Court Opinion

ID: 9947443
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-04 21:01:28.489509+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:26:27.861493
License: Public Domain

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                             FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

                                          )
 In re RAIL FREIGHT FUEL SURCHARGE        )
 ANTITRUST LITIGATION                     )
                                          )                 MDL Docket No. 1869
                                          )                 Miscellaneous No. 07-0489 (PLF)
 This document relates to:                )
                                          )
ALL DIRECT PURCHASER CASES                )
__________________________________________)
OXBOW CARBON & MINERALS LLC, et al.,      )
                                          )
              Plaintiffs,                 )
                                          )
        v.                                )                 Civil Action No. 11-1049 (PLF)
                                          )
UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD CO., et al.,       )
                                          )
              Defendants.                 )
__________________________________________)

                                    OPINION AND ORDER

               Following the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of

Columbia Circuit, In re Rail Freight Fuel Surcharge Antitrust Litig., 34 F.4th 1 (D.C. Cir. 2022),

the defendants in Rail Freight and the defendants in Oxbow again ask the Court pursuant to 49

U.S.C. § 10706 to exclude evidence of any discussion or agreement between or among rail

carriers that concerned interline movements (and any rate or other action resulting from such

discussion or agreement), and to enforce the statutory bar on inferring a conspiracy from

specified evidence. See Defendants’ Response Brief to the Court’s Order on Section 10706
[Dkt. No. 1104]. 1 Plaintiffs in Oxbow and direct purchaser plaintiffs in Rail Freight oppose

these requests. See Plaintiffs’ Supplemental Briefing Regarding Section 10706 In Response to

the Court’s Order of May 26, 2023 [Dkt. No. 1107]; see also Joint Status Report [Dkt.

No. 1094]; Parties’ Notice of Joint Status Report, Stipulation, and Proposed Order in Advance of

July 19, 2022 Status Conference [Dkt. No. 1085].

               The Court has considered the parties’ written submissions, the relevant case law –

including primarily the D.C. Circuit’s decision interpreting Section 10706 – and the relevant

portions of the record in this case. It has also personally reviewed every document at issue in

this matter. The Court will grant in part and deny in part defendants’ requests to exclude certain

evidence. 2

       1
              All citations to docket entries, unless otherwise specified, will refer to the first
above captioned matter, In re Rail Freight Fuel Surcharge Antitrust Litig., MDL No. 1869,
Miscellaneous No. 07-0489.
       2
               The documents considered in connection with the pending matter include:
Defendants’ Response Brief to the Court’s Order on Section 10706 (“Defs. Supp.”) [Dkt. No.
1104]; Supplemental Defendants’ Appendix in Support of Defendants’ Response Brief to the
Court’s Order on Section 10706 [Dkt. No. 1105]; Plaintiffs Supplemental Briefing Regarding
Section 10706 In Response to the Court’s Order of May 26, 2023 (“Pls. Supp.”) [Dkt. No. 1107];
Declaration of Sami H. Rashid in Support of Plaintiffs’ Supplemental Briefing Regarding
Section 10706 in Response to the Court’s Order of May 26, 2023 [Dkt. No. 1108]; Joint Status
Report [1094]; Parties’ Notice of Joint Status Report, Stipulation, and Proposed Order in
Advance of July 19, 2022 Status Conference [Dkt. No. 1085]; Defendant BNSF Railway
Company’s Motion for Summary Judgment [Dkt. No. 1030]; CSX Transportation, Inc.’s Motion
for Summary Judgment [Dkt. No. 1031]; Defendant Union Pacific Railroad Company’s Motion
for Summary Judgment [Dkt. No. 1032]; Norfolk Southern Railway Company’s Motion for
Summary Judgment [Dkt. No. 1033]; Plaintiffs’ Memorandum in Opposition to Defendants’
Joint and Individual Motions for Summary Judgment [Dkt. No. 1050]; Declaration of Alicia
Cobb in Support of Plaintiffs’ Opposition to Defendants’ Joint and Individual Motions for
Summary Judgment [Dkt. No. 1051]; Defendants’ Motion to Exclude Interline-Related
Communications from Consideration for Class Certification or Any Other Purpose Prohibited
by 49 U.S.C. § 10706 [Dkt. No. 417]; Defendants’ Memorandum in Support of Motion to
Exclude Interline-Related Communications from Consideration for Class Certification or Any
Other Purpose Prohibited by 49 U.S.C. § 10706 [Dkt. No. 420]; Plaintiffs’ Memorandum in

