Rayner v. Union Pacific Railroad Company et al
Filing
70
ORDER denying 50 Union Pacific's Motion to Quash Plaintiff's Notice of Deposition and for Protective Order (as more fully set out in order). Signed by Honorable Vicki Miles-LaGrange on 6/23/2014. (ks)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
MITZI JAYNE RAYNER, Personal
Representative of the Estate of Gary
Don Rayner (Deceased),
Plaintiff,
vs.
THE UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD
COMPANY, a Delaware corporation, and
NEWFIELD EXPLORATION
MID-CONTINENT, INC., a Delaware
corporation,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. CIV-13-46-M
ORDER
Before the Court is defendant Union Pacific Railroad Company’s (“Union Pacific”) Motion
to Quash Plaintiff’s Notice of Deposition and for Protective Order, filed May 23, 2014. On June 7,
2014, plaintiff filed her response, and on June 10, 2014, Union Pacific filed its reply. Based upon
the parties’ submissions, the Court makes its determination.
I.
Introduction
This case arises from a March 1, 2012, vehicle-train collision, approximately two miles south
of Dover, Oklahoma. Plaintiff’s husband, Gary Don Rayner (“Mr. Rayner”), was struck and killed
by a southbound Union Pacific train. In addition to other allegations, plaintiff asserts the accident
was caused by Union Pacific’s failure to properly maintain the crossing, including but not limited
to negligently allowing vegetation and trees to partially obstruct the visibility of approaching
drivers.
Plaintiff served Union Pacific with a notice to take depositions of the following Union
Pacific Rule 30(b)(6) corporate representatives:
Pursuant to Rule 30(b)(6), Fed R Civ Pro, the UP roadmaster
responsible for Crossing #595410S at the time of the accident, or the
UP employee most knowledgeable about the maintenance of that
crossing, including control of vegetation.
Pursuant to Rule 30(b)(6), Fed R Civ Pro, the UP assistant
roadmaster responsible for the subject crossing, or the UP employee
with the next greatest knowledge about maintenance (including
control of vegetation) of the subject crossing.
Notice of Deposition, attached as Exhibit 6 to Union Pacific’s Motion to Quash Plaintiff’s Notice
of Deposition and for Protective Order. Union Pacific now moves this Court to quash plaintiff’s
Notice of Deposition for Union Pacific’s Rule 30(b)(6) corporate representatives, or in the
alternative, to issue a protective order preventing said depositions.
II.
Discussion
Protective orders are governed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c). That rule provides,
in pertinent part:
A party or any person from whom discovery is sought may move for
a protective order in the court where the action is pending . . . . The
motion must include a certification that the movant has in good faith
conferred or attempted to confer with other affected parties in an
effort to resolve the dispute without court action. The court may, for
good cause, issue an order to protect a party or person from
annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense,
including one or more of the following:
(A) forbidding the disclosure or discovery; . . . .
Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)(1)(A).
The party seeking a protective order must show “good cause” for his request. Id.; Am.
Benefit Life Ins. Co. v. Ille, 87 F.R.D. 540, 543 (W.D. Okla. 1978). “‘Good cause’ within the
meaning of Rule 26(c) contemplates a ‘particular and specific demonstration of fact, as distinguished
2
from stereotyped and conclusory statements.’” Am. Benefit, 87 F.R.D. at 543 (quoting Gen.
Dynamics Corp. v. Selb Mfg. Co., 481 F.2d 1204, 1212 (8th Cir. 1973)).
Further, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1) provides, in pertinent part:
Unless otherwise limited by court order, the scope of discovery is as
follows: Parties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged
matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or defense – including the
existence, description, nature, custody, condition, and location of any
documents or other tangible things and the identity and location of
persons who know of any discoverable matter. For good cause, the
court may order discovery of any matter relevant to the subject matter
involved in the action. Relevant information need not be admissible
at the trial if the discovery appears reasonably calculated to lead to
the discovery of admissible evidence.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1).
Union Pacific asserts that vegetation is not at issue in this case and, therefore, the notice of
deposition should be quashed. Specifically, Union Pacific contends that the evidence establishes
that there was no vegetation which obscured the oncoming train and, thus, any evidence regarding
vegetation is not relevant. Union Pacific also contends that these depositions are unduly prejudicial
because Mr. Rayner’s actions in failing to stop at the stop sign and yield to an oncoming train
constitute the proximate cause of the collision. Plaintiff, on the other hand, asserts that discovery
regarding the vegetation at the crossing is relevant and is reasonably calculated to lead to the
discovery of admissible evidence. Plaintiff further asserts that there is ample evidence showing that
Mr. Rayner’s vision was obstructed by trees and brush.
The Court would first note that the instant motion is a discovery motion and not a motion for
summary judgment. Therefore, when ruling on the instant motion, the Court will not be making
findings that would be more appropriate in relation to a motion for summary judgment, such as
making findings as to the proximate cause of the collision. Having carefully reviewed the parties’
3
submissions, the Court finds that the evidence does not establish that the issue of vegetation is not
relevant. To the contrary, the Court finds that there is sufficient evidence showing that whether
vegetation obstructed Mr. Rayner’s vision is an issue in this case and that discovery regarding the
vegetation at the crossing is relevant and is reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of
admissible evidence. Additionally, the Court finds that the Rule 30(b)(6) depositions noticed by
plaintiff are not unduly prejudicial.
III.
Conclusion
Accordingly, for the reasons set forth above, the Court DENIES Union Pacific’s Motion to
Quash Plaintiff’s Notice of Deposition and for Protective Order [docket no. 50].
IT IS SO ORDERED this 23rd day of June, 2014.
4
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?