Logsdon v. BNSF Railway Company et al

Filing 140

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER overruling 133 Defendant's objection to Magistrate Judge Order and denying as moot 134 Defendant's Motion to Stay. Ordered by Judge John M. Gerrard. (JAB)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA STEVEN C. LOGSDON, Plaintiff, 8:15-CV-232 vs. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER BNSF RAILWAY COMPANY, Defendant. This matter is before the Court on the defendant's objection (filing 133) to the Magistrate Judge's Memorandum and Order, both initially and on reconsideration (filing 111; filing 132), regarding the plaintiff's motion to compel (filing 82). The defendant's objection will be overruled. The plaintiff moved to compel discovery of materials used to educate and train certain management officials employed by the defendant.1 Specifically, the plaintiff requested, among other documents, "a copy of the actual training materials/training module used in Gillette, Wyoming to train certain BNSF employees . . . on the FRSA/OSHA whistleblower laws[.]" Filing 111 at 2. The defendant objected to this request, claiming that the document was protected by attorney-client privilege and was, in any event, irrelevant to the plaintiff's underlying claim. See filing 90 at 2. The Magistrate Judge overruled the defendant's objection, both initially and on reconsideration, concluding in part that the document "do[es] not provide specific legal advice and disclosure will not reveal confidential client communications." Filing 111 at 4. The defendant objects to the Magistrate Judge's orders, reiterating its position regarding relevance and attorney-client privilege. However, having reviewed the record for clear error, 28 U.S.C. ยง 636(b)(1)(A), the Court finds no basis for departing from the Magistrate Judge's findings and recommendation. Accordingly, The plaintiff sought several training-related documents, which the Magistrate Judge granted in part, and denied in part. Filing 111. However, the underlying objection only pertains to the plaintiff's "Request for Production No. 45", and more specifically, to a 2015 "Law Department" presentation, which the Court has reviewed. See Filing 133 at 1. 1 IT IS ORDERED 1. The defendant's objection (filing 133) is overruled. 2. The defendant's motion to stay (filing 134) is denied as moot. Dated this 17th day of February, 2017. BY THE COURT: John M. Gerrard United States District Judge -2-

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?