National Railroad Passenger Corporation v. John Davis Trucking Company, Inc.

Filing 379

ORDER denying 339 Amtrack and UPRR's motion for reconsideration. Signed by Magistrate Judge Valerie P. Cooke on 3/24/14. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DN) (Main Document 379 replaced on 3/24/2014) (DRM).

1
2
3
4
5
6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

8

***

9
10

NATIONAL RAILROAD
PASSENGER CORPORATION,

ORDER

11
12
13
14
15

Case No. 3:11-CV-0461-HDM (VPC)

Plaintiff,
v.
JOHN DAVIS TRUCKING
COMPANY, INC.,
Defendant.

16
17

Before the court is the motion of National Railroad Passenger Corporation (“Amtrak”)

18

and Union Pacific Railroad Company’s (“UPRR”) motion for reconsideration on motion to

19

compel re John David Trucking’s,” (“JDT”) privilege log (#s 339 & 340). JDT opposed (#356)

20

and Amtrak/UPRR replied (#s 367 & 368). This order follows.

21
22

I. Procedural History
Amtrak and UPRR filed a motion to compel production of documents that JDT withheld

23
based upon various theories of privilege, confidentiality and relevance (#277).

At the court’s

24
25

monthly case management conference in November 2013, the court ordered JDT to produce the

26

NHP Incident report relating to what is called the “Biglin accident,” a fatal accident involving a

27

former JDT truck driver while he was operating a JDT vehicle about one year prior to the subject

28

1

accident. The parties met and conferred as to the remaining documents and filed a report in

2

December 2013, concerning documents that the parties agreed to produce, some that were

3

withdrawn, and those that still remained at issue (#295). On January 28, 2014, the court denied

4

Amtrak and UPRR’s motion to compel on the ground that the documents sought are not likely to

5

lead to the discovery of admissible evidence (#317). The court granted JDT’s motion for

6

reconsideration and reversed its ruling, granting the production of the NHP Incident Report of

7
the Biglin accident. Id.
8
9

Amtrak and UPRR independently obtained the NHP Incident Report of the Biglin

10

accident, which they contend found that the Biglin vehicle suffered from similar brake defects as

11

the subject vehicle; therefore, JDT was placed on notice of possible brake defects of the subject

12

vehicle and calls into question JDT’s maintenance program of its fleet. Amtrak and UPRR assert

13
14

that they should be entitled to the remaining documents involved in the Biglin accident to
explore similarities between the Biglin accident and the subject accident.

15
16
17

Amtrak and UPRR also contend that Amtrak’s first amended complaint sufficiently
provides notice that the issue of vehicle maintenance was pled and rely on the following:

18

“Plaintiff alleges that Defendant JOHN DAVIS TRUCKING negligently owned, operated,

19

maintained, inspected and entrusted the Peterbilt tractor trailer combination.” See Amtrak’s first

20

amended complaint, first claims for relief, negligence.

21

At the February 2014 case management conference, the court advised the parties that it

22
would review the revised spreadsheet of the documents still in dispute, established a further
23
24
25

briefing schedule, and ordered JDT to submit the disputed documents to chambers for the court’s
in camera review (#330).

26
27
28

2

JDT’s position is that there are not similarities between the Biglin accident and the

1
2

subject accident, but that even if this were so, the documents at issue will not lead to the

3

discovery of admissible evidence in this case. JDT’s view is the only issue relevant to this action

4

is the maintenance and repair of the vehicles involved in this accident and that Amtrak’s first

5

amended complaint only pleads a claim of negligent maintenance as to the specific vehicle

6

involved in the subject accident.

7
II.

Analysis and Discussion

8
9

This court has inherent jurisdiction to reconsider, rescind or modify such orders. City of

10

Los Angeles, Harbor Div. v. Santa Monica Baykeeper, 254 F.3d 882, 885 (9th Cir. 2001). Rule

11

54(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allows the court to revise any order adjudicating

12

fewer than all of the claims in an action at any time before final judgment. “Reconsideration is

13
14

appropriate if the district court (1) is presented with newly discovered evidence, (2) committed
clear error or the initial decision was manifestly unjust, or (3) there is an intervening change in

15
16
17

controlling law.” Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah County, Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263,
(9th Cir. 1993). However, “[a] motion for reconsideration is not an avenue to re-litigate the same

18

issues and arguments upon which the court already has ruled.” In re AgriBioTech, Inc., 319 B.R.

19

207, 209 (D.Nev. 2004).

20
21

The court has reviewed the disputed documents in camera, as well as Amtrak’s first
amended complaint. The court disagrees that Amtrak has broadly pled a claim against JDT as it

22
concerns a systemic failure to inspect, repair, and maintain its vehicles; rather, the allegations
23
24

refer solely to the Peterbilt truck involved in the subject accident.

The court has also had the

25

benefit of reviewing the disputed documents in camera and concludes that they are privileged,

26

are otherwise outside the scope of discovery, or they are not likely to lead to the discovery of

27

admissible evidence.

28

3

1

III.

Conclusion

2

Amtrak and UPRR’s motion for reconsideration (#s 339 & 340) is DENIED. The

3

documents submitted to the court in camera shall be shredded upon the entry of this order.

4

IT IS SO ORDERED.

5

Dated: March 24, 2014.

6
7
8

____________________________________
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

4