United States of America v. Indiana Harbor Belt Railroad Company
Filing
24
OPINION AND ORDER denying 15 Motion for Protective Order that the Deposition of General Manager Pat Daly not be Taken. Signed by Magistrate Judge John E Martin on 9/16/15. (mc)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
HAMMOND DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
v.
INDIANA HARBOR BELT RAILROAD
COMPANY, et al.,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CAUSE NO.:2:15-CV-87-JVB-JEM
OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on a Motion for Protective Order that the Deposition of
General Manager Pat Daly not be Taken [DE 15], filed by Defendant Indiana Harbor Belt Railroad
Company on July 20, 2015. Defendant seeks a protective order preventing Plaintiff United States of
America from taking the deposition of general manager Pat Daly. On August 3, 2015, Plaintiff filed
a response and on August 17, 2015, Defendant filed a reply.
I.
Background
On March 9, 2015, the United States filed a Complaint against Defendant Indiana Harbor
Belt Railroad Company and its locomotives, Defendants Indiana Harbor Belt Railroad Company
Locomotive 3801 and 3802, pursuant to the System Unit Resource Protection Act. The United States
seeks damages related to fires in the Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore on March 10, 2012, and
March 11, 2012. The United States alleges that Defendant’s locomotives ejected or deposited hot
carbon cinders as they passed the National Lakeshore.
II.
Analysis
Defendant argues that Daly does not have information relevant to the issues in the case or
reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The United States argues that
Defendant has not show good cause for a protective order.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b) provides: “Parties may obtain discovery regarding any
nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or defense. . . Relevant information need
not be admissible at the trial if the discovery appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery
of admissible evidence.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c) allows the
Court, for good cause, to issue an order to protect a party from discovery “from annoyance,
embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c). “The party moving
for a protective order must establish that good cause exists for the Court to exercise its discretion in
entering a protective order.” Nieves v. OPA, Inc., 948 F.Supp. 2d 887, 891 (N.D. Ill. 2013).
Defendant argues that Daly does not have any personal knowledge about the investigation,
that the United States has not explained what relevant information Daly would have, and that there
are less burdensome methods to obtain information. Defendant provides an affidavit of Daly stating:
I did not conduct any investigation concerning the fires. I did not
interview any witnesses. I did not go to the location where the fire or
fires occurred, I did not inspect any of the locomotives in question.
Additionally I did not interview any of the persons who did inspect
the locomotives, and I did not meet with any representatives of the
Federal Government concerning the fires.
Def. Mot. Ex. E. ¶4. The United States argues that Daly’s deposition is reasonably calculated to lead
to discovery of admissible evidence since, among other things, he likely has information relevant to
an incident that his company is now addressing in Court and has addressed administratively for the
pat three and a half years.
The party moving for a protective order has the burden of showing good cause to issue a
protective order. Although, as Defendant argues, discovery must be relevant, it also does not get to
2
determine what is relevant the United State’s case.
The test under Rule 26 is not whether a putative deponent had
personal involvement in an event, or even whether [he] has “direct”
knowledge—which is merely another way of saying that [he] was a
participant in the event—but whether the witness may have
information from whatever source that is relevant to the claim or
defense . . . In short, even if one could accept at face value [the
putative deponent] claim of lack of personal involvement, [his]
affidavit is analytically irrelevant.
Johnson v. Jung, 242 F.R.D. 481, 483 (N.D. Ill. 2007). In general a putative deponent “cannot escape
examination by denying knowledge of any relevant facts, since the party seeking to take the
deposition is entitled to test the witness’s lack of knowledge.” 8A Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R.
Miller, Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ. § 2037 (3d ed.). Furthermore, in this matter Defendant does not
claim that Daly has no relevant information, only that he does not have firsthand information in a
recitation of very specific circumstances. The United States should be permitted to make inquiries
in this case to determine the extent of Daly’s participation and knowledge. See Johnson, 242 F.R.D.
at 484 (“Indeed, most cases have refused to accept this kind of ex parte tactic, recognizing that a
party has a right to test the validity of the assertions.”).
Defendant also argues that there are less burdensome means of obtaining the information that
the United States desires. Defendant, however, does not argue that the deposition would create undue
burden or expense. The United States proposed to take Daly’s deposition at his place of business at
a mutually convenient date, requiring no travel and little expense to be borne by Defendant. C.f.,
Patterson v. Avery Dennison Corp., 281 F.3d 676, 681 (7th Cir. 2002) (“The requested deposition
. . . would have been a quite costly and burdensome means for determining whether he had
information bearing on [Plaintiff’s] termination.”); Berning v. UAW Local 2209, 242 F.R.D. 510,
3
513 (N.D. Ind. 2007) (“[N]ot only does [Defendant] claim that [the putative deponent] has no
personal knowledge about [the] matter, but it also contends that [the putative deponent] participating
in a deposition by [Plaintiff] would be unduly burdensome and oppressive to him.”).
III.
Conclusion
For the reasons explained above, the Court hereby DENIES the Motion for Protective Order
that the Deposition of General Manager Pat Daly not be Taken [DE 15].
SO ORDERED this 16th day of September, 2015.
s/ John. E. Martin
MAGISTRATE JUDGE JOHN E. MARTIN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
cc: All counsel of record
4
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?