SURFACE TRANSPORTATION BOARD DECISION DOCUMENT
    Decision Information

Docket Number:  
NOR_42149_0

Case Title:  
RICHARD BEST TRANSFER, INC. V. UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY

Decision Type:  
Decision

Deciding Body:  
Director Of Proceedings

    Decision Summary

Decision Notes:  
DECISION ADOPTED A PROCEDURAL SCHEDULE FOR THIS PROCEEDING.

    Decision Attachments

23 KB


Approximate download time at 28.8 kb: 21 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

45607 SERVICE DATE – LATE RELEASE DECEMBER 22, 2016

DO

 

SURFACE TRANSPORTATION BOARD

 

DECISION

 

Docket No. NOR 42149

 

RICHARD BEST TRANSFER, INC. v. UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY

 

Decided: December 22, 2016

 

On November 3, 2016, Richard Best Transfer, Inc. (RBT), a transloading company, filed a complaint and a petition for a preliminary injunction with regard to certain revisions made by Union Pacific Railroad Company (UP) to UP Tariff 4053-C. RBT states that these tariff revisions would increase rates to its Ivory, Cal. transloading facility by $250 per car. RBT alleges in its complaint that these tariff revisions constitute an unreasonable practice in violation of 49 U.S.C.  10702 and unreasonable discrimination in violation of 49 U.S.C.  10701(b) and 10741.[1] In its petition for preliminary injunction, RBT sought to enjoin UP from implementing the revisions, which were effective November 1, 2016.

 

On November 8, 2016, the Board issued an order requiring UP to reply to the petition for preliminary injunction on an expedited schedule. On November 16, 2016, UP filed its reply to the petition, and on November 23, 2016, UP filed its answer to the complaint. On December 12, 2016, the parties filed a joint report on their procedural conference and a request to adopt a procedural schedule.

 

The parties substantially agree on the procedural schedule, but disagree about when the procedural schedule should begin. RBT argues that the procedural schedule should be calculated from the date the Board rules on RBT’s petition for preliminary injunction, while UP argues that the procedural schedule should begin immediately. (Joint Report 2.) The parties also state that they “have agreed to defer the issue of post-evidentiary briefing” at this time. (Id.)

 

Because the Board, concurrently with this decision, has served a decision denying RBT’s petition for preliminary injunction in this proceeding, the parties’ disagreement as to whether the procedural schedule should begin before or after a decision on the petition is moot. The Board therefore adopts the procedural schedule outlined below, which is consistent with the schedule proposed by the parties. This schedule is also consistent with the Board’s prior practices and procedures. Although the schedule does not require the parties to file final briefs, the Board may order final briefs at a later time if it believes they are necessary based on the development of the evidentiary record.

 

The following procedural schedule is adopted:

March 22, 2017

Completion of discovery

May 8, 2017

RBT’s opening evidence and argument

June 20, 2017

UP’s reply evidence and argument

July 20, 2017

RBT’s rebuttal

 

It is ordered:

 

1. The procedural schedule described above is adopted.

 

2. This decision is effective on its service date.

 

By the Board, Rachel D. Campbell, Director, Office of Proceedings.

 



[1] RBT also states that it brings its complaint under 49 U.S.C.  10704 and 11701, but it does not make any specific allegations under those sections of the code.