Kansas City S. Ry. Co v. Lone Star R.R. Contractors, Inc.
Kansas City S. Ry. Co v. Lone Star R.R. Contractors, Inc.
2018 WL 11373528 (N.D. Tex. 2018)
March 21, 2018
Toliver, Renee H., United States Magistrate Judge
Summary
Lone Star Rail Contractors, Inc. and RailPros Field Services, Inc. were involved in a train derailment in December 2014. RailPros filed a motion to compel Plaintiff to produce a corporate representative to testify regarding disciplinary action taken by Plaintiff against its employees in connection with the Incident. The Court granted the motion in part, ordering Plaintiff to submit a Rule 30(b)(6) designee to testify regarding disciplinary action taken by Plaintiff against its employees in connection with the Incident.
THE KANSAS CITY SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY, Plaintiff,
v.
LONE STAR RAILROAD CONTRACTORS, INC., Defendant/Third-Party Plaintiff,
v.
RAILPROS FIELD SERVICES, INC., Third-Party Defendant
v.
LONE STAR RAILROAD CONTRACTORS, INC., Defendant/Third-Party Plaintiff,
v.
RAILPROS FIELD SERVICES, INC., Third-Party Defendant
Civil Action No. 3:16-CV-1260-S
United States District Court, N.D. Texas, Dallas Division
Signed March 21, 2018
Toliver, Renee H., United States Magistrate Judge
ORDER
*1 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and District Judge Fitzwater's Order of Reference, Doc. 50, Defendant RailPros Field Services, Inc.’s Motion to Compel KCSR's Deposition, Doc. 48, has been referred to the undersigned for a determination. For the reasons stated herein, Defendant's motion is GRANTED IN PART.
A. Background
This civil action arises from a train derailment in December 2014 (the “Incident”). In its Third Amended Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that in 2011, it entered into an agreement with Lone Star Rail Contractors, Inc. (“Lone Star”), wherein Lone Star agreed to re-lay rail on Plaintiff's track and “indemnify and hold harmless [Plaintiff] for any personal injuries or property damage connected to Lone Star's work.” Doc. 31 at 3. The agreement also required Lone Star to provide a “flagman” who was responsible for, inter alia, determining when a track switch could be opened or closed. Doc. 31 at 4. Plaintiff further alleges that Lone Star hired RailPros Field Services, Inc. (“RailPros”) to provide the flagman. Doc. 31 at 4.
According to Plaintiff, on the day of the Incident, Lone Star's flagman failed to close a track switch, which led to the derailment and caused $542,997.20 in property damage. Doc. 31 at 5, 6. It also resulted in one of the engineers on the derailed train, Terry Pratt, filing a personal injury lawsuit against Plaintiff, Lone Star, and RailPros. Doc. 31 at 5.
Despite Plaintiff's requests, Lone Star refused to indemnify and reimburse Plaintiff for the property damage or its costs defending against Pratt's lawsuit. Doc. 31 at 5. Plaintiff asserts claims against (1) Lone Star for breach of the indemnification agreement, and (2) RailPros for its flagman's alleged negligence. Doc. 31 at 6-9. Lone Star has also filed a third-party complaint against RailPros stemming from its flagman's alleged negligence.[1] See Doc. 15.
In December 2017, RailPros served on Plaintiff a notice to depose its corporate representative on various topics, including:
4. Disciplinary action taken by KCSR against any of its employees in connection with any aspect of the Incident, including but not limited to any actions taken against Tylon Jones, Terry Pratt, Christopher Fields, and/or J.D. Reynolds.
Doc. 49 at 3-7. Without objection, Plaintiff designated Jerry Duncan as a witness for this topic. Doc. 49 at 8. At the deposition, however, Duncan stated he was not prepared to answer questions on the topic and RailPros alleges that he “refused to provide any substantive information on this topic” or state what specifically led Plaintiff to terminate Pratt and Kelly Wheeler, the conductors operating the derailed train. Doc. 48 at 2; see Doc. 49 at 11, 12, 14-15.
In January 2018, RailPros served on Plaintiff another notice to depose its corporate representative on various topics, including:
*2 11. The reasons why KCSR rehired Terry Pratt, Terry Pratt's current job status, whether the decision to rehire Pratt was related to a settlement, and what procedures were followed in rehiring Pratt.
