Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-01086/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-01086-12/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
BNSF Railway Company
Counter Defendant
San Joaquin Valley Railroad Company
Counter Claimant
Tulare Valley Railroad Company
Defendant

Document Text:

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BNSF RAILWAY COMPANY., 

)

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. )

)

SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY RAILROAD )

COMPANY, et al., )

 )

)

Defendants. )

____________________________________)

and related counter-claims.

NO. 1:08-CV-01086-AWI-SMS

ORDER RETURNING DOCUMENTS

TO DEFENDANTS SAN JOAQUIN

VALLEY RAILROAD COMPANY

AND TULARE VALLEY RAILROAD

COMPANY

 On March 10, 2010, the court received a hard copy bound set of documents from San

Joaquin Valley Railroad Company and Tulare Valley Railroad Company (collectively

“Defendants”). The cover sheet indicated that the documents were a courtesy copy of a set of

documents that were previously filed under seal on June 9, 2009 in this court. However, the

documents that followed the cover sheet were not documents that were previously filed under

seal on June 9, 2009. The documents that followed included various declarations, deposition

transcripts, and discovery responses (“Miscellaneous Documents”).

On March 10 and March 11, 2010, the court spoke with Gary Parks, Defendants’ counsel,

about the Miscellaneous Documents that were submitted on March 10, 2010. Mr. Parks

informed the court that the documents were not intended to be filed under seal, were not

documents that were previously filed under seal, and appeared to have been mistakenly bound to

Case 1:08-cv-01086-AWI-SMS Document 139 Filed 03/17/10 Page 1 of 2
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

the cover sheet. Further, defense counsel was unsure why the Miscellaneous Documents had

been submitted. Finally, it is not clear that Plaintiff BNSF Railway Company received a copy of

the Miscellaneous Documents. 

Accordingly, the court is returning the Miscellaneous Documents to Defendants’ counsel. 

If the Defendants desire to resubmit these particular documents to the court, they should file them

electronically under a separate cover sheet, which clearly indicates what these documents are and

what counsel wishes the court to do with the documents. 

 The Clerk is ordered to return the Miscellaneous Documents to Defendants’ counsel. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 11, 2010 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2

Case 1:08-cv-01086-AWI-SMS Document 139 Filed 03/17/10 Page 2 of 2