Ball v. Metro-North Commuter Railroad

Background

Charles J. Ball alleged that he suffered serious and disabling injuries on February 24, 2019, when he received an electrical shock from a live cable while working as a third-rail electrician for Metro-North Commuter Railroad (MNR) at Grand Central Terminal. He brought negligence claims under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act. MNR denied negligence and asserted that Ball’s own negligence caused his injuries because he ignored a warning tag on the cable. MNR fired Ball after an internal disciplinary hearing at which two coworkers, Peter Famularo and Stephen Jost, testified that warning tags were visible.

During discovery, Ball advanced an alternative theory that Famularo, Jost, and possibly others intentionally set him up to be electrocuted because they viewed him as a chronic whistleblower. Ball argued that MNR could be liable for negligently failing to supervise coworkers who allegedly had a propensity for such conduct. The parties agreed that Ball could pursue that theory and that he would need to show MNR had prior knowledge of the coworkers’ relevant propensity.

Ball served a discovery request containing 181 items. MNR objected to many requests as irrelevant, overbroad, burdensome, or otherwise improper. The parties resolved some disputes, and the court had already ruled on others during a November 20, 2023 discovery conference. The remaining disputes were presented in an approximately 80-page chart.

Legal standard

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b), discovery may cover nonprivileged information relevant to a claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case. The court considered factors including the importance of the issues, the amount at stake, the parties’ access to information, the importance of the discovery, and its burden or expense. Ball, as the party seeking discovery, had the initial burden to show relevance and proportionality.

Rulings on discovery

The court stated that 65 of the 181 requests were no longer disputed, withdrawn, or duplicative. For Request No. 22, concerning mitigation-of-damages documents, MNR had agreed to respond after Ball’s deposition, and the court directed MNR to respond within 30 days after that deposition.

The court adhered to its earlier denial of requests concerning Richard Ranallo, finding that the incident involving Ranallo was unrelated to Ball and that Ranallo had left MNR before the 2019 incident. The court also denied Ball’s request to revisit limits placed on Requests Nos. 30-32 and Requests Nos. 35-36, while requiring MNR to search for and produce specified records concerning Ball’s complaints about Famularo or Jost and certain targeted labor, disciplinary, and regulatory records.

The court required MNR to produce Ball’s medical records obtained through authorizations Ball gave to MNR’s in-house lawyer or outside counsel, if those records had not already been produced. For several requests, the court relied on MNR counsel’s representations that reasonable searches had been conducted and responsive records had been produced or could not be found. However, counsel had to reconsider Ball’s explanations for why additional records might exist and report to the court within 14 days whether MNR stood by those representations. For the original “Do Not Operate” tags, MNR had to provide a sworn statement from, or allow Ball to depose, a witness with personal knowledge of the search for the tags and why they were unavailable.

MNR was ordered to produce additional records within 30 days for Requests Nos. 7, 71-72, 100-02, 104, 107, 114, 147, and 174-77. For requests concerning MNR employees’ files, emails, and records, the court narrowed the requests but required reasonable searches dating back to November 2015. The searches had to cover incidents, allegations, or complaints involving Ball, Famularo, or Jost; statements, animus, threats, or hostility toward Ball; and information concerning workplace violence, threatening or assaultive behavior, disregard for employee safety, or unsafe work practices or supervision. The court applied similar limits to records concerning supervisor Matt Kruger.

The court required targeted records about the “Al Guadalupe” incident, generally directing MNR to produce documents showing the incident’s basic facts, any disciplinary proceeding, and the witnesses who testified. Ball could then make relevant and proportional follow-up requests. MNR also had to produce records concerning Ball’s return to work and medical issues after the 2019 incident from Helen Maldonado’s files, but it did not have to search her records more broadly for information about Famularo or Jost.

The court rejected broad requests involving generalized workplace issues, unrelated complaints, records concerning certain remote incidents, and requests for files of individuals or supervisors not sufficiently connected to the 2019 incident. It required production of records concerning specified incidents involving Ball, Famularo, or Jost, but limited discovery concerning an older discrimination complaint to statements or testimony provided by Famularo. MNR did not have to provide further responses to requests assuming that MNR had failed to provide Ball with personal protective equipment, because MNR disputed that premise and had responded to separate, broader requests about protective-equipment policies and instructions.

The court also rejected Ball’s demand that MNR identify the precise pages containing information responsive to document requests. For Ball’s requests concerning complaints to the Federal Railroad Administration, MNR had to make reasonable inquiries to determine whether responsive records could be located. MNR also had to produce qualifying complaints Ball made about Famularo dating back to November 2015, but Ball had not shown that complaints against other individuals were relevant and proportional. Requests for broad policies and procedures were denied because they were unclear and overbroad. MNR had to provide the address of Mike Allen, whom Ball identified as a former employee, because Ball might need the address to serve a subpoena.

Disposition and schedule

Magistrate Judge Gary Stein granted in part and denied in part Ball’s motion to compel, to the extent described in the order. The order did not decide whether MNR was ultimately liable for Ball’s injuries. It set deadlines requiring MNR to make specified representations within 14 days, complete specified document production within 30 days, and complete fact discovery by August 14, 2024. The order also set deadlines for expert disclosures and pre-motion letters concerning possible summary judgment. The clerk was directed to terminate the motions pending at docket numbers 45 and 47.