Brewer v. BNSF Ry. Co.
Brewer v. BNSF Ry. Co.
2016 WL 11219144 (D. Mont. 2016)
January 12, 2016
Johnston, John, United States Magistrate Judge
Summary
The court denied Plaintiff David Brewer's Second Motion to Compel Depositions, finding that he had failed to present evidence that Defendant BNSF or its counsel had destroyed emails or other Electronically Stored Information. The court indicated it would revisit the issues if Mr. Brewer had evidence of deleted relevant evidence, but he failed to present such evidence.
Additional Decisions
David BREWER, Plaintiff,
v.
BNSF RAILWAY COMPANY, a Delaware Corporation, Defendant
v.
BNSF RAILWAY COMPANY, a Delaware Corporation, Defendant
CV 14-65-GF-BMM-JTJ
United States District Court, D. Montana, Great Falls Division
Signed January 12, 2016
Counsel
William G. Jungbauer, Christopher W. Bowman, John D. Magnuson, Yaeger & Jungbauer Barristers, PLC, St. Paul, MN, for Plaintiff.Benjamin O. Rechtfertig, Michelle T. Friend, Hedger Friend, Billings, MT, for Defendant.
Johnston, John, United States Magistrate Judge
ORDER
*1 Presently before the Court is Plaintiff David Brewer’s second motion to compel depositions, through which he seeks an order: (1) requiring Defendant BNSF to produce James Obermiller for a deposition; (2) requiring Mr. Obermiller to bring a railroad computer to the deposition so he can search for information during the deposition; (3) allowing Mr. Brewer to take depositions pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(6) of BNSF’s Manager of Corporate Policies, Compliance, and Records, of an individual with knowledge regarding BNSF’s record retention policy, and of an individual with knowledge of, and direct access to, the names, types, and locations of electronic storage systems or devices or media that host, contain, or store electronically stored information (ESI); (4) requiring BNSF to fully comply with a forensic ESI inspection of the railroad’s computers and databases; and (5) imposing the costs for such ESI inspection on BNSF. (Doc. 71.)
With respect to Mr. Brewer’s fourth and fifth requests, BNSF and its counsel, like Mr. Brewer and his counsel, are obligated to comply with the rules of discovery. Mr. Brewer has failed to establish that BNSF or its counsel has destroyed emails or other ESI. Therefore, Mr. Brewer’s fourth and fifth requests are unwarranted and will be denied.
As to the depositions, while Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1)provides for broad discovery, Rule 26(b)(2)(C) authorizes the Court to limit discovery if the discovery sought is duplicative or can be obtained from a more convenient source, if the burden or expense of obtaining the discovery outweighs its benefits, or if the discovery sought is not important to resolving the issues.
The undersigned has already ruled on BNSF’s motion for protective order with regard to the requested depositions. (Doc. 81.) There is no reason for the Court to reconsider its order. As stated during the October 6, 2015 hearing, the undersigned is not convinced by Mr. Brewer’s claims that relevant emails were deleted or otherwise not produced. To the contrary, it appears to the Court that BNSF has produced the emails Brewer has requested and/or it has withheld certain emails from production after identifying them on a privilege log.
The undersigned has indicated that it will revisit the issues if Mr. Brewer has evidence of deleted relevant evidence. However, Mr. Brewer has again failed to present the Court with evidence of deleted relevant evidence, let alone “newly discovered evidence.” Absent such a showing,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Mr. Brewer’s Second Motion to Compel Depositions (Doc. 71) is DENIED.