Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. Han
| Decision Date | 28 January 2015 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 14-CV-69-CVE-PJC |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Oklahoma |
| Parties | BURLINGTON NORTHERN & SANTA FE RAILWAY COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. PATRICK PILGYUN HAN, M.D., Defendant. |
This matter was referred to the undersigned United States Magistrate Judge for hearing on a "detailed discovery plan." [Dkt. No. 29]. The parties have fully briefed their positions [Dkt. Nos. 33, 34, 38 & 39]. In addition, Defendant has submitted some 550 pages of exhibits for the Court's consideration. Most of these are pleadings related to discovery in an earlier State court action. Additional exhibits, including the settlement documents relating to this matter, were produced to the Court at a hearing conducted December 23, 2014 ("the December 23 hearing").
This is an action for contribution pursuant to Okla. Stat. tit. 12 § 832. Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway Co. ("BNSF") has sued Dr. Patrick Han ("Han"), alleging that Han is a joint tortfeasor in causing the death of Jamie Kay Detre ("Detre"). In 2010, BNSF paid $1 million to settle a wrongful death action brought by the Estate of Detre ("the Estate"). BNSF now seeks to have Han assessed a proportionate share of their alleged common liability.
In September 2004, Detre was injured when her vehicle collided with a BNSF train at one of BNSF's railway crossings in Creek County, Oklahoma. In December 2005, Detre sued BNSF and certain individuals associated with BNSF for her personal injuries resulting from the train-motor vehicle collision ("the underlying action").1 While the underlying action was pending, Detre developed a carotid cavernous fistula ("CCF").2 On August 26, 2006, Detre received emergency treatment from Han. Detre died while undergoing treatment. At the time of her death, Detre was approximately 42 years old and was survived by her mother and her children. [Dkt. No. 2, Ex. 2, ¶¶ IV-V].
In November 2008, the underlying action was amended, substituting the Estate as Plaintiff, and adding a claim for wrongful death. Han was not namedin the amended action.3 In the fall of 2010, following private mediation, BNSF and the Estate settled the underlying action ("the Settlement") for $1 million.4 Although he was not a party to the underlying action and had not participated in the mediation, Han was included in the Release of All Claims ("the Release") negotiated between BNSF and the Estate.5
In May 2011, BNSF sued Han in Tulsa County District Court for indemnification and contribution with regards to the settlement sum paid to the Estate6 ("the Tulsa County action"). The court in the Tulsa County action made a number of rulings on discovery and deposition discovery began before BNSF dismissed the case without prejudice in August 2013. BNSF then filed the instant case on February 18, 2014. [Dkt. No. 2]. In this action, BNSF asserts only a claim for contribution. [Id.]. Disputes continue over the permissible scope ofdiscovery in this contribution action, and the matter has been referred to the undersigned to assist the parties in fashioning a discovery plan.
The parties have very different views of what discovery is permissible. BNSF would limit discovery to two issues: (1) whether Han committed medical malpractice in his treatment of Detre; (2) Han's share of the common liability for aggravation of Detre's injuries. [Dkt. No. 33, at 9].
On the other hand, Han seeks discovery into a broad range of topics including the subjective thoughts of BNSF's managers, agents and corporate representatives regarding the underlying action and the Settlement, [Dkt. No. 43, p. 5-6], BNSF's possible exposure to punitive damages in the underlying action, how Han came to be added to the Release executed by BNSF and the Estate, and litigation positions taken by BNSF in the underlying action, the Tulsa County action and the instant action. Han's proposed discovery covers a wide array of topics and a lengthy time period. [See, Dkt. No. 34, Defendant Han's Discovery Brief in Accord with Court order Dated October 20, 2014, at 5-6 and exhibits "A" and "B" attached thereto]. For example, Han seeks depositions of BNSF representatives concerning "how and why" the settlement was reached in the underlying action, records concerning the railroad crossing at issue "for 15 years preceding this collision," all known failures of the signal system at the railroad crossing "for a period of not less than 5 years preceding the subject incident."[Dkt. No. 34, Ex. "B"]. Han asserts that he is entitled to this discovery to determine the reasonableness of the settlement, why he was included in the Release, explore issues pertaining to possible punitive damages against BNSF in the underlying action, determine whether the Settlement was done in good faith, and determine the appropriate allocation of fault for Detre's death, among other things.