                                                  2
                        I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

               The Court has previously recounted at length the factual and procedural history of

the Rail Freight and Oxbow litigation. See In re Rail Freight Fuel Surcharge Antitrust Litig.

(“Rail Freight I”), 587 F. Supp. 2d 27, 29-31 (D.D.C. 2008); In re Rail Freight Fuel Surcharge

Antitrust Litig. (“Rail Freight II”), 593 F. Supp. 2d 29, 32, 34-35 (D.D.C. 2008), aff’d sub nom.

Fayus Enters. v. BNSF Ry. Co., 602 F.3d 444, 445-46, 454 (D.C. Cir. 2010); In re Rail Freight

Fuel Surcharge Antitrust Litig. (“Rail Freight III”), 287 F.R.D. 1, 11-20 (D.D.C. 2012), vacated

sub nom. In re Rail Freight Fuel Surcharge Antitrust Litig. – MDL No. 1869, 725 F.3d 244 (D.C.

Cir. 2013); In re Rail Freight Fuel Surcharge Antitrust Litig. (“Rail Freight IV”), 292 F.

Supp. 3d 14, 33-38 (D.D.C. 2017), aff’d sub nom. In re Rail Freight Fuel Surcharge Antitrust

Litig. – MDL No. 1869, 934 F.3d 619 (D.C. Cir. 2019); In re Rail Freight Fuel Surcharge

Antitrust Litig. (“Rail Freight V”), 520 F. Supp. 3d 1, 8-10 (D.D.C. 2021); see also Oxbow

Carbon & Minerals LLC v. Union Pac. R.R. Co. (“Oxbow I”), 926 F. Supp. 2d 36, 39-40

(D.D.C. 2013); Oxbow Carbon & Minerals LLC v. Union Pac. R.R. Co. (“Oxbow II”), 81 F.

Supp. 3d 1, 5-6 (D.D.C. 2015).

               These cases involve allegations of a conspiracy to fix prices in violation of the

Sherman Antitrust Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1. Plaintiffs in Rail Freight, purchasers of rail freight

transportation services, allege that defendants, BNSF Railway Company, CSX Transportation,

Inc., Norfolk Southern Railway Company, and Union Pacific Railroad Company, “engaged in a

price-fixing conspiracy to coordinate their fuel surcharge programs as a means to impose supra-

Opposition to Defendants’ Motion to Exclude Interline-Related Communications from
Consideration for Class Certification or Any Other Purpose Prohibited by 49 U.S.C. § 10706
[Dkt. No. 438]; and Defendants’ Reply Memorandum in Support of Motion to Exclude Interline-
Related Communications from Consideration for Class Certification or Any Other Purpose
Prohibited by 49 U.S.C. § 10706 [Dkt. No. 444].
                                                 3
competitive total price increases on their shipping customers.” Rail Freight IV, 292 F. Supp. 3d

at 34. Similarly, plaintiffs in Oxbow allege that defendants Union Pacific Railroad Company

and BNSF Railway Company conspired to “fix prices above competitive levels through a

uniform fuel surcharge.” Oxbow II, 81 F. Supp. 3d at 5. Many of the allegations in Oxbow are

“virtually identical” to the allegations in Rail Freight. Id. at 5 n.3.

