Wright v. BNSF Railway Company

Filing 117

OPINION AND ORDER by Magistrate Judge Frank H McCarthy ; denying 105 Motion to Compel (tjc, Dpty Clk)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
JAMES E. WRIGHT,
Plaintiff,
v.
BNSF RAILWAY CO.,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 13-CV-24-JED-FHM

OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Defendant to Provide Testimony Pursuant to Rule
30(b)(6), [Dkt. 105], is before the court for decision. The motion has been fully briefed.
[Dkts. 112, 115].
Plaintiff seeks an order compelling Defendant to produce documents and Rule
30(b)(6) testimony which Plaintiff contends was previously ordered by the court in ruling on
Defendant’s Motion to Quash. [Dkt. 44]. Generally speaking, the documents and testimony
Plaintiff seeks concern step by step procedures for performing all carmen job duties and
how the step by step procedures were developed.
Defendant responds that the documents and testimony Plaintiff now seeks were not
requested by the Plaintiff in the discovery that was at issue in the Motion to Quash, or in
any other discovery issued by Plaintiff, and that the court did not order Defendant to
produce the documents or testimony Plaintiff now seeks.
With the exception of step by step instructions for one specific job, the discovery at
issue in the Motion to Quash concerned ergonomic studies to determine stresses and
potential for injury from jobs. The court’s order did not cover the documents and testimony
Plaintiff seeks in this motion.

Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Defendant to Provide Testimony Pursuant to Rule
30(b)(6), [Dkt. 105], is DENIED.
SO ORDERED this 19th day of October, 2015.

2