Association of American Railroads et al. v. Lefton

Background

The defendants filed a letter motion asking the court to compel the Association of American Railroads (AAR) to respond to Requests for Production Nos. 8 and 10. The requests sought documents about nationwide incidents involving waste spilling from open-top railcars. AAR objected that the requests were unduly burdensome and overly broad, including because they sought information about incidents outside New York.

AAR had produced discovery about New York incidents involving open-top railcars. The defendants sought information about incidents in other states because they argued it could show the practical effects of New York’s Waste by Rail Law and whether the law would reduce objects or waste falling from railcars. Because the law had not been enforced in New York, the defendants intended to rely on expert testimony about its expected effects based on incidents elsewhere.

Court’s Analysis

The defendants argued that the requested discovery was relevant to the State’s position that the Waste by Rail Law is not preempted by a savings provision in the Federal Railroad Safety Act. AAR argued that the preemption analysis focuses on information before the legislature when it enacted the law. The court concluded that the requested discovery was relevant because preemption case law can consider a challenged law’s practical effects, including how the law would affect railroad safety if enforced.

AAR also argued that the defendants could use information in a public database operated by the Federal Railroad Administration. The defendants responded that the database does not contain every potential incident because an incident must meet a monetary threshold before it must be reported. The court also noted that the defendants sought information from only seven Class I railroads, rather than from regional or short-line railroads.

The court rejected AAR’s burden objection at this stage because there was no concrete evidence showing the difficulty or cost of producing the records. AAR acknowledged that it did not know how difficult obtaining the requested discovery would be and had not determined whether the relevant railroads maintained responsive records.

Ruling

Judge Valerie Figueredo directed AAR to respond to Requests for Production Nos. 8 and 10. The order resolved the discovery dispute; it did not decide whether the Waste by Rail Law is preempted by federal law.