SURFACE TRANSPORTATION BOARD DECISION DOCUMENT
    Decision Information

Docket Number:  
NOR_42144_0

Case Title:  
NORTH AMERICA FREIGHT CAR ASSOCIATION; AMERICAN FUEL & PETROCHEMICALS MANUFACTURERS; THE CHLORINE INSTITUTE; THE FERTILIZER INSTITUTE; AMERICAN CHEMISTRY COUNCIL; ETHANOL PRODUCTS, LLC D/B/A POET ETHANOL PRODUCTS; POET NUTRITION, INC.; AND CARGILL INCORPORATED V. UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY

Decision Type:  
Decision

Deciding Body:  
Administrative Law Judge

    Decision Summary

Decision Notes:  
DECISION DENIED A REQUEST TO SET DATES FOR THE CONCLUSION OF DISCOVERY.

    Decision Attachments

11 KB
27 KB

Approximate download time at 28.8 kb: 18 Seconds

Note:
If you do not have Acrobat Reader, or if you have problems reading our files with your current version of Acrobat Reader, the latest version of Acrobat Reader is available free at www.adobe.com.

    Full Text of Decision

45713                       SERVICE DATE – LATE RELEASE MARCH 3, 2017

ALJ

 

SURFACE TRANSPORTATION BOARD

 

ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR ESTABLISHMENT OF DISCOVERY END DATES AND ESTABLISHING BI-WEEKLY STATUS REPORTS

 

Docket No. NOR 42144

 

NORTH AMERICA FREIGHT CAR ASSOCIATION; AMERICAN FUEL & PETROCHEMICALS MANUFACTURERS; THE CHLORINE INSTITUTE; THE FERTILIZER INSTITUTE; AMERICAN CHEMISTRY COUNCIL; ETHANOL PRODUCTS, LLC D/B/A POET ETHANOL PRODUCTS; POET NUTRITION, INC.; AND CARGILL INCORPORATED v. UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY

 

Decided:  March 2, 2017

 

On February 7, 2017, North America Freight Car Association, American Fuel & Petrochemicals Manufacturers, The Chlorine Institute, Inc., The Fertilizer Institute, and American Chemistry Council, along with Ethanol Products, LLC d/b/a POET Ethanol Products, POET Nutrition, Inc., and Cargill Incorporated (collectively, Complainants) submitted a Status Report to the Administrative Law Judge and a Request for Establishment of Discovery End Dates in its proceeding against Union Pacific Railroad Company (UP). 

 

Complainants propose the following end dates for discovery:

 

February 28, 2017

Completion of Document Production

March 7, 2017

Production of Privilege Logs

March 17, 2017

Objections to Privilege Logs

March 31, 2017

Supplemental Production from Privilege Log Objections

April 14, 2017

Completion of Deposition Discovery

 

On February 22, 2017, UP filed a reply in opposition to Complainants’ Request for Establishment of Discovery End Dates.  UP argues, inter alia, that Complainants’ request to establish discovery end dates is premature, as UP is waiting for the Board to act on its recently submitted Motion to Consolidate this proceeding with recently filed actions by Valero Marketing and Supply Company et al., and Tesoro Refining & Marketing Company LLC, et al.  UP asserts that if the Board grants UP’s Motion to Consolidate, defining discovery end dates for this proceeding now would prove to be a wasted effort.  In its February 22, 2017 reply, UP provided a list of discovery requests that have yet to be completed.  These include document production from both the Complainants and UP, depositions of Complainants’ witnesses, Tank Owners discovery, and production of privilege logs.  UP argues that Complainants’ proposed end dates do not allow sufficient time for discovery to be completed. 

 

It is ordered:

 

1.      Based on the list and description of these outstanding discovery items, I hereby deny Complainants’ request that I set dates for the conclusion of discovery, as the request is premature.  As for Complainants’ concerns over UP’s request that the Board consolidate this proceeding with others, this has no bearing on my scheduling of discovery in this case.  Consideration of the impact on the instant case of other cases, which are not before me, is beyond my mandate from the Board.

 

2.      Additionally, I will now require a bi-weekly status report.  The first status report is due on March 16, 2017.  In this report, participants to this proceeding will provide to me the following information:

 

a.       The progress accomplished since the previous status report;

b.      any outstanding discovery concerns that remain;

c.       participants’ plans to address outstanding discovery; and,

d.      an estimate of time required for participants to address such concerns.  

 

3.      This decision is effective on its service date.

 

By the Board, John P. Dring, Administrative Law Judge.