Doc. 49 at 16-20. In response to this topic, Plaintiff objected to “producing a witness to discuss Pratt[’s] discipline in more detail than has already been done.” Doc. 49 at 21. On January 29, 2018, RailPros filed the instant motion, asking that the Court order Plaintiff to produce a corporate representative to testify regarding
a. Disciplinary action taken by KCSR against any of its employees in connection with any aspect of the Incident, including but not limited to any actions taken against Tylon Jones, Terry Pratt, Christopher Fields, J.D. Reynolds, and Kelly Wheeler; and
b. The reasons why KCSR rehired Terry Pratt and Kelly Wheeler, Pratt's and Wheeler's current job status, whether the decision to rehire Pratt and Wheeler was related to a settlement, and what procedures were followed in rehiring Pratt and/or Wheeler.
(the “First Topic” and “Second Topic,” respectively) Doc. 48 at 4.
B. Applicable Law
Unless otherwise limited by the Court, Rule 26(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure states that
[p]arties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party's claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case, considering the importance of the issues at stake in the action, the amount in controversy, the parties’ relative access to relevant information, the parties’ resources, the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues, and whether the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit. Information within this scope of discovery need not be admissible in evidence to be discoverable.
FED. R. CIV. P. 26(b)(1). Under Rule 30(b)(6), a litigant may direct a notice of deposition to a corporation, which must then designate one or more officers, directors, or other persons to testify on its behalf about information known or reasonably available to the corporation. FED. R. CIV. P. 30(b)(6). The rule streamlines the discovery process and places the burden of identifying responsive witnesses for a corporation on the corporation, which appears vicariously through its designee. Resolution Tr. Corp. v. S. Union Co., 985 F.2d 196, 197 (5th Cir. 1993). If the designee is not knowledgeable about relevant facts, and the corporation has failed to designate an available, knowledgeable witness, then the appearance is essentially no appearance at all, and sanctions may be imposed. Id.
C. Analysis
1. The First Topic
Despite the fact that Plaintiff designated Duncan to testify as a Rule 30(b)(6) witness on the First Topic, he admitted at that deposition that he was not prepared to do so. Doc. 49 at 11-14. Thus, Plaintiff essentially failed to designate a witness on that topic. Resolution Tr. Corp., 985 F.2d at 197. Indeed, Plaintiff does not even attempt to argue that Duncan's testimony regarding the First Topic was adequate, and fails to address the fact that it never objected to the First Topic before the deposition. See Doc. 63. The objections that Plaintiff now raises in its response regarding the First Topic are untimely. See Orchestratehr, Inc. v. Trombetta, No. 3:13-CV-2110-P-BN, 2015 WL 11120526, at *2 (N.D. Tex. July 15, 2015) (Horan, J.) (“A party cannot fail to raise objections to Rule 30(b)(6) deposition notices, present a representative to testify on those topics, and then later raise objections to the scope or propriety of the topics.”).
*3 Furthermore, the First Topic seeks relevant, discoverable information. Any disciplinary action Plaintiff took against its own employees related to the Incident is significant to the claim it asserts in this lawsuit that RailPros’ flagman negligently caused the Incident. FED. R. CIV. P. 26(b)(1). Accordingly, RailPros’ motion to compel is granted as to the First Topic. See Brazos River Auth. v. GE Ionics, Inc., 469 F.3d 416, 433 (5th Cir. 2006) (“If it becomes obvious that the deposition representative designated by the corporation is deficient, the corporation is obligated to provide a substitute.”).
2. The Second Topic
RailPros has failed, however, to demonstrate that the information sought by the Second Topic is relevant and proportional to the needs of the case. RailPros argues that information concerning Pratt's re-hiring is relevant because it will “demonstrate that [Plaintiff] applies its rules and procedures in an uneven manner relating to job-site safety and rule violations” and “speaks to [Plaintiff's] commitment to job site safety and its enforcement of rules violations.” Doc. 48 at 3, 4. Yet, the information sought has, at best, a tenuous connection to the claims and defenses alleged in this case, i.e., which party bears the fault for the Incident, and, thus, is not relevant or proportional to the needs of the case. FED. R. CIV. P. 26(b)(1). Accordingly, RailPros’ motion is denied as to the Second Topic.
D. Conclusion
For the reasons stated herein, Defendant RailPros Field Services, Inc.’s Motion to Compel KCSR's Deposition, Doc. 48, is GRANTED IN PART. Plaintiff is ORDERED to submit a Rule 30(b)(6) designee to testify regarding disciplinary action taken by KCSR against any of its employees in connection with any aspect of the Incident, including but not limited to any actions taken against Tylon Jones, Terry Pratt, Christopher Fields, J.D. Reynolds, and Kelly Wheeler. The deposition shall be conducted at a time and place mutually agreed by the parties, but no later than May 4, 2018. In all other respects, the Motion is DENIED.
SO ORDERED on March 21, 2018.