Carlson v. BNSF Railway Company

Background

Jason Carlson brought claims against BNSF Railway Company under the Federal Employers Liability Act, Federal Railroad Safety Act, and Locomotive Inspection Act. The opinion states that Carlson was a BNSF conductor who was injured after allegedly experiencing “rough track.” BNSF contended that it terminated Carlson for dishonesty because he falsified his injury report.

Carlson disclosed that he expected to call experts in medicine, railroad operations, and economics. BNSF disclosed experts in those fields and a vocational expert. Magistrate Judge David T. Schultz issued a scheduling order limiting each party to 50 document requests and one testifying expert, then amended the order to permit up to four expert witnesses for each party.

Carlson moved to compel discovery, seeking additional document requests and comparator data from BNSF’s Employee Performance Tracking System. On May 28, 2020, Judge Schultz granted in part and denied in part that motion. He ordered BNSF to produce responsive information for similar employees in the Twin Cities Division who complained about track safety or unsafe workplace conditions, and for employees charged with one or more of the same rule violations as Carlson.

Carlson also moved to modify the scheduling order. He argued that a treating physician’s recommendation for surgery and his subsequent furlough by Canadian Pacific Railway Company could make a vocational rehabilitation expert and an economist necessary. On June 4, 2020, Judge Schultz issued a second amended scheduling order allowing 10 additional document requests but not allowing additional expert witnesses.

Analysis

The district court reviewed the magistrate judge’s nondispositive rulings under an extremely deferential standard. It could overturn those rulings only if they were clearly erroneous or contrary to law. A ruling is clearly erroneous when the reviewing court, after considering the entire record, is firmly convinced that a mistake was made. A ruling is contrary to law when it fails to apply or misapplies relevant law or procedural rules.

The court rejected Carlson’s argument that the document-request limit was unlawful. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(2)(C) permits a court, on a motion or on its own, to limit discovery in specified circumstances, including when discovery is cumulative, unnecessarily burdensome, or outside the permitted scope. The court concluded that Judge Schultz properly exercised his discretion in limiting document requests.

The court also rejected Carlson’s challenge to the expert-witness limit. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b)(4), a scheduling order may be modified only for good cause and with the judge’s consent. The court concluded that Judge Schultz applied the correct legal standards and carefully considered Carlson’s motion. The June 4 scheduling order was therefore not clearly erroneous or contrary to law.

Finally, the court upheld the geographic limit on comparator data. It explained that nationwide comparator data may be available when a party shows a particular need for it. The court concluded that Carlson’s argument for nationwide data was inconsistent with controlling Eighth Circuit authority, which states that a national employment policy and corporate-level review do not necessarily justify nationwide comparator information.

Disposition

The court affirmed the magistrate judge’s May 28, 2020 order and June 4, 2020 Second Amended Scheduling Order. The opinion addressed discovery and scheduling issues; it did not decide the underlying claims under the Federal Employers Liability Act, Federal Railroad Safety Act, or Locomotive Inspection Act.