Bailey v. CSX Transportation, Inc.

Filing 19

ORDER denying 15 plaintiff's Motion to Compel. Signed by Magistrate Judge C Clifford Shirley on August 15, 2011. (AYB)

UNITED STATE DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
AT KNOXVILLE
GARY W. BAILEY,
Plaintiff,

V.
CSX TRANSPORTATION INC.,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 3:09-CV-548
(PHILLIPS/SHIRLEY)

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This case is before the undersigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the Rules of this Court, and
the order of the District Judge [Doc. 16] referring Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel and Incorporated
Brief of Law [Doc. 15] to this Court for disposition. The Defendant has responded in opposition to
the Plaintiff’s motion [Doc. 17], and the Plaintiff has made a final reply in support of his position
[Doc. 18]. The Court finds that the Motion to Compel is ripe for adjudication.
The parties appeared before the Court on August 15, 2011, to address whether the Defendant
must produce or identify any memoranda, photographs, videotapes, or other recordings of
surveillance of the Plaintiff performed by or on behalf of the Defendant. Attorney Andrew Lampros
was present representing the Plaintiff, and Attorney Jay Baker was present representing the
Defendant.
In the Motion to Compel, the Plaintiff maintains that the Defendant should be required to
produce any surveillance materials in response to the Plaintiff’s requests for production. The
Plaintiff argues that the surveillance materials are not protected by the work-product doctrine and
surveillance materials are routinely discoverable following the deposition of a plaintiff, which in this

case has been completed. The Defendant responds that the Plaintiff’s argument hinges on the
assumption that the surveillance material will be used at trial, but the Defendant will not use any
surveillance material at trial.
The Court has heard the parties’ positions during the telephone conference and considered
the parties’ filings, and the Court finds that the Motion to Compel is not well-taken. Counsel for the
Defendant has unequivocally confirmed that the Defendant will not use surveillance materials at the
trial of this matter. Accordingly, the Court ORDERS that the Defendant is prohibited from using
any surveillance materials, directly or indirectly, for any purpose or in any form, at the trial of this
matter. Because the Defendant will not use these materials at trial, the Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel
is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
ENTER:
s/ C. Clifford Shirley, Jr.
United States Magistrate Judge

2