Quiles v. Union Pacific Railroad Company, Incorporated, et al

Filing 23

ORDER denying 12 the defendants' Motion to Stay and Compel Arbitration without prejudice to reassertion after limited discovery to be completed within sixty days; and granting 16 the defendants' Motion to File Reply Brief Out of Time. Ordered by Magistrate Judge Thomas D. Thalken. (TRL)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
RODOLFO A. QUILES,
Plaintiff,

8:16CV330

vs.
ORDER
UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD
COMPANY, INCORPORATED, et al.,
Defendants.
This matter is before the court on the defendants’ Motion to Stay and Compel
Arbitration (Filing No. 12) and Motion to File Reply Brief Out of Time (Filing No. 16).
The defendants initially filed the motion to compel arbitration stating the plaintiff agreed
to submit to arbitration any claims arising from or relating to his employment relationship
when he entered into a stock incentive agreement. See Filing No. 13 - Brief p. 1. The
plaintiff disputes he entered into any agreement by virtue of his acceptance of a bonus
award of stock. See Filing No. 14 - Response. In reply, the defendants acknowledge a
material issue of fact may remain with respect to whether the agreement exists. See
Filing No. 21 - Reply p. 3. Specifically, the defendants seek limited discovery regarding
the existence of the agreement by means of the plaintiff’s deposition and production of
certain electronically stored information associated with whether the plaintiff received
and accepted the stock incentive agreement when he received notice of the stock
award and created an Etrade account. Id. at 6-9. Resolution of this factual dispute may
help the parties resolve the arbitration issue without court action or narrow the scope of
any future motion. Upon consideration,
IT IS ORDERED:
1.

The defendants’ Motion to Stay and Compel Arbitration (Filing No. 12) is

denied without prejudice to reassertion after limited discovery as set forth herein.
Absent a joint discovery proposal, such discovery shall be completed within sixty days.
2.

The defendants’ Motion to File Reply Brief Out of Time (Filing No. 16) is

granted. The court considered the reply instanter.
Dated this 11th day of October, 2016.
BY THE COURT:
s/ Thomas D. Thalken
United States Magistrate Judge