Opinion ID: 6341392
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Internal Documents

Text: Next, Defendants challenge the District Court’s ruling that a rail carrier’s internal documents are not inadmissible under Section 10706 unless they “summarize[] or otherwise convey[] the substance of a discussion or agreement that occurred between two or more rail carriers.” In re Rail Freight Fuel Surcharge Antitrust Litig., 520 F. Supp. 3d at 27. Defendants argue that an internal document referring to the existence of a discussion or agreement concerning interline movements with another carrier, even without summarizing the substance of that discussion or agreement, is inadmissible. They maintain that “[a]n internal document that references an interline discussion, but does not convey its substance, is an especially powerful invitation to jury speculation about the contents of 17 that discussion,” potentially forcing railroads “to admit the entire interline discussion, just to show that there is nothing nefarious about it.” Opening Br. of Appellants 67-68. Plaintiffs disagree, contending that internal documents must reference the substance of an interlining discussion or agreement with another carrier to qualify for exclusion under Section 10706. In their view, a carrier’s internal document that does not reference the substance of a such a discussion or agreement “cannot satisfy the plain language of the evidentiary exclusion.” Redacted Br. for Pls.-Appellees 41. We agree with Defendants that a rail carrier’s internal documents need not convey the substance of a discussion or agreement concerning interline movements to qualify for exclusion under the statute. Instead, an internal document that references only the existence of such a discussion or agreement with another carrier is inadmissible, provided the document meets the statute’s other requirements and the court can identify the subject of the underlying discussion or agreement as the participating railroads’ shared interline traffic. This holding applies with equal force to internal documents prepared in advance of discussions or agreements with other carriers concerning shared interline movements. The plain language of the statute supports this conclusion. Section 10706 provides that evidence of a discussion or agreement between or among rail carriers is inadmissible if, among other requirements, “the discussion or agreement” “concerned an interline movement of the rail carrier.” § 10706(a)(3)(B)(ii)(II) (emphases added). Such a discussion or agreement is “of the rail carrier” only if the discussion or agreement is between or among carriers participating in or that are actively considering participation in the interline traffic at issue. The plain terms of the statute require the “discussion or agreement” itself – but not necessarily the evidence of that 18 discussion or agreement – to be between or among participating carriers. This indicates that a carrier’s internal document can qualify for exclusion, provided the underlying discussion or agreement to which the document refers is about the participating carriers’ shared interline movements. As such, an internal document that refers to the existence of a discussion or agreement concerning interline movements – without conveying its substance – can qualify for exclusion under Section 10706, provided the court is satisfied that the discussion or agreement to which the internal document refers concerns the participating railroads’ shared interline traffic. This interpretation is also consistent with Congress’ expressed desire to allow railroads to collaborate with one another about their shared interline traffic. See Section II.B, supra. Reaching a contrary conclusion could cause a jury to see references to an interlining discussion’s existence even if separate evidence of that discussion’s substance is inadmissible, inviting speculation about what the carriers discussed. Such an outcome would contravene Congress’ clear purpose for enacting Section 10706. For these reasons, a carrier’s internal documents need not convey the substance of a discussion or agreement concerning interline movements to qualify for exclusion under the statute.