                Pending before the Court are the defendant railroads’ motions for summary

judgment as to whether they conspired to violate the antitrust laws. See Order of May 7, 2022

[Dkt. No. 1025]; Memorandum Opinion and Order of March 30, 2021 [Dkt. No. 1016]. With

respect to the Court’s consideration of these motions, the defendant railroads seek to exclude

from consideration evidence of interline-related communications, or communications concerning

shared traffic, under 49 U.S.C. § 10706(a)(3)(B)(ii) (“Section 10706”). As the D.C. Circuit has

explained:

                Interline movements are shipments carried along two or more
                railroads’ tracks under a common arrangement. Section 10706
                states that ‘‘[i]n any proceeding’’ in which rail carriers are alleged
                to have violated antitrust laws, conspiracy ‘‘may not be inferred
                from evidence that two or more rail carriers acted together with
                respect to an interline rate or related matter and that a party to such
                action took similar action with respect to a rate or related matter on
                another route or traffic.’’ 49 U.S.C. § 10706(a)(3)(B)(ii). The
                statute tellingly provides that ‘‘evidence of a discussion or
                agreement between or among’’ rail carriers ‘‘shall not be admissible
                if the discussion or agreement . . . concerned an interline movement
                of the rail carrier,’’ and ‘‘would not, considered by itself, violate the
                [antitrust] laws.’’ Id. § 10706(a)(3)(B)(ii)(II) (emphasis added).

In re Rail Freight Fuel Surcharge Antitrust Litigation – MDL No. 1869 (“Rail Freight VI”), 34

F.4th 1 at 5 (alterations in original).

                On December 19, 2019, this Court invited plaintiffs and defendants in Rail

Freight MDL No. 1869 and Oxbow, as well as the new plaintiffs in MDL No. 2952 before

                                                   4
Judge Beryl Howell, to file additional memoranda addressing defendants’ still-pending motions

concerning Section 10706. Memorandum Opinion and Order of December 19, 2019 [Dkt.

No. 918] at 3. The Court also invited the United States to submit a Statement of Interest

reflecting the views of the Department of Justice, the Federal Trade Commission, and the

Surface Transportation Board. Order of March 16, 2020 [Dkt. No. 947] at 2. On

August 26, 2020, the Court heard oral arguments on the interpretation and application of

Section 10706 from defendants, named plaintiffs in Rail Freight MDL No. 1869, plaintiffs in

MDL No. 2952, and the Department of Justice. See Minute Entry of August 26, 2020.

                 On February 19, 2021, the Court issued an opinion and order interpreting

Section 10706 and denying defendants’ motions to exclude interline-related communications.

See Rail Freight V, 520 F. Supp. 3d. at 15-38. The Court held that “for a discussion or

agreement to be inadmissible” under Section 10706, “the carriers must be discussing or agreeing

upon identifiable interline movements which they share; but context and logic confirm that ‘an

interline movement’ may refer to multiple interline movements.” Id. at 29. The Court said that

protected discussions and agreements concern “an identifiable movement or movements with

identifiable circumstances, such as a specific shipper, specific shipments, and specific

destinations.” See id. The Court rejected the defendants’ arguments that an entire document

must be excluded “if it is about interline traffic even if it also includes communications about

local traffic or other subjects,” id. at 25, noting that “there are more nuanced ways to read and

apply the statute. It need not be an all or nothing proposition.” Id. As in all cases, the Court

held, a document “may be admitted in part and excluded in part” through the use of redactions.

Id.; see id. at 26.

                                                 5
                The United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit affirmed in part and

reversed in part. See Rail Freight VI, 34 F.4th 1. The D.C. Circuit explained that a discussion or

agreement “concerns” an interline movement “only if Defendants meet their burden of showing

that the movements at issue are the participating rail carriers’ shared interline traffic.” Id. at 9.

Furthermore, disagreeing with this Court, it held that a discussion or agreement “need not

identify a specific shipper, shipments, or destination to qualify for exclusion.” Id. Discussions

or agreements “about the formation of the participating railroads’ interline agreements” and

“anticipated shared traffic” are not admissible. Id.

