National Railroad Passenger Corp. et al v. Cimarron Crossing Feeders, LLC. et al

Filing 331

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER denying 311 Motion to Consolidate Discovery. This Order does not preclude the parties from continuing to share discovery in the two cases on the common liability issues by agreement. Signed by Magistrate Judge Teresa J. James on 1/30/2018. (byk)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER
CORP. and BNSF RAILWAY COMPANY,
Plaintiffs,
and
EVERETT OWEN,
et al.,
Intervenor-Plaintiffs,
v.
CIMARRON CROSSING FEEDERS, LLC,
Defendant,
and
NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER CORP.
d/b/a AMTRAK; and BNSF RAILWAY
COMPANY,
Defendants and
Intervenor-Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 16-cv-1094-JTM-TJJ

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on the Motion to Consolidate Discovery (ECF No. 311)
filed by Plaintiffs National Railroad Passenger Corporation (“Amtrak”) and BNSF Railway
Company (“BNSF”) (jointly “Railroad Plaintiffs”). The Railroad Plaintiffs request that the Court
consolidate liability discovery in this action (the “Derailment Lawsuit”) with another action filed
by an Amtrak employee involved in the same March 14, 2016 train derailment, Olivares v.
National Railroad Passenger Corp., et al., Case No. 17-cv-2397-CM-KGS (the “FELA
Lawsuit”). The same motion to consolidate discovery was filed in the FELA Lawsuit. The
motion states all parties agree that consolidation for liability discovery purposes is proper, and no
response opposing the motion was filed within the D. Kan. Rule 6.1(d)(1) time period. The Court
thus considers the motion unopposed.

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a), “[i]f actions before the court involve a
common question of law or fact, the court may: (1) join for hearing or trial any or all matters at
issue in the actions; (2) consolidate the actions; or (3) issue any other orders to avoid
unnecessary cost or delay.” The decision whether to consolidate is within the sound discretion of
the trial court.1 In exercising its discretion, the court should take into consideration whether
judicial efficiency is best served by consolidation.2 “The court generally weighs the time and
effort that would be saved by consolidation against any inconvenience, delay, or expense caused
by consolidation.”3 Courts also consider: “(1) whether the relief sought varies substantially
between the two actions; (2) whether defendants are being sued in different capacities; and (3)
what would be gained by consolidation and what injury would be suffered by failure to
consolidate.”4
Railroad Plaintiffs seek an order consolidating the Derailment Lawsuit with the FELA
Lawsuit only for purposes of discovery on the overlapping liability issues. They state all
discovery from the Derailment Lawsuit has been produced in the FELA Lawsuit, and they are
not requesting that the Scheduling Order dates and deadlines in the FELA Lawsuit be amended
to coincide with the Second Amended Scheduling Order in effect in the Derailment Lawsuit.
Although the Derailment Lawsuit and the FELA Lawsuit both have negligence claims
that involve a common question of law or fact, the Court concludes that the requested
consolidation for purposes of liability discovery does not warrant consolidation of these cases
1

Shump v. Balka, 574 F.2d 1341, 1344 (10th Cir. 1978).

2

Frederick v. S. Star Cent. Gas Pipeline, Inc., No. 10-1063-JAR, 2010 WL 4386911, at *2 (D.
Kan. Oct. 29, 2010).
3

Id.

4

Id.

under Ru 42. The limited purp
ule
pose of the case consoli
c
idation, com
mbined with t fact the cases
the
were file over a ye apart, ar procedura at differ
ed
ear
re
ally
rent stages, and would continue to have
different case deadlin all conv
nes,
vince the Cou that cons
urt
solidating th
hese cases would not pro
omote
judicial economy, bu would like create the potential f confusion regarding discovery-re
e
ut
ely
e
for
n
elated
deadlines and case settings. For example, th fact disc overy deadl
s
s
r
he
line on liabi
ility issues i the
in
Derailme Lawsuit expires on February 5, 2018, whi the disco
ent
ile
overy deadli in the F
ine
FELA
Lawsuit is not set to expire until June 8, 201 The Cou also finds that the pa
l
18.
urt
s
arties have ag
greed
ange and alr
ready have exchanged liability dis
scovery in and betwee the two cases
en
to excha
without the need for consolidatio of the cas The par
t
on
ses.
rties have no explained why they ca
ot
annot
continue, by agreeme to share discovery on the comm liability i
,
ent,
o
mon
issues.
IT IS THER
T
REFORE ORDERED THAT the Motion to C
O
Consolidate Discovery (ECF
No. 311) is denied. This Order does not preclude the pa
)
T
d
arties from c
continuing to share disco
o
overy
in the two cases on th common liability issu by agreem
he
ues
ment.
T
DERED.
IT IS SO ORD
Signed this 30 day of Ja
0th
anuary 2018, at Kansas C
City, Kansas
s.

Teres J. James
sa
U. S. Magistrate J
Judge