Gaudreau v. National Railroad Passenger Corporation et al

Filing 116

ORDER: Plaintiff Amberly Gaudreau's 112 Motion to Compel GRANTED. Signed by Judge Stephen P. McGlynn on 11/17/2022. (anb2)

Case 3:19-cv-01278-SPM Document 116 Filed 11/17/22 Page 1 of 3 Page ID #1174

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
AMBERLY GAUDREAU, as
Administrator of the Estate of Cody
Robertson, Deceased,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 19-CV-01278-SPM

ILLINOIS CENTRAL RAILROAD
COMPANY, an Illinois Corporation,
ED BURRIS DISPOSAL SERVICE,
an Illinois Limited Liability
Company, BOWLBY FARMS LLC,
an Illinois Limited Liability
Company, and NATIONAL
RAILROAD PASSENGER
CORPORATION, d/b/a AMTRAK,
Defendants.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
McGLYNN, District Judge:
Pending before the Court is a motion to compel filed by Plaintiff Amberly
Gaudreau directed toward Defendant National Railroad Passenger Corporation
doing business as Amtrak (Doc. 112). Amtrak filed a timely response in opposition
(Doc. 114).
In her motion related to requests for production, Gaudreau seeks to compel
Amtrak to produce video footage from a locomotive crash on May 31, 2017 that
occurred prior to the crash at the same railroad crossing that killed her decedent
along with full and complete records regarding the previous crash (Doc. 112, p. 3).
Gaudreau states that items responsive to these requests are discoverable because
they will likely establish facts available to both Amtrak and Defendant Illinois
Page 1 of 3

Case 3:19-cv-01278-SPM Document 116 Filed 11/17/22 Page 2 of 3 Page ID #1175

Central Railroad Company regarding prior incidents at this crossing evidencing a
generally hazardous condition at the crossing or a particular danger posed by this
crossing on approach in a westbound direction. Gaudreau claims that evidence of
prior accidents is admissible either as proof of a particular danger posed by the
crossing or as evidence of the generally hazardous nature of the crossing. In response,
Amtrak questions the relevance of the requests for discovery purposes and states that
Gaudreau already possesses sufficient information regarding the previous crash for
the Court to determine admissibility at trial. Amtrak also asserts that any video of
the incident would be cumulative and unfairly prejudicial. Last, Amtrak states that
the records request is overbroad and that production may involve items protected by
attorney-client privilege.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 26(b)(1) permits a party to obtain
discovery:
regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party’s claim
or defense and proportional to the needs of the case, considering the
importance of the issues at stake in the action, the amount in
controversy, the parties’ relative access to relevant information, the
parties’ resources, the importance of the discovery in resolving the
issues, and whether the burden or expense of the proposed discovery
outweighs its likely benefit. Information within this scope of discovery
need not be admissible in evidence to be discoverable.
FED. R. CIV. P. 26(b)(1).
Some of the same issues here were discussed at the Court’s motion to compel
hearing with Illinois Central (Doc. 88). In that hearing, the Court broadly ordered
Illinois Central to respond to Gaudreau’s Supplemental Interrogatories and Requests
for Production related to 49 other crossings with some time related parameters. The

Page 2 of 3

Case 3:19-cv-01278-SPM Document 116 Filed 11/17/22 Page 3 of 3 Page ID #1176

previous crash at the same crossing so close in time has even greater relevance
regarding notice of a dangerous condition and disregard for the dangerous condition.
See Kelsay v. Consolidated Rail Corp., 749 F.2d 437, 442-446 (7th Cir. 1984); Gardner
v. Southern Railway System, 675 F.2d 949, 952 (7th Cir. 1982); Churchill v. Norfolk
& Western Railway Co., 383 N.E.2d 929, 935-36 (Ill. 1978); Moore v. Bloomington, D.
& C.R. Co., 128 N.E.2d 721, 722-23 (Ill. 1920). Therefore, the requests for production
are relevant for the purposes of discovery.
Amtrak also does not expand on its other claims regarding sufficiency,
cumulative evidence, unfairly prejudicial evidence, and attorney-client privilege.
Because of the issues at stake, the value of the claims, and the importance of notice,
a wide discovery net for Gaudreau is appropriate in this case. If duplicative
production is specifically pointed out later, the Court might revisit the issue, but the
parties should not need Court intervention to identify duplicative material and
reduce the burden of discovery in a cooperative manner. Furthermore, in Illinois,
attorney-client privilege is limited to situations in which the attorney is acting as a
legal advisor. Business advice and claims investigation are not protected. Based on
the Amtrak’s response, attorney-client privilege does not apply to the records.
Consequently, the Motion to Compel (Doc. 112) is GRANTED. The previous
Protective Order (Doc. 78) extends the video of the May 31, 2017 crash.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: November 17, 2022
s/ Stephen P. McGlynn
STEPHEN P. McGLYNN
U.S. District Judge
Page 3 of 3