                By contrast, “evidence of discussions or agreements about single-line traffic or

about rail freight generally is not excludable.” Rail Freight VI, 34 F.4th at 9. When a discussion

or agreement about interline movements contains references to other, non-excludable

movements, that discussion or agreement may still be subject to exclusion so long as any

reference to other movements “did not change the focus of the discussion or agreement away

from the participating railroads’ shared, identifiable interline movements.” Id. at 10; see id. at 9

(“de minimis,” “brief and insignificant,” and “fleeting and inconsequential” references to non-

interline movements “do[] not automatically disqualify evidence from exclusion”). The railroads

have the burden of demonstrating “that the reference was either fleeting and inconsequential or

appropriate to the advancement of the interline discussion itself.” Id. at 10.

                The D.C. Circuit also held 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.” Rail Freight VI 34 F.4th at 11-12. “[I]nternal documents prepared

in advance of discussions or agreements with other carriers concerning shared interline

movements” and internal documents that “reference[] only the existence of such a discussion or

                                                   6
agreement with another carrier” are not admissible. Id. at 12 (emphasis omitted). Because “[a]

single document may reference more than one discussion or agreement, . . . [t]he court must

consider each discussion and agreement separately in determining whether it should be excluded

under Section 10706.” Id. at 9. The Circuit therefore agreed with this Court that redactions may

be employed “where segregable portions of documents contain protected evidence of discussions

or agreements concerning interline movements,” and the court may employ redactions to admit

non-protected portions of documents. Id. at 13. The Circuit explained why limiting instructions

would not work in the context of Section 10706, where the court is to be the gatekeeper shielding

the jury from evidence that must be excluded. See Rail Freight VI, 34 F.4th at 13-14.

               The court of appeals remanded the case for this Court “to reconsider the evidence

at issue consistent with [its] interpretation of Section 10706.” Rail Freight VI, 34 F.4th at 5.

                                         II. DISCUSSION

               Following the D.C. Circuit’s decision, the parties conferred and submitted a list of

exhibits that the defendant railroads argue should be excluded under Section 10706 for the

purpose of resolving the summary judgment motions. See Joint Status Report [Dkt. No. 1094] at

Ex. 1. Defendants listed twenty-five discussions reflected in what they believe are forty-three

“key documents.” Dkt. No. 1094 at 5. Subsequently, the plaintiffs withdrew their reliance on

five of those documents, “in effect resolving 3 discussions.” Id.; see also id. Exhibit 1. 3 The

Court has carefully reviewed each of the disputed exhibits and has considered each exhibit

within the context of the broader discussions identified by the defendants. See id. The Court has

       3
               There is some confusion on this point. The parties in some places reference eight
documents that plaintiffs have withdrawn from consideration, see Dkt. No. 1094 at 14, while in
other places identify only five such documents. See id. at 2, 5.
                                                  7
also considered the parties’ written submissions about specific discussions, agreements, and

documents. See Pls. Supp.; Defs. Supp. The Court has reached the following conclusions:

 Discussion    Exhibit    Conclusion
 Number        Number
                          This exhibit will be excluded in full. The focus of this
                          correspondence is clearly “the carriers’ shared interline traffic.” Rail
                          Freight VI, 34 F.4th at 9. References to non-interline traffic within
      1        PX0202
                          this exhibit do not “change the focus of the discussion or agreement
                          away from the participating railroads’ shared, identifiable interline
                          movements.” Id. at 10.

                          This exhibit will be excluded in full. The focus of the meeting was
                          clearly “the carriers’ shared interline traffic.” Rail Freight VI, 34
                          F.4th at 9. References to non-interline traffic within this exhibit do
      2        PX0145
                          not “change the focus of the discussion or agreement away from the
                          participating railroads’ shared, identifiable interline movements.” Id.
                          at 10.

