Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-3_05-cv-00386/USCOURTS-azd-3_05-cv-00386-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

BNSF Railway Company; Matthew Kelly

McCauley; and Joel Frederick Briggs, 

Plaintiffs, 

vs.

The Honorable Delbert W. Ray, Sr., in

his capacity as the Chief and Presiding

Judge of the Hualapai Tribal; Jolene

Cooney, in her capacity as the Chief

Court Clerk of the Hualapai Tribal Court;

Jeanette Sullivan, Herbert Sullivan, Jr.

and Nicole Sullivan, individually and on

behalf of the heirs of decedents Jerome

W. Sullivan and Aralla M. Sullivan;

Nelson D. Sullivan, individually and on

behalf of the heirs of decedent Ean S.

Sinyella; and Augusta Sullivan and

Nelson D. Sullivan, individually and on

behalf of the heirs of decedent Trovell

K. Sullivan, 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-05-0386-PHX-DGC

CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER

On September 21, 2005, a Case Management Conference was held pursuant to

Rule 16(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The parties met before the conference

in accordance with Rule 26(f) and p rep ared a Case Management Report. The parties

disagree on the scope of discovery that should occur in this case. 

The parties informed the Court that the Tribal Defendants have filed a notice of

appeal regarding the Court’s denial of their motion to dismiss on sovereign immunity

Case 3:05-cv-00386-DGC Document 69 Filed 10/05/05 Page 1 of 7
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 2 -

grounds. Counsel for the Tribal Defendants stated that the tribe is willing to participate

in discovery during the pendency of the ap p eal, and will not argue at a later date that

discovery conducted while the appeal was pending does not apply to them or should be

reopened once the appeal is complete. Therefore, to the extent the Court permit s discovery

in t his order, all parties shall participate and all parties shall be bound by the discovery in

accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Plaintiff has brought an action seeking to enjoin Defendants from proceeding with

a lawsuit in tribal court. The Court entered a preliminary injunction, concluding t hat the

tribal court lacked jurisdiction over the underlying tort case. See Doc. # 38. The Court’s

decision was based on Montana v. United States, 450 U.S. 544 (1981). Montana holds that

a tribe has no civil authority over non-tribal members for activities on reservation land

alienat ed to non-tribal members. The Ninth Circuit has held that the Montana rule applies

to activities occurring on a railroad right-of-way on reservation lands. See Burlington

Northern Railroad Co. v. Red Wolf, 196 F.3d 1059, 1063 (9th Cir. 1999). 

There are two excep t ions to the Montana rule. The Court concluded in its

preliminary injunction ruling t hat neither was likely to apply to this case. The first

exception applies when a non-tribal member has entered into a consensual relationship

with a tribe or its members. Id. at 1064. The second except ion applies when the conduct

of t he non-tribal member threatens or has some direct effect on the political integrity,

economic security, or health or welfare of the tribe. Montana, 450 U.S. at 566. The Court

concluded in its preliminary injunction ruling that this exception is narrow and likely will

not apply in this case.

The question to be decided today is whether Defendants should be permitted to

conduct discovery into facts that might bear on the application of t hese exceptions.

Plaintiff argues that no discovery is necessary – that the known facts are sufficient for the

Court to entertain and rule on a motion for summary judgment seeking a permanent

injunction. The Sullivan Defendants, plaintiffs in the underlying tort act ion, contend that

discovery should be permit t ed into facts relating to the Montana exceptions – the

Case 3:05-cv-00386-DGC Document 69 Filed 10/05/05 Page 2 of 7
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

 As explained during the hearing on Plaintiff’s preliminary injunction, the Court

views Fort Peck’s broad reading of the second Montana exception as inconsistent with

the Supreme Court’s and Ninth Circuit’s narrow interpretation of that exception in Strate

v. A-1 Contractors, 520 U.S. 438, 459 (1997), and Ford v. Todecheene, 394 F.3d 1170, 1183

(9t h Cir. 2005). Because Fort Peck is directly on point – it concerns the need for discovery

- 3 -

consensual relationship between Plaintiff and the tribe and the activities of Plaintiff which

might have an effect on the p olit ical int egrity, economic security, or health and welfare of

the tribe. The Tribal Defendants go further. They argue that discovery should be

permitted not only into the jurisdictional issues, but also into all aspect s of the underlying

tort case and t he railroad accident on which it is based. Only in the context of such full

discovery, the tribe argues, can the Court rule on Plaintiff’s request for a permanent

injunction.

