Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_13-cv-05955/USCOURTS-cand-4_13-cv-05955-5/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
BNSF Railway Company
Defendant
Neil A. Jensen
Plaintiff

Document Text:

UNITED 

STATES 

DISTRICT 

COURT

For the Northern District of California

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

 Citations are to the Electronic Case File (“ECF”); pin cites are to the ECF-generated page

numbers at the tops of documents.

3:13-cv-05955-HSG (LB)

ORDER

UNITED 

STATES 

DISTRICT 

COURT

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Northern District of California

San Francisco Division

NEIL A. JENSEN,

Plaintiff,

v.

BNSF RAILWAY COMPANY

Defendant.

_____________________________________/

 No. 3:13-cv-05955-HSG (LB)

ORDER RE DISCOVERY LETTER

BRIEFS AT ECF NOS. 99, 101

The plaintiff Neil Jensen alleges that his former employer BNSF Railway violated the Federal

Rail Safety Act, 49 U.S.C. § 20109, when it charged him with rules violations, disciplined him, and

fired him based on his absence from work, an absence that he claims was justified because he

injured his wrist. (Complaint, ECF No. 1.1) The statute generally prohibits disciplining and firing

employees for their protected conduct, which includes an employee’s following the orders or

treatment plan of a treating physician. See 49 U.S.C. § 20109(c)(2). The parties have two more

discovery disputes. (See Letter Briefs, ECF Nos. 99 and 101.) The court initially scheduled a

hearing, as is its practice. (See 8/21/2015 Docket Entry.) Mr. Jensen’s counsel then informed the

undersigned’s courtroom deputy that he is in trial and unavailable until after September 10, 2015.

The court finds the disputes suitable for disposition without a hearing pursuant to Civil Local Rule

7-1(b). 

Case 4:13-cv-05955-HSG Document 103 Filed 08/24/15 Page 1 of 2
UNITED 

STATES 

DISTRICT 

COURT

For the Northern District of California

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

3:13-cv-05955-HSG (LB)

ORDER

2

As to the dispute in ECF No. 99, the court denies the motion to depose Mr. Jensen’s employer.

Dr. Granata is the appropriate deponent.

As to the dispute in ECF No. 101, the court denies the motion to exclude records. The court’s job

is to manage discovery disputes and decide (essentially) what is discoverable and what is not. To the

extent that the disclosures here can be characterized as supplemental disclosures under Rule 26(e),

the court cannot really tell whether they are timely, but it appears that (a) the plaintiff disclosed them

when he realized they had not been disclosed, (b) their existence was not a secret because they were

provided during the deposition of the plaintiff’s expert Robert Johnson, and (c) more fundamentally,

these are BNSF records. Whatever harm needs to be addressed will be done through the district

judge’s resolution of the pending motion to exclude the expert’s testimony or can be addressed

through an in limine motion. There is no prejudice that the court can ascertain. The court does not

find a discovery violation on this record.

This disposes of ECF Nos. 99 and 101.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 24, 2015 _______________________________

LAUREL BEELER

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 4:13-cv-05955-HSG Document 103 Filed 08/24/15 Page 2 of 2