                          This exhibit is a deposition transcript. During his testimony, the
                          witness refers to various discussions and agreements concerning
                          interline movements. Portions of the deposition that reference such
                          protected discussions and agreements shall be redacted. See Rail
      2        PX0610
                          Freight VI, 34 F.4th at 12-13 (“Section 10706 can be implemented
                          through redactions of truly segregable portions or documents.”). The
                          defendant railroads shall propose redactions consistent with this
                          opinion and the order accompanying this opinion.

                          This exhibit is a deposition transcript. During his testimony, the
                          witness refers to various discussions and agreements concerning
                          interline movements. Portions of the deposition that reference such
                          protected discussions and agreements shall be redacted. See Rail
      2        PX0596
                          Freight VI, 34 F.4th at 12-13 (“Section 10706 can be implemented
                          through redactions of truly segregable portions or documents.”). The
                          defendant railroads shall propose redactions consistent with this
                          opinion and the order accompanying this opinion.

                          This exhibit may be admitted with redactions. It contains a brief,
                          segregable reference to a discussion that concerns interline
      2        PX0237     movements between the two corresponding railroads. The defendant
                          railroads shall propose redactions consistent with this opinion and the
                          order accompanying this opinion.

   3 and 4     PX0595     This exhibit is a deposition transcript. During his testimony, the
                          witness refers to various discussions and agreements concerning

                                                8
Discussion   Exhibit   Conclusion
Number       Number
                       interline movements. Portions of the deposition that reference such
                       protected discussions and agreements shall be redacted. See Rail
                       Freight VI, 34 F.4th at 12-13 (“Section 10706 can be implemented
                       through redactions of truly segregable portions or documents.”). The
                       defendant railroads shall propose redactions consistent with this
                       opinion and the order accompanying this opinion.

                       This exhibit contains a public announcement made by one defendant
                       railroad about its fuel surcharge program as applied to that railroad’s
                       traffic generally. This announcement is admissible and not protected
    5        PX0483    under Section 10706. This exhibit also contains subsequent
                       correspondence, the focus of which is the railroads’ shared interline
                       movements. The correspondence will be excluded. See Rail Freight
                       VI, 34 F.4th at 9.

                       This exhibit will be excluded in full. This exhibit consists of
                       correspondence regarding a fuel surcharge concurrence between two
    5        PX0467
                       railroads. The focus of this correspondence is clearly “the carriers’
                       shared interline traffic.” Rail Freight VI, 34 F.4th at 9.

                       This exhibit will be excluded in full. This exhibit consists of
                       correspondence and related attachments regarding a fuel surcharge
    5        PX0468    concurrence between two railroads. The focus of this
                       correspondence is clearly “the carriers’ shared interline traffic.” Rail
                       Freight VI, 34 F.4th at 9.

                       This exhibit contains a meeting agenda for a meeting between two
                       railroads and correspondence related to the meeting. Although the
                       meeting agenda itself suggests that the railroads may have discussed
                       general, joint-venture topics that are not specific to interline traffic,
                       the supplement provided by the defendant railroads makes clear that
                       the focus of this meeting was the railroads’ shared interline traffic.
                       See Defs. Supp. at 11; id. at SuppDA0153. The meeting agenda and
                       related correspondence therefore will be excluded. The attachment to
    6        PX0120
                       the meeting agenda (the “Monthly Digest Compilation”) contains
                       multiple, segregable entries related to a variety of topics, most of
                       which are not related to interline traffic and are not protected under
                       Section 10706. Some of the entries, however, do appear to concern
                       identifiable interline movements and will be excluded. The
                       defendant railroads shall propose redactions to the Monthly Digest
                       Compilation consistent with this opinion and the order accompanying
                       this opinion.

                                             9
Discussion   Exhibit   Conclusion
Number       Number
             Oxbow     This exhibit contains the same meeting agenda included in PX0120.
    6
               22      It will be excluded for the reasons stated above.