The Court concludes that some discovery should be permitted, but not to the extent

advocated by Defendants. The Court will permit discovery on the following three topics.

First, discovery will be permitted into the nature and extent of Plaintiff’s right-of-way

across the tribe’s land. As the Ninth Circuit’s discussion in Red Wolf makes clear, t he

nat ure of the railroad’s property interest is relevant to a Montana analysis. See 196 F.3d

at 1062-63.

Second, discovery will be permitted into the nature of the contractual relationship

between Plaintiff and the tribe. This discovery may include the nature, terms, and duration

of any contracts or agreements between t he railroad and the tribe. Such discovery is

relevant to the first Montana exception, which considers the nature of consensual

relationships between the railroad and the tribe. 

Third, discovery will be permitted into the railroad’s p ot ent ial influence on the

political integrity, economic security, and health and welfare of the tribe. The Ninth Circuit

made clear in Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad Corp. v. Fort Peck, 323 F.3d 767

(9th Cir. 2003), that discovery into the second Montana exception should be permitted

before a district court rules on a railroad’s motion for summary judgment.1 The Ninth

Case 3:05-cv-00386-DGC Document 69 Filed 10/05/05 Page 3 of 7
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

before summary judgment in a case like this – the Court feels bound to follow it.

2

 Requiring the railroad to produce documents on the t hird topic – the number of

trains and cars crossing the reservation daily and yearly, the general contents of the cars,

the general nature of any hazardous materials contained in the cars, the frequency of

accident s or pollution occurring as a result of the railroad’s activity on tribal lands, and

similar information related to the potential impact of the railroad on the tribe – would

impose a substant ial burden and a scope of discovery beyond the requirements of this

case. For this reason, t he Court will not permit document production requests on this

topic. If the Court concludes, however, that Plaintiff has not been sufficiently forthcoming

in its responses to int errogatories, requests for admissions, and 30(b)(6) depositions on

this topic, it will consider permit t ing Defendants to serve document production requests.

- 4 -

Circuit also explained, however, that its ruling “does not require that the district court

permit wholesale discovery. Rat her, the district court may tailor limited discovery before

. . . entertaining a motion for summary judgment.” Id. at 775. Consistent with this holding,

the Court will p ermit Defendants to conduct limited discovery into the nature of the

railroad’s operations on tribal lands, as follows: the number of trains and cars crossing the

reservation daily and yearly, the general contents of the cars, the general nature of any

hazardous materials contained in the cars, the frequency of accidents or pollution

occurring as a result of the railroad’s activity on tribal lands, and similar information related

to the potential impact of the railroad on the tribe. 

Consistent wit h t he Court’s discretion under Fort Peck, discovery on the three

topics outlined above will be limited as follows: Defendants may serve a t ot al of no more

than 20 interrogatories including subparts and no more than 20 requests for admissions

including subparts. Document production requests will be limited to 5, including subparts,

and may concern only the first two topics outlined above – the nat ure of the railroad’s

property interest and the nature of contractual relationships between the railroad and the

tribe.2

 Defendants may conduct up to three depositions under Rule 30(b)(6) of the Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure on the three topics permitted by this order. 

The Court concludes that the discovery outlined above, although limited, will enable

it to conduct an informed Montana analysis and rule on the request for permanent

Case 3:05-cv-00386-DGC Document 69 Filed 10/05/05 Page 4 of 7
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

 The prohibit ion on “written discovery motions” includes any written materials

delivered or faxed to the Court , including hand-delivered “correspondence” with

attachments.

