Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_12-cv-01481/USCOURTS-caed-2_12-cv-01481-16/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Burley D. Tompkins
Plaintiff
Union Pacific 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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BURLEY D. TOMPKINS, No. 2:12-CV-1481-CMK

Plaintiff, 

vs. PRE-TRIAL ORDER

UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD

COMPANY,

Defendant.

 /

Plaintiff brings this civil action under the Federal Employers Liability Act, 45

U.S.C. § 51, et seq. Pursuant to the written consent of all parties, this case is before the

undersigned as the presiding judge for all purposes, including entry of final judgment. See 28

U.S.C. § 636(c). The parties have submitted separate pre-trial statements (Docs. 67 and 68) and

appeared for a pre-trial conference on June 24, 2015. 

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

1

Case 2:12-cv-01481-CMK Document 78 Filed 08/10/15 Page 1 of 8
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

I. BACKGROUND & LEGAL ISSUES

This action proceeds on the first amended complaint (Doc. 17). Of the seven

claims raised, five remain following the court’s March 8, 2013, order (Doc. 22) dismissing

plaintiff’s second claim for violation of 49 C.F.R. § 225.33 with prejudice, and the court’s June

24, 2015, order (Doc. 69) granting summary adjudication on plaintiff’s first claim for negligence. 

The remaining claims for negligence (based on alleged breach of common law

duties as well as alleged violations of federal statutes and regulations) arise from an incident

occurring on June 28, 2011. At that time, plaintiff was riding on a train traveling from Sparks,

Nevada, to Elko, Nevada, when the train made what the parties characterize as an “undesired

emergency stop” or “undesired braking application.” Plaintiff claims this resulted in injury. 

Plaintiff seeks past and future economic and general damages, costs of suit, postjudgment interest, and attorneys’ fees and costs. 

II. STIPULATED FACTS

The parties have not submitted a list of any stipulated facts. 

III. DISPUTED FACTUAL ISSUES

Based on the parties’ separate pre-trial statements, the following factual issues

appear to be in dispute with respect to the June 2011 incident:

1. Whether plaintiff was injured in the June 2011 incident and, if so, the

nature and extent of such injury.

2. Whether any injury was caused by the June 2011 incident.

3. Whether defendant exercised ordinary care to provide plaintiff a

reasonably safe work environment, with reasonably safe equipment, tools,

methods, and procedures, on June 28, 2011. 

4. Whether defendant violated the Safety Appliance Act, 49 U.S.C. § 20302,

et seq.

/ / /

2

Case 2:12-cv-01481-CMK Document 78 Filed 08/10/15 Page 2 of 8
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

5. Whether defendant violated the Locomotive Inspection Act, 49 U.S.C. 

§ 20701, et seq.

6. Whether defendant violated 49 C.F.R. § 229.45.

7. Whether defendant violated 49 C.F.R. § 229.13.

8. Whether plaintiff’s claimed medical special damages are reasonable and

necessary.

9. Whether plaintiff mitigated damages.

IV. DISPUTED EVIDENTIARY ISSUES

Plaintiff states that disputed evidentiary issues can be resolved by way of motions

in limine, as follows:

1. Motion to exclude evidence of collateral source payments received by

plaintiff.

2. Motion to exclude evidence suggesting jobs or job offers for plaintiff at

Union Pacific Railroad Company.

3. Motion to exclude evidence of defendant’s “empowerment policy.”

4. Motion to exclude evidence of plaintiff’s eligibility to retire at age 60.

5. Motion to exclude evidence of any medical expenses paid by defendant.

6. Motion to exclude evidence not previously produced of surveillance.

7. Motion to exclude evidence suggesting an inference that plaintiff was

addicted to pain medication and/or sold his prescriptions.

8. Motion to exclude evidence of unrelated medical conditions.

9. Motion to exclude evidence that plaintiff had a reduced work-life capacity

prior to the June 2011 incident.