                       This exhibit will be excluded in full. This exhibit consists of
                       correspondence and related attachments regarding a fuel surcharge
  7 and 8    PX0144    concurrence between two railroads. The focus of this
                       correspondence is clearly “the carriers’ shared interline traffic.” Rail
                       Freight VI, 34 F.4th at 9.

                       This exhibit may be admitted with redactions. The exhibit consists of
                       correspondence between railroads as well as internal correspondence
                       between officials within one railroad. The correspondence between
                       railroads concerns a concurrence request and is protected under
                       Section 10706. The plaintiffs agree to withdraw this correspondence.
                       See Pls. Supp. at 5. As for the internal correspondence, it does not
    9        PX0253
                       concern interline movements, as it relates to internal debates about
                       the revision of a railroad’s fuel surcharge program that is not specific
                       to any interline movements. See Defs. Supp. at 17. The attachments
                       to the internal correspondence are also not protected under
                       Section 10706. The defendant railroads shall propose redactions
                       consistent with this opinion and the order accompanying this opinion.

                       This exhibit contains some of the same correspondences as included
    9        PX0242    in PX0253 and may be admitted with redactions for the reasons
                       explained above.

                       This exhibit will be excluded in full. This exhibit consists of
                       correspondence and related attachments regarding a fuel surcharge
    10       PX0240    concurrence between two railroads. The focus of this
                       correspondence is clearly “the carriers’ shared interline traffic.” Rail
                       Freight VI, 34 F.4th at 9.

                       This exhibit consists of correspondence about a June 3, 2003 meeting
                       between two railroads and includes the meeting agenda for that
                       discussion. The defendants assert that the meeting agenda and
                       correspondence are protected under Section 10706 because the
                       relationship between these two railroads was “overwhelmingly one
    13       PX0167    between interline connecting carriers.” Defs. Supp. at 14. The Court
                       finds that the defendant railroads have not carried their burden. See
                       Rail Freight VI, 34 F.4th at 10. Although these railroads may have
                       shared interline traffic, the mere fact that two railroads share interline
                       traffic is insufficient. The meeting agenda suggests that the
                       discussion primarily focused on general industry concerns, not on
                       specific interline movements. The Court is not persuaded that the

                                             10
Discussion   Exhibit   Conclusion
Number       Number
                       meeting focused on interline movements, although the agenda
                       indicates in a very few places that certain sub-discussions focused on
                       interline movements (e.g., discussions about specific gateways or
                       gateway performance). Those sub-discussions are segregable and
                       may be redacted. The defendant railroads shall propose redactions
                       consistent with this opinion and the order accompanying this opinion.

                       This exhibit consists of handwritten notes from the June 3, 2003
                       meeting discussed in PX0167. This exhibit will be redacted
    13       PX0474
                       consistent with the redactions for PX0167, for the reasons explained
                       above.

                       This exhibit will be excluded in full. This exhibit consists of an
                       itinerary and agenda for a December 16, 2003 meeting between two
                       railroads. It is clear from the meeting agenda that the meeting
    14       PX0121    constituted a discussion about interline movements. Any references
                       to general, non-interline specific topics was fleeting and did not shift
                       the focus away from the railroads’ shared interline traffic. Rail
                       Freight VI, 34 F.4th at 10.

                       This exhibit will be excluded in full. This exhibit consists of
                       correspondence and related attachments regarding a May 17, 2004
                       meeting between two railroads. The focus of this correspondence is
                       clearly “the carriers’ shared interline traffic.” Rail Freight VI, 34
                       F.4th at 9. One attachment is a PowerPoint slide deck, the title of
    14       PX0117    which suggests that the railroads’ shared interline movements are the
                       exclusive focus of the discussion between the railroads. The other
                       attachment is an excel sheet containing information about the
                       railroads’ shared traffic. The focus of both attachments is the
                       railroads’ shared interline movements and both attachments will be
                       excluded.

