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)

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. § 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-