Melton Properties, LLC et al v. Illinois Central Railroad Company et al

Filing 243

CORRECTED ORDER re 242 Order on Motion for Extension of Time. Signed by Magistrate Judge Jane M. Virden on 11/4/2020. (bfg)

Case: 4:18-cv-00079-DMB-JMV Doc #: 243 Filed: 11/04/20 1 of 3 PageID #: 4498

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
GREENVILLE DIVISION

MELTON PROPERTIES, LLC et al.
V.

PLAINTIFFS
CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:18-cv-00079-DMB-JMV

ILLINOIS CENTRAL RAILROAD
COMPANY et al.
CORRECTED ORDER

DEFENDANTS

This matter is before the court on the urgent and necessitous motion [236] of the plaintiffs
for clarification or, in the alternative, an enlargement of time to respond to a subpoena issued to
their expert witness, Southern Environmental Management & Specialties, Inc. (“SEMS”).
Following expedited briefing, the matter is now ripe for decision. For the reasons discussed below,
the court finds that, while there is no need for clarification, SEMS and plaintiffs will have until
November 23, 2020 to respond to the subpoena and produce any related log(s).
Procedural History
On September 23, 2020, the undersigned ordered, Doc. #217, a response to defendant’s
subpoena deuces tecum to plaintiffs’ remediation expert witness, SEMS, upon certain conditions,
within thirty (30) days.
Thereafter, on September 29, 2020, Judge Brown, the District Judge assigned to this case,
entered an order [222], inter alia, staying the plaintiffs’ remediation related claims for a period
of ninety (90) days, or until December 28, 2020.
Since the entry of the Judge Brown’s stay order and filing of the instant motion, her
chambers has instructed the undersigned that, while the remediation stay order [222] is selfexplanatory, the undersigned is, nevertheless, directed to consider whether, under the
circumstances asserted by the plaintiffs in the instant motion and briefing, a further ruling, as

Case: 4:18-cv-00079-DMB-JMV Doc #: 243 Filed: 11/04/20 2 of 3 PageID #: 4499

relates to the timing of SEMS’s obligation to respond the aforementioned subpoena deuces tecum
is warranted.
Analysis
In support of the instant motion, plaintiffs assert that the District Judge’s order [222], on
its face, stays all aspects of plaintiffs’ remediation related claims, including the obligation to
respond to the SEMS’s subpoena of remediation related documents until December 28, 2020.
Alternatively, the plaintiffs request an additional thirty days, until November 23, 2020, to produce
the privilege log and other documents responsive to the subpoena, citing in support that the
documents are “voluminous.” Doc. #236 at 4.
In response, the defendant asserts that in earlier orders made by the undersigned
intermittently granting defendant’s request to stay discovery regarding the remediation related
claims, specific exception to the stay was made regarding subpoenas already served by plaintiffs
when the stays were entered. See Doc. #170. Further, the defense points out that, presently, their
expert designation deadline is February 4, 2021. Consequently, defendant, points out, they will
need the responses to the SEMS subpoena and the related log(s) before December 28, 2020 if they
are to be prepared to designate their experts by their deadline.
In keeping with the District Judge’s directive to the undersigned as noted above, the
undersigned, on review, finds that while some extension of time to respond to the SEMS subpoena
is warranted due to the asserted volume of materials, that extension should be measured.
First, an extension until December 28, 2020, will likely interfere with a timely designation
of defendant’s expert witnesses, and with a trial date of October 18, 2021, there is no room for an
extension of the deadline of any length. Second, while the District Judge’s [222] order stays any
litigation of remediation related claims until December 28, 2020, the subject subpoena of SEMS

Case: 4:18-cv-00079-DMB-JMV Doc #: 243 Filed: 11/04/20 3 of 3 PageID #: 4500

arguably seeks documents not strictly related to remediation efforts at the subject site and parsing
through them to segregate the documents would appear an inefficient use of time.1
On balance then, SEMS and plaintiffs will have until November 23, 2020 to fully respond
to defendant’s subpoena issued to SEMS and produce any related logs.
Finally, upon the expiration of the ninety (90) days following Judge Brown’s September,
29th order, plaintiffs shall contact the court to schedule a discovery conference.
SO ORDERED, this Wednesday, November 04, 2020.
/s/ Jane M. Virden
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

1

On July 24, 2020, defendant Illinois Central Railroad Company (“ICRR”) served a subpoena duces tecum on SEMS
requesting the production of “all documents related in any way to the Illinois Central Railroad Company derailment
in Leflore County, Mississippi, that occurred on March 30, 2015….” Doc. #189 at 2. And, in briefing related to the
subpoena plaintiffs concede that SEMS, in addition to evaluating remediation for litigation purposes, also “evaluated
the spill[;]” and “to the extent SEMS personnel have been onsite at the Meltons’ property multiple times beginning
shortly after the Spill, Plaintiffs do not dispute that such individuals may have certain information that would fit within
their minor roles as ‘viewer[s] with respect to transactions or occurrences that are part of the subject matter of the
lawsuit.’” Doc.# 212.