- 5 -

injunction. 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

1. Initial Disclosures. Because initial disclosures required by Federal Rule of

Civil Procedure 26(a) are designed to facilitate full discovery in a regular civil, the Court

concludes that they are not needed in this case. The parties shall proceed directly with

discovery as outlined above. 

2. Deadline for Joining Parties and Amending Pleadings. T he deadline for

joining parties and amending pleadings is 90 days from the date of this Order. Motions t o

join parties or for leave to amend pleadings shall be filed within 30 days of this Order so

they can be heard and decided prior to the deadline.

3. Deadline for Completion of Fact Discovery. The deadline for completing fact

discovery shall be February 24, 2006. Notwithstanding Local Rule of Civil Procedure

7.3(c), the parties may mutually agree, without Court approval, to extend the time provided

for discovery resp onses in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Such agreed-upon

extensions, however, will not alter or extend the discovery deadlines set forth in this Order.

4. Discovery Disputes. 

a. The parties shall not file written discovery motions without leave of Court.3

If a discovery dispute arises, the parties promptly shall contact t he Court t o request a

telep hone conference concerning the dispute. The Court will seek to resolve the dispute

during the telephone conference, and may enter ap p rop riate orders on the basis of the

telephone conference. The Court may order written briefing if it does not resolve the

dispute during the telephone conference. 

b. Parties shall not contact the Court concerning a discovery dispute without

first seeking to resolve the matter through p ersonal consultation and sincere effort as

required by Local Rule of Civil Procedure 7.2(j). Any briefing ordered by the Court shall

Case 3:05-cv-00386-DGC Document 69 Filed 10/05/05 Page 5 of 7
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 6 -

also comply with Local Rule of Civil Procedure 7.2(j). 

c. Absent extraordinary circumstances, the Court will not entertain fact

discovery disputes after the deadline for completion of fact discovery , and will not

entertain expert discovery disputes after the deadline for completion of expert discovery.

5. Deadline for Filing Dispositive Motions. 

a. Dispositive motions shall be filed no later than March 31, 2006. Such

motions must comply in all respects with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local

Rules. b .

No party shall file more than one motion for summary judgment under Rule 56 of the

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure unless permission is first obtained, by joint telephone call,

from the Court.

c. Failure to respond to a motion within the time periods provided in Local Rule

of Civil Procedure 7.2 will be deemed a consent to the denial or granting of the motion and

the Court may dispose of the motion summarily pursuant to Local Rule of Civil Procedure

7.2(i). 

d. The parties shall not notice oral argument on any motion. Instead, a party

desiring oral argument shall place the words "Oral Argument Requested" immediately

below the title of the motion pursuant to Local Rule of Civil Procedure 7.2(f). The Court will

issue a Minute Entry Order scheduling oral argument as it deems appropriate.

6. Deadline for Engaging in Good Faith Set t lement Talks. All parties and their

counsel shall meet in person and engage in good faith settlement talks no later t han

February 24, 2005. Upon completion of such settlement talks, and in no event lat er than

five working days after the deadline set forth in the preceding sentence, the p art ies shall

file with the Court a joint Report on Settlement Talks execut ed by or on behalf of all

counsel. The Report shall inform t he Court that good faith settlement talks have been held

and shall report on the outcome of such talks. T he p art ies shall indicate whether

assistance from the Court is needed in seeking settlement of the case. The parties shall

promptly notify the Court at any time when settlement is reached during the course of this

Case 3:05-cv-00386-DGC Document 69 Filed 10/05/05 Page 6 of 7
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 7 -

litigation. 

7. The Deadlines Are Real. The parties are advised that the Court intends to

enforce the deadlines set forth in this Order, and should p lan t heir litigation activities

accordingly.

DATED this 5th day of October, 2005.

Case 3:05-cv-00386-DGC Document 69 Filed 10/05/05 Page 7 of 7