Baker v. National Passenger Railroad Company
ORDER granting deft's 9 Motion to Compel; pltf shall comply as directed. Signed by Judge Billy Roy Wilson on 4/4/12. (vjt)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
NATIONAL PASSENGER RAILROAD
COMPANY a/k/a AMTRAK
Defendant (“Amtrak”), employed Plaintiff as a conductor.1 Plaintiff sued Amtrak,
alleging that he “suffered injuries to his mental health and well-being in the form of
Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder . . . as well as musculoskeletal injuries to his neck, back, hip,
knees, ankles, elbows, wrists, and hands.”2 The parties are currently engaged in discovery.
Pending is Amtrak’s Motion to Compel (Doc. No. 9). Plaintiff has not responded.3
Amtrak’s Motion is GRANTED as set out below.
Interrogatory No. 2 -- Plaintiff is directed to explain what the statement “Railroad
Retirement Board Disability Benefits: December 1, 2010 - November 30, 2010: $4,049.66,
December 1, 2011 - November 30, 2011; $4,049.66” means. Because November generally
precedes December in any given year, I understand Amtrak’s confusion at this response.
Interrogatory No. 6 -- Plaintiff is directed to provide the dates, times, places, and
locations in response to Amtrak’s request to “set forth in detail your version of how your injury,
disease, illness and/or condition occurred and/or developed . . . .” Responding with a decade (in
Doc. No. 1.
A response was due by April 2, 1012.
the mid-90s) or with a location (around South Walnut Ridge) is not specific enough. If Plaintiff
cannot remember these details, he should so note.
Interrogatory No. 13 -- Plaintiff is directed to explain which tools he contends were old
and hard to work, and where he alleges the train track between Little Rock and St. Louis was
rough. Responding that “many tools were old and hard to work” is not specific enough.4
Interrogatory No. 24 -- This interrogatory reads: “If it is contended that Defendant failed
to discharge any legal obligation, specify in detail  each instance (by date, time, and place)
what you contend was done that should not have been done and/or what you contend should
have been done that was not.”5
Plaintiff’s answer reads: “Defendant did not maintain its track, Defendant failed to
warn / and or adequately warn the Plaintiff of the danger associated with his job. See Plaintiff’s
complaint for further allegations.”6 Plaintiff’s supplemental answer reads: “Plaintiff contends
that the track between Little Rock and St. Louis was excessively rough. Plaintiff contends that
he was not warned and/or adequately warned about the damages of and increased [sic].”
Plaintiff referred Amtrak to his complaint, but his complaint is likewise short on fact. Plaintiff is
directed to answer Interrogatory No. 24 in detail.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 4th day of April, 2012.
/s/ Billy Roy Wilson
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Doc. No. 10.
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?