Behrends v. BNSF Railway Company

Filing 60

ORDER that the Defendant shall supply the cell phone records of Richard Duncan from February, 2014 through July, 2015. Defendant shall supply the cell phone records of Mike Harvey from January, 2015 to the date of Plaintiff's termination. The scope of the production shall be limited to records of phone calls with Plaintiff and co-workers who shall be specifically identified by their phone numbers by Plaintiff. Defendant shall respond to Interrogatory Nos. 1 and 2. Defendant shall respo nd to Interrogatory No. 9 and Request for Production No. 7, but the scope of these discovery requests is limited to the 36-month time period before Plaintiff was terminated and is further narrowed to only include conductors and engineers. The part ies resolved the discovery dispute concerning Interrogatory Nos. 10 and 23. Plaintiff has withdrawn Interrogatory No. 25. Defendant represents that it has supplied a complete response to Request for Production No. 29. Defendant shall supplement its response to this Request as necessary. Defendant may review the issue of the burdensomeness of responding to Plaintiff's discovery requests based on what the Court has ordered today. Should it so desire, and after conferring with Plaintiff& #039;s counsel in an effort to resolve the matter, Defendant may submit evidence regarding the burdensomeness of responding to the discovery requests to [e-mail]. The Court would then set another telephone conference to discuss the matter. Ordered by Magistrate Judge Susan M. Bazis. (LAC)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
MELISSA L. BEHRENDS,
Plaintiff,

4:17CV3008

vs.
ORDER
BNSF RAILWAY COMPANY,
Defendant.
A telephone conference regarding a discovery dispute was held with the undersigned on
March 13, 2018. After hearing the matter,

IT IS ORDERED as follows:

1.

Defendant shall supply the cell phone records of Richard Duncan from February,

2014 through July, 2015. Defendant shall supply the cell phone records of Mike Harvey from
January, 2015 to the date of Plaintiff’s termination. The scope of the production shall be limited
to records of phone calls with Plaintiff and co-workers who shall be specifically identified by
their phone numbers by Plaintiff.

2.

Defendant shall respond to Interrogatory Nos. 1 and 2.

3.

Defendant shall respond to Interrogatory No. 9 and Request for Production No. 7,

but the scope of these discovery requests is limited to the 36-month time period before Plaintiff
was terminated and is further narrowed to only include conductors and engineers.

4.

The parties resolved the discovery dispute concerning Interrogatory Nos. 10 and

23. Plaintiff has withdrawn Interrogatory No. 25.

5.

Defendant represents that it has supplied a complete response to Request for

Production No. 29. Defendant shall supplement its response to this Request as necessary.

6.

Defendant may review the issue of the burdensomeness of responding to

Plaintiff’s discovery requests based on what the Court has ordered today. Should it so desire,
and after conferring with Plaintiff’s counsel in an effort to resolve the matter, Defendant may
submit evidence regarding the burdensomeness of responding to the discovery requests to
[e-mail]. The Court would then set another telephone conference to discuss the
matter.

Dated this 13th day of March, 2018.
BY THE COURT:
s/ Susan M. Bazis
United States Magistrate Judge

2