                       This exhibit will be excluded in full. The exhibit consists of
                       correspondence between representatives from two railroads about the
                       railroads’ shared interline traffic. Although the correspondence
                       references one railroad’s general policy, the discussion between the
    15       PX0476
                       two railroad representatives is itself focused on the railroads’ shared
                       traffic. See Rail Freight VI, 34 F.4th at 12 (references to other traffic
                       do not disqualify a document for exclusion if those references are
                       “appropriate for the advancement of the interline discussion itself”).

             Oxbow     This exhibit is identical to PX0476. It will be excluded for the
    15
               28      reasons stated above.

                                             11
Discussion   Exhibit   Conclusion
Number       Number
                       This exhibit will be excluded in full. This exhibit consists of internal
                       correspondence within one railroad regarding the application of a
    16       PX0056    fuel surcharge on interline traffic shared with another railroad, the
                       focus of which is clearly “the carriers’ shared interline traffic.” Rail
                       Freight VI, 34 F.4th at 9.

                       This exhibit will be excluded in full. This exhibit consists of
                       correspondence between representatives of two railroads regarding
    16       PX0066    the application of a fuel surcharge on interline traffic, the focus of
                       which is clearly “the carriers’ shared interline traffic.” Rail Freight
                       VI, 34 F.4th at 9.

                       This exhibit will be excluded in full. This exhibit consists of
                       correspondence between representatives of two railroads regarding
    16       PX0147    the application of a fuel surcharge on interline traffic, the focus of
                       which is clearly “the carriers’ shared interline traffic.” Rail Freight
                       VI, 34 F.4th at 9.

                       This exhibit will be excluded in full. This exhibit consists of
                       correspondence between representatives of two railroads, and related
    16       PX0148    attachments, regarding the application of a fuel surcharge on interline
                       traffic, the focus of which is clearly “the carriers’ shared interline
                       traffic.” Rail Freight VI, 34 F.4th at 9.

                       This exhibit will be excluded in full. This exhibit consists of a list of
                       the “joint projects that arose from” a previous “jointline meeting”
                       between two railroads. See Rail Freight VI, 34 F.4th at 9
    16       PX0245
                       (Section 10706 protects “discussions or agreements about the
                       formation of the participating railroads’ interline agreements, as well
                       as about their anticipated shared traffic”).

                       This exhibit will be excluded in full. This exhibit consists of
                       correspondence between representatives of two railroads, and related
    16       PX0246    attachments, regarding the application of a fuel surcharge on interline
                       traffic, the focus of which is clearly “the carriers’ shared interline
                       traffic.” Rail Freight VI, 34 F.4th at 9.

                       This exhibit contains the same correspondence as PX0246, as well as
             Oxbow
    16                 related attachments. It shall be excluded for the reasons explained
               31
                       above.

                       This exhibit will be excluded in full. This exhibit consists of
    16       PX0247    correspondence between representatives of two railroads regarding
                       application of a fuel surcharge on interline traffic between those

                                             12
Discussion   Exhibit   Conclusion
Number       Number
                       railroads and about the railroads’ “anticipated shared traffic.” Rail
                       Freight VI, 34 F.4th at 9.

                       This exhibit will be excluded in full. It contains correspondence
                       between representatives from two railroads regarding the application
    16       PX0248
                       of a fuel surcharge on interline traffic, the focus of which is clearly
                       “the carriers’ shared interline traffic.” Rail Freight VI, 34 F.4th at 9.

                       This exhibit will be excluded. It consists of internal correspondence
                       about the discussions that one railroad representative had with his
                       counterparts at other railroads about the railroads’ shared interline
17 and 18    PX0151    traffic. This correspondence both “references the existence” of
                       interline discussions and “convey[s] the substance” of those
                       discussions, as defendant railroads persuasively argue. Rail Freight
                       VI, 34 F.4th at 12; see Defs. Supp. at 6-7.