10. Motion to exclude evidence suggesting that defendant’s attorneys

represent all employees of Union Pacific Railroad.

11. Motion to exclude evidence from improperly designated rebuttal experts.

12. Daubert motions regarding defendant’s experts.

13. Motion to exclude evidence of any biomechanical or causation opinions by

Mark Pollan.

3

Case 2:12-cv-01481-CMK Document 78 Filed 08/10/15 Page 3 of 8
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

14. Motion to exclude evidence suggesting that plaintiff failed to mitigate

damages.

15. Motion to exclude evidence of medicinal marijuana use by plaintiff.

 

Defendant states that disputed evidentiary issues can be resolved by way of

motions in limine, as follows:

1. Motion to exclude evidence not previously disclosed.

2. Motions to exclude witnesses not previously disclosed, specifically Jim

Ambrose, Ed Bird, Mike Hardisty, Brian Koepnick, Tom Martin, Jeff

Whisler, and Lloyd Wilson.

3. Motion to exclude evidence of other personal injury or employment claims

by Union Pacific Railroad employees.

4. Motion to exclude evidence or argument that locomotive vibration or other

aspects of plaintiff’s work environment caused or contributed to his

injuries and that defendant was negligent with regard to same.

5. Motion to exclude character evidence of Harold Marvin Dunn and other

Union Pacific Railroad managers.

6. Motion to exclude character evidence of plaintiff being a “good

employee.”

7. Motion to exclude evidence of statement allegedly made by Dr. Whitney

to plaintiff.

8. Motions to exclude evidence of opinions from plaintiff’s retained experts

Jerel Glassman, D.O., William Hughes, Robert Johnson, and Carol

Hyland.

9. Motions to exclude evidence from plaintiff’s non-retained experts James

Olson, M.D., Kenneth Pitman, M.D., and Denise Trease, Ph.D.

10. Motions to exclude hearsay statements from plaintiff’s wife as well as Eric

Bennett.

11. Motion to exclude evidence of plaintiff’s wife’s medical condition and

testimony by plaintiff and his wife that plaintiff’s wife’s epilepsy was

caused by plaintiff’s back injury. 

12. Motion to exclude evidence of speculative future medical treatment

including surgery. 

13. Motion to exclude evidence of plaintiff’s financial condition.

4

Case 2:12-cv-01481-CMK Document 78 Filed 08/10/15 Page 4 of 8
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

14. Motion to exclude “met too” evidence by non-party current or former

employees of Union Pacific Railroad, including testimony by plaintiff

about other employee experiences at Union Pacific Railroad. 

V. WITNESSES

Plaintiff’s witnesses are listed in “Attachment 1" to his pre-trial statement (Doc.

67), which is incorporated herein by reference. Defendant’s witnesses are listed in “Exhibit 1" to

its pre-trial statement (Doc. 68), which is incorporated herein by reference. 

VI. EXHIBITS

Plaintiff’s exhibits are listed in “Attachment 2" to his pre-trial statement (Doc.

67), which is incorporated herein by reference. Defendant’s witnesses are listed in “Exhibit 2" to

its pre-trial statement (Doc. 68), which is incorporated herein by reference. 

VII. TRIAL

A jury trial is hereby confirmed for commencement on August 24, 2015, at 9:00

a.m. in Courtroom 4, 15th floor, in Sacramento, California. Pursuant to Eastern District of

California Local Rule 162.2(a), this matter shall be tried before a jury consisting of no fewer than

six and no more than twelve members. The parties have agreed to an eight-person jury. The

parties anticipate trial will last between five and seven days. 

VIII. PROPOSED VOIR DIRE AND JURY INSTRUCTIONS

Pursuant to Eastern District of California Local Rule 162.1(a), examination of

prospective jurors shall be conducted by the court subject to supplementation by counsel. The

parties are referred to Eastern District of California Local Rules 162.1 and 163 regarding

proposed voir dire and proposed jury instructions, respectively. 

