Haukereid v. National Passenger Railroad Corporation

Filing 55

ORDER directing Amtrak to file a short response on Tuesday, after it makes the supplemental production. The Court will rule promptly thereafter. Signed by Judge D. P. Marshall Jr. on 7/18/2014. (jak)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
JONESBORO DIVISION

SCOTT HAUKEREID, individually and as
Personal Representative and Administrator
of the Estate of Andrew Haukereid Jr., deceased

v.

PLAINTIFF

No. 3:13-cv-92-DPM

NATIONAL PASSENGER RAILROAD
CORPORATION, dfb/a AMTRAK

DEFENDANT

ORDER
Haukereid sent the attached letter to Chambers after today' s telephone
conference. The Court would appreciate a short response from Amtrak on
Tuesday, after it makes the supplemental production. Please file the response
on the docket. The Court will rule promptly thereafter.
So Ordered.

D.P. Marshall )f.
United States District Judge

JAMES BRUCE McMATH
SAMUEL E. LEDBETTER
WILL BOND
NE IL CHAMBERLIN
CHARLES D. HARRISON
CARTER C. STEIN
ROSS NOLAN D

711 WEST THIRD STREET
LITTLE ROC K, AR 7220 1
501-396-5400
FAX: [phone]
\vww. mcmat h\aw .com

CARTER C. STEIN
Direct No . 50 1-396-5409
cancr({Vmcmathla\v.com

MART VEHIK, OF COUNSEL
PHILLIP H. McMATH , OF COUNSEL

ANG EL DORSEY
Paralegal
501 -396-5444
anoe l@mcmath law .co m

SIDN EY S. McMATH (1 9 12 -2003)
LELAND LEATHERMAN ( 1915-2006)
HENRY WOODS (I 91 8-2002)
WINSLOW DRUMMOND (1933-2005)

July 18, 2014

ViaE-Mail
Hon. D.P. Marshall Jr.
600 West Capitol Avenue, Room B155
Little Rock, AR 72201
RE:

Scott Haukereid, Individually and as Personal Representative and Administrator of the Estate of
Andrew Haukereid, Jr., deceased v. National Railroad Passenger Corporation, t/d!b/a Amtrak
USDC, Eastern District of AR, Jonesboro Division; Case No. 3:13-CV-00092 DPM/BD

Dear Judge Marshall:
Following our conference call it occurred to us that it might be useful for the court to require the
defendant to produce any documents it withholds to the court, to include those withheld on
responsiveness grounds. Frankly we are concerned that that defense counsel may define relevance more
narrowly than may be justified.
As the court knows, discovery is to be liberally construed. Documents withheld on responsiveness
grounds require no privilege log and hence the plaintiff will be blind as to what is being withheld. Given
that the witness has deemed these materials relevant you can understand plaintiffs concern. Further, the
witness will doubtless be asked about these documents generically at the deposition if they are not
produced and if such inquiry turns up relevance we will all be in a mess. Plaintiff is concerned that the
Defendant is intent upon using the court' s order defining the scope of this deposition as means to obstruct
relevant discovery beyond that justified or intended by the court. If such an intent is revealed in the
withheld documents, on responsiveness grounds, it will save us all trouble and expense later.

JBM/sm

Cc via e-mail:

Scott Tucker
Kristopher B. Knox

Since 1953, a tradition of legal excellence.