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)

Download PDF
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: 501-374-5 11 8 \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.

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?