/ / /

5

Case 2:12-cv-01481-CMK Document 78 Filed 08/10/15 Page 5 of 8
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

IX. OBJECTIONS TO PRE-TRIAL ORDER

If timely objections to this pre-trial order are not filed, the order will become final

without further order of the court. Once final, no objections to this order will be considered. 

X. CONCLUSION AND ORDERS

1. The court makes the following orders concerning witnesses:

a. Documents may be authenticated by appropriate

declarations submitted at time of trial;

b. Each party may call any witnesses designated by the

other;

c. Witnesses not specified in this order will not be

permitted to testify unless: (i) the party offering such unlisted witness

demonstrates that the witness is for the purpose of rebutting evidence

which could not be reasonably anticipated at the pre-trial conference; or

(ii) the witness was discovered after the pre-trial order issued and the

proffering party makes the showing outlined below;

d. Upon discovery of witnesses following issuance of

this pre-trial order, the party shall promptly inform the court and the

opposing party of the existence of the unlisted witnesses so that the court

may consider at trial whether the witnesses shall be permitted to testify;

and

e. Such newly discovered witnesses will not be

permitted to testify unless: (i) the witnesses could not reasonably have

been discovered prior to trial; (ii) the court and the opposing party were

promptly notified upon discovery of the witnesses; (iii) if time permitted,

the party proffered the witnesses for deposition; (iv) if time did not permit,

a reasonable summary of the witnesses' testimony was provided to the

opposing party.

2. The court makes the following orders concerning exhibits:

a. If not already submitted to the court, the parties are

directed to bring the original and three copies of each exhibit to trial; 

b. If not already done, the parties shall be prepared to

exchange copies of their exhibits at the commencement of trial; 

c. Plaintiff will use numbers 1 through 499 to mark

exhibits; 

/ / /

6

Case 2:12-cv-01481-CMK Document 78 Filed 08/10/15 Page 6 of 8
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

d. Defendant will use numbers 500 through 999 to

mark exhibits;

e. No exhibits other than those specified in this order

will be permitted to be introduced unless: (i) the party proffering the

exhibit demonstrates that the exhibit is for the purpose of rebutting

evidence which could not have been reasonably anticipated; or (ii) the

exhibit was discovered after the issuance of this order and the proffering

party makes the showing required below;

f. Upon the discovery of new exhibits, the parties shall

promptly inform the court and opposing party of the existence of such

exhibits so that the court may consider at trial their admissibility;

g. Such exhibits will not be received unless the

proffering party demonstrates: (i) the exhibits could not reasonably have

been discovered earlier; (ii) the court and the opposing party were

promptly informed of their existence; (iii) the proffering party forwarded a

copy of the exhibit(s) (if physically possible) to the opposing party;

h. If exhibits may not be copied, the proffering party

must show that he has made the exhibits reasonably available for

inspection by the opposing party; and

i. The original exhibits become the property of the

court for purposes of trial.

3. The parties may file motions in limine by August 10, 2015. Opposition to

motions in limine may be filed by August 17, 2015. Upon stipulation of the parties, motions in

limine will be heard on August 21, 2015, at 10:00 a.m. in Redding, California. Absent a

stipulation, motions in limine will be heard on August 24, 2015, at 9:00 a.m. in Sacramento,

California. 

4. The parties shall file proposed voir dire and jury instructions by August

18, 2015. 

5. A jury trial is confirmed for commencement on August 24, 2015, at 9:00

a.m. in Courtroom 4, 15th Floor, in Sacramento, California. 

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

7

Case 2:12-cv-01481-CMK Document 78 Filed 08/10/15 Page 7 of 8
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

6. Objections to this pre-trial order, if any, shall be filed by August 17, 2015. 

DATED: August 10, 2015

______________________________________

CRAIG M. KELLISON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

8

Case 2:12-cv-01481-CMK Document 78 Filed 08/10/15 Page 8 of 8