Jackson v. Union Pacific Railroad Co.

Background

The court held a telephonic informal dispute-resolution conference on June 23, 2021, concerning two ongoing discovery disputes. Union Pacific Railroad Co. challenged Carl Jackson’s refusal to provide his tax returns. Jackson challenged Union Pacific’s proposed limits on his upcoming deposition of Dr. Laura Gillis, Union Pacific’s current medical director. The court ruled on both issues during the conference and issued this order to provide a more detailed record. Union Pacific’s counsel advised that the company intended to appeal both decisions to the district judge.

Tax returns

Union Pacific sought Jackson’s tax returns to assess his income and challenge the damages he claimed from his termination. Jackson’s counsel stated that Jackson had already provided all of his W-2 forms and 1099 forms and had offered access to records documenting disability benefits. Counsel also stated, as an officer of the court, that Jackson had no other income. Jackson opposed producing the returns because he alleged they contained substantial private information that was not relevant to the case.

The court concluded that Jackson did not need to disclose his tax returns. It found no basis to conclude that Jackson or his counsel had withheld relevant income information, and no indication that the information already provided or offered was inaccurate or incomplete. The court also determined that the tax returns could reveal personal and irrelevant information and, at most, would duplicate existing discovery. Relying on Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(2)(C)(i), the court declined to order their disclosure.

Deposition questions

Jackson alleged that Union Pacific wrongly removed him from work under its fitness-for-duty policy. He sought to ask Dr. Gillis about whether Union Pacific had allowed other employees with similar conditions to return to work while improperly keeping Jackson from returning. Union Pacific sought an advance ruling preventing questioning about those other employees, arguing that comparator evidence would require additional discovery to rebut.

The court declined to preclude Jackson’s counsel from asking about the small number of relevant cases counsel knew about involving employees removed from service for arguably similar reasons and later allowed to return. The court explained that Union Pacific had not argued that the questions would reveal privileged information or serve an improper purpose. It also stated that relevance objections at depositions are generally disfavored and that the proposed topic was relevant and proportional under Rule 26(b)(1). Allowing the questions did not automatically require additional document discovery or production of additional records.

Disposition

The court declined to order Jackson to disclose his tax returns and declined to preclude questioning about the identified comparable employees during Dr. Gillis’s deposition. The order addressed discovery only and did not decide the underlying employment dispute.