Douglas v. National Railroad Passenger Corporation

Filing 22

ORDER Denying Defendant's 9 Motion for a Protective Order, signed by Judge Benjamin H. Settle. (GMR)

1
2
3
4
5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT TACOMA

6
7
8

MEGAN DOUGLAS,

CASE NO. C18-5451 BHS
Plaintiff,

9
10

v.

ORDER DENYING
DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR A
PROTECTIVE ORDER

NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER
CORPORATION, d/b/a AMTRAK,

11
Defendant.
12
13
14
15
16

This matter comes before the Court on Defendant National Railroad Passenger
Corporation’s (“Amtrak”) motion for a protective order. Dkt. 9. The Court has
considered the pleadings filed in support of and in opposition to the motion and the
remainder of the file and hereby denies the motion for the reasons stated herein.

17
18

I.

PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL BACKGROUND

On December 18, 2018, Plaintiff Megan Douglas (“Douglas”) boarded Amtrak

19

Train No. 501 originating in Seattle, WA. About 40 miles south of Seattle, the train

20

entered a corner at a high rate of speed and derailed. On June 7, 2018, Douglas filed a

21

complaint against Amtrak. Dkt. 1. Douglas asserts claims for negligence and a violation

22

ORDER - 1

1

of Washington’s Consumer Protection Act, RCW Chapter 19.86 (“CPA”), and seeks “all

2

economic and non-economic damages along with all compensatory, pecuniary and

3

exemplary damages.” Id. ¶ 6.1.

4

On July 16, 2018, Amtrak answered and conceded that it “will not contest liability

5

for compensatory damages proximately caused by the derailment of Train 501 on

6

December 18, 2017.” Dkt. 8, ¶ 4.3.

7

On August 22, 2018, Amtrak filed a motion for a protective order. Dkt. 9.

8

Amtrak seeks an order that limits discovery to compensatory damages or, in the

9

alternative, defers discovery until after the National Transportation Safety Board

10

(“NTSB”) issues its final report on the accident. Id. On August 29, 2018, Douglas

11

responded. Dkt. 15. On August 31, 2019, Amtrak replied. Dkt. 17. On October 11,

12

2018, Douglas filed a supplemental declaration and a letter from the Office of the

13

General Counsel for the NTSB regarding the disclosure of investigative information

14

(“NTSB Letter”). Dkt. 21.

15
16

II. DISCUSSION
“Parties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant

17

to any party’s claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case.” Fed. R. Civ. P.

18

26(b)(1). However, “the court must limit the frequency or extent of discovery [if] . . . the

19

proposed discovery is outside the scope permitted by Rule 26(b)(1).” Fed. R. Civ. P.

20

26(b)(2)(C). “The court may, for good cause, issue an order to protect a party from . . .

21

undue burden or expense.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)(1). When a defendant admits liability

22

for all damages caused to a plaintiff, the court may limit discovery to damages. See

ORDER - 2

1

Broncel v. H & R Transp., Ltd., 2011 WL 319822, (E.D. Cal. Jan. 28, 2011) (holding that

2

plaintiff was not entitled to depose defendant Wilson because defendants had already

3

admitted liability); Ayat v. Societe Air France, 2008 WL 114936, (N.D. Cal. Jan. 8, 2008)

4

(holding further discovery into liability not warranted because defendant did not contest

5

liability and only asserted three affirmative defenses, all related to damages).

6

In this case, Amtrak’s “discovery” motion is a thinly veiled motion for dispositive

7

relief. For example, Amtrak argues that the Court should apply “Washington law to the

8

issue of punitive damages and no discovery on this topic should be permitted.” Dkt. 9 at

9

10–11. Choice of law, however, is an issue in this case, and Douglas has shown that

10

some authority exists for the Court to allow punitive damages under another jurisdiction’s

11

law. See Dkt. 15 at 9–11. To the extent punitive damages is an issue in this case,

12

discovery related to this issue is relevant, and Amtrak may only obtain a protective order

13

if it establishes that the requested discovery is disproportional to the needs of the case,

14

otherwise unduly burdensome or unnecessarily expensive, or lacks importance to the

15

issues at stake. Amtrak has failed to show that any of these circumstances warrant a

16

limitation on relevant discovery. The same is true of Amtrak’s attempt to limit discovery

17

related to comparative fault and Douglas’s CPA claim. Therefore, the Court denies

18

Amtrak’s motion for a protective order on the relevance of certain discovery.

19

Amtrak also seeks a stay of some discovery until the NTSB issues its final report.

20

Dkt. 9 at 12. However, according to the NTSB Letter, Amtrak may disclose some

21

information as long as it is subject to a protective order as explained in the letter. See

22

NTSB Letter (“the NTSB no longer objects to disclosing some of the information

ORDER - 3

1

requested as long as a protective order is in place”). Amtrak should produce this

2

information in due course. Regarding other information, the NTSB directed Amtrak not

3

to produce some information pursuant to its investigative hold. Amtrak should produce a

4

privilege log of documents under hold and produce that log in due course. In any event,

5

Amtrak has failed to show good cause for a stay of discovery pending the NTSB issuing a

6

final report.

7
8
9
10

III. ORDER
Therefore, it is hereby ORDERED that Amtrak’s motion for a protective order,
Dkt. 9, is DENIED.
Dated this 18th day of October, 2018.

A

11
12

BENJAMIN H. SETTLE
United States District Judge

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22

ORDER - 4