ability to accurately represent them.
Not Legal Advice
This document is for informational and analytical purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice, and should not be relied upon as such. The analysis, interpretations, and conclusions presented represent one perspective on complex legal proceedings and should not be considered definitive or authoritative. Readers should:
Consult with licensed attorneys for legal advice specific to their situations Independently verify all factual claims and legal citations Review original court documents and filings through PACER or other official sources Recognize that legal proceedings are ongoing and facts may change Limitations and Caveats 1. Interpretation Bias: The narrative structure and framing reflect editorial choices made in synthesizing the material. Other reasonable interpretations of the same documents may exist. 2. Document Access: The AI's analysis is limited to documents provided in the project knowledge base. Other relevant documents may exist that were not analyzed.
3. Temporal Snapshot: This document reflects information available as of October 31, 2025. Court proceedings continue to evolve, and rulings or developments after this date are not included. 4. No Attorney-Client Relationship: Nothing in this document creates an attorney-client relationship between any reader and any person or entity.
5. Verification Recommended: While efforts were made to accurately represent source materials, readers should independently verify all claims, especially before taking any action based on this information. Purpose This document was created to:
Provide a comprehensive narrative timeline of the legal proceedings Synthesize complex legal documents into accessible prose Highlight patterns and connections across multiple filings Support informed discussion of franchise law compliance issues Parties' Rights All parties named in this document retain their full legal rights. Nothing herein should be construed as prejudging the outcome of pending litigation. Courts of competent jurisdiction will make final determinations on all disputed matters.
Public Records
The legal proceedings described herein are matters of public record. Court documents referenced can be accessed through the Public Access to Court Electronic Records (PACER) system at https://pacer.uscourts.gov or by visiting the clerk's office of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York. Questions or Corrections If you believe any factual statement in this document misrepresents source materials or contains errors, please consult the original court filings for authoritative information.