             Oxbow     This exhibit is identical to PX0151. It will be excluded for the
17 and 18
              100      reasons explained above.

             Oxbow     This exhibit is identical to PX0151. It will be excluded for the
17 and 18
               39      reasons explained above.

                       This exhibit may be admitted with redactions. The exhibit contains
                       correspondence (an initial email and a response to that initial email)
                       internal to one railroad about potentially adopting a mileage-based
                       fuel surcharge. The response email references the existence of
                       anticipated discussions concerning identifiable interline movements
17 and 18    PX0067    between rail carriers. See Rail Freight VI, 34 F.4th at 12. Admitting
                       the response email “could cause a jury to see references to an
                       interlining discussion’s existence . . . inviting speculation about what
                       the carriers discussed.” Id. The defendant railroads shall propose
                       redactions consistent with this opinion and the order accompanying
                       this opinion.

                       This exhibit may be admitted with redactions. The exhibit contains
                       correspondence internal to one railroad about potentially adopting a
                       mileage-based fuel surcharge. The correspondence references the
                       existence of anticipated discussions concerning identifiable interline
                       movements between rail carriers. See Rail Freight VI, 34 F.4th at 12.
17 and 18    PX0085
                       Admitting the response email “could cause a jury to see references to
                       an interlining discussion’s existence . . . inviting speculation about
                       what the carriers discussed.” Id. The defendant railroads shall
                       propose redactions consistent with this opinion and the order
                       accompanying this opinion.

                                             13
Discussion   Exhibit   Conclusion
Number       Number
                       This exhibit may be admitted with redactions. A segregable portion
                       of this exhibit references anticipated discussions about identifiable,
             Oxbow
17 and 18              interline movements. See Defs. Supp. at 10. The defendant railroads
               24
                       shall propose redactions consistent with this opinion and the order
                       accompanying this opinion.

                       This exhibit contains correspondence that is identical to a portion of
17 and 18    PX0095
                       Oxbow Ex. 24. It shall be redacted consistently with Oxbow Ex. 24.

                       This exhibit will be excluded in full. The exhibit consists of
                       correspondence between representatives from two railroads about the
                       railroads’ shared interline traffic and the rates applicable to that
                       traffic, as well as related attachments. The focus of this
             Oxbow
    19                 correspondence is the participating railroads’ shared interline traffic,
               11
                       despite the fact that the correspondence contains references to
                       broader, non-interline-specific initiatives. Those references are
                       “appropriate to the advancement of the interline discussion itself.” In
                       re Rail Freight, 34 F.4th at 10.

                       This exhibit is a deposition transcript. During his testimony, the
                       witness refers to various discussions and agreements concerning
                       interline movements. Portions of the deposition that reference such
                       protected discussions and agreements may be admitted with
21 and 22    PX0612
                       redactions. See Rail Freight VI, 34 F.4th at 12-13 (“Section 10706
                       can be implemented through redactions of truly segregable portions
                       or documents.”). The defendant railroads shall propose redactions
                       consistent with this opinion and the order accompanying this opinion.

                       This exhibit will be excluded in full. This exhibit consists of
                       correspondence regarding a fuel surcharge concurrence between two
    23       PX0479
                       railroads. The focus of this correspondence is clearly “the carriers’
                       shared interline traffic.” Rail Freight VI, 34 F.4th at 9.

             Oxbow     This exhibit is identical to PX0479 and will be excluded for the
    23
              107      reasons stated above.

                       This exhibit will be excluded in full. This exhibit consists of
                       correspondence regarding a fuel surcharge concurrence between two
    24       PX0039
                       railroads. The focus of this correspondence is clearly “the carriers’
                       shared interline traffic.” Rail Freight VI, 34 F.4th at 9.

                       This exhibit will be excluded in full. This exhibit consists of
    24       PX0040    correspondence and related attachments regarding a fuel surcharge
                       concurrence between two railroads. The focus of this

                                            14