Soo Line Railroad Company v. Travelers Indemnity Company, The

Background

This order concerns Travelers’ motion to compel discovery and extend case deadlines. The underlying case is an insurance-coverage dispute about environmental contamination at the Shoreham Yard in Minneapolis, Minnesota. Soo Line alleged that spills and leaks connected to the yard’s operations caused soil and groundwater contamination and that it had paid approximately $50 million in losses and legal expenses as of December 31, 2016. Soo Line sought coverage from Travelers, and Travelers brought Continental into the case, contending that Continental was liable for part of the coverage period under another policy.

Discovery standards

The court explained that discovery generally includes nonprivileged information relevant to a claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case. Information does not have to be admissible at trial to be discoverable. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37, a party may ask the court to order another party to provide an answer, identify information, produce documents, or permit inspection.

Discovery rulings

For Interrogatory Nos. 5 and 7, which concerned Soo Line’s past legal expenses and anticipated future costs, Soo Line had agreed to supplement its responses before Travelers filed the motion. The court found that the remaining dispute was premature and denied Travelers’ motion without prejudice as to those interrogatories.

For Interrogatory No. 10, Travelers sought information about people, schedules, and documents involved in Canadian Pacific Railway Ltd.’s regulatory statements concerning environmental liabilities. The court found that general information about environmental liabilities across many properties was of minimal value and disproportionate to this case. But the court found relevant any schedules or documents specifically concerning the Shoreham Yard that were relied on in preparing those statements. The court therefore granted Travelers’ motion in part and ordered Soo Line to supplement its response to that extent. The court otherwise denied the motion as to Interrogatory No. 10.

For Interrogatory Nos. 12 and 17 and Document Request No. 38, Travelers sought notices, reports, and updates Soo Line provided to other insurers about contamination, investigation, and cleanup at the Shoreham Yard. The court found this information relevant to what Soo Line knew and when, whether it adequately notified Travelers, whether the contamination involved one or multiple events, and other issues in Travelers’ defenses. The court granted the motion as to these requests.

For Interrogatory No. 21 and Request for Production No. 11, Travelers sought information about insurance policies purchased by Soo Line and its predecessors, including periods when there was no insurance coverage. The court found the information relevant to allocating costs among insurers and Soo Line. The court concluded that the beginning and end of the relevant allocation period had not yet been decided and that Soo Line could not at that stage establish that information from before 1944 was irrelevant. The court granted the motion as to these requests.

For Interrogatory No. 19, Travelers sought the factual and documentary bases for Soo Line’s position that the contamination resulted from one “occurrence” under the Travelers policies. Because Soo Line had provided a narrative but had not identified supporting documents, the court required a complete response identifying the documents then supporting its position. The court noted that Soo Line could later supplement its response with expert information. The court granted the motion as to Interrogatory No. 19.

Scheduling ruling

Travelers also sought a 120-day extension of the existing pretrial deadlines because document production had taken longer than expected. The court found good cause based on production challenges involving the age and type of documents and metadata. It granted the requested 120-day extension in its entirety and directed that an amended pretrial scheduling order issue.

The court declined Travelers’ requests to require Soo Line to complete supplementation within 14 days and to convene a status conference to set a firm production deadline. The court stated that the parties were best positioned to manage the timing of production and supplementation.

Order

The court ordered that Travelers’ Motion to Compel Discovery and to Extend Case Deadlines was GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART as described above. Each party was ordered to bear its own costs and attorney fees. The order also stated that prior consistent orders remained in effect and listed possible remedies for noncompliance, including costs, sanctions, limits on evidence, striking pleadings, dismissal with prejudice, and default judgment.