In a Federal case premised on diversity jurisdiction, the right to contribution is considered substantive and controlled by state law. Smith v. Whitmore, 270 F.2d 741 (3d Cir. 1959); Fort Worth & Denver Ry. Co. v. Threadgill, 228 F.2d 307 (5th Cir. 1955); ICI Am. Inc. v. Martin-Marietta Corp, 368 F.Supp. 1148, 1150 (D.Del. 1974). Oklahoma has adopted the Uniform Contribution Among Tortfeasors Act ("UCATA"), Okla. Stat. tit. 12 § 832. Pursuant to that Act, "When two or more persons become jointly or severally liable in tort for the same injury to person or property for the same wrongful death, there is a right of contribution among them even though judgment has not been recovered against all or any of them...." Okla. Stat. tit. 12 § 832(A). A primary purpose of the statute is to provide "judicial control over the distribution of damages in tort claims in which there is more than one tortfeasor." BNSF v. Han, 2014 WL 4199226, *2 (N.D.Okla. Aug. 22, 2014) (citing Barringer v. Baptist Healthcare of Okla., 22 P.3d 695, 698 (Okla. 2001)).
A second underlying goal of UCATA is to encourage settlement of lawsuits. 12 U.L.A. § 1, p. 203, comment to Subsection (d) (2008); Healthcare Staffing Solution, Inc. v. Wilkinson, 86 So.3d 519, 522 (Fla. Dist. App. 2012) (). A tortfeasor who settles a claim against him knows that he is protected against contribution claims brought by non-settling tortfeasors (Okla. Stat. tit. 12 § 832(H)(2)), and that under certain circumstances, he can pursue a contribution claim against a non-settling tortfeasor for his proportionate share of the common liability. Id. at § 832(B). It is this latter, offensive, use of contribution that is involved in this action.
A settling tortfeasor is entitled to contribution only when it has paid more than its pro-rata share of a common liability. Berry v. Empire Indem. Ins. Co., 634 P.2d 718, 719-20 (Okla.1981). A tortfeasor's pro-rata share is determined based on its proportionate degree of fault for the common liability. Nat'l Union Fire Ins. Co. v. A.A.R. Western Skyways, Inc., 784 P.2d 52, 57 (Okla.1989). "A tort-feasor who enters into a settlement with a claimant is not entitled to recover contribution from another tort-feasor whose liability for the injury or wrongful death is not extinguished by the settlement nor in respect to any amount paid in a settlement which is in excess of what was reasonable." Okla. Stat. tit. 12 § 832(D); BNSF v. Han, 2014 WL 4199226, *2, [Dkt. No. 22].
A settling tortfeasor's right to contribution is limited only by the requirement that the settlement be made "in good faith." Okla. Stat. tit. 12 § 832(H); Dubina v. Mesirow Realty Dev., Inc., 719 N.E.2d 1084, 1088 (Ill.App.3d 1999). Generally, the right to settle is not affected by whether a joint tortfeasor received notice and an opportunity to participate in the settlement negotiations. Jerome Wahlert, Annotation, Contribution Between Joint Tortfeasors as Affected by Settlement with Injured Party by One or More Tortfeasors, 17 A.L.R.6th 1, § 20 (2006) (hereafter, "Wahlert").7 The Oklahoma contribution statute contains no such notice requirement, and in similar situations, courts have been unwilling to imply such a requirement. E.g., Hodges v. U.S. Fidelity & Guaranty Co., 91 A.2d 473 (D.C. 1952) (applying Maryland law) (court had no right to imply a notice condition in the statute that the Maryland legislature specifically omitted).
Faced with a contribution lawsuit, an alleged non-settling tortfeasor may assert any available defense, including that it was not a tortfeasor or liable to plaintiff, that the settlement was not reasonable because the settling tortfeasor paid more than plaintiff's claim was worth, or because the settlement was not made in good faith. Barringer, 22 P.3d at 698-99; 18 Am.Jur.2d Contribution § 119 at 131 (2004).
This discussion of the nature and purpose of contribution informs the Court's decision as to the scope of discovery. For purposes of discovery, "relevance" has a broad meaning because discovery "is designed to help define and clarify the issues." Intl. Bhd. of Teamsters, Airline Div. v. Frontier Airlines, Inc., 2012 WL 1801979 (quoting Gomez v. Martin Marietta Corp., 50 F.3d 1511, 1519 (10th Cir. 1995)). However, while the concept of relevance for discovery purposes is broad, it is not unlimited. Murphy v. Deloitte & Touche Grp. Ins. Plan, 619 F.3d 1151, 1163 (10th Cir. 2010). The mere fact that a plaintiff offers a "broad theory of the case" does not automatically justify equally broad discovery, "unless the discovery is relevant to the plaintiff's actual claims or defenses." In re Cooper Tire & Rubber, 568 F.3d 1180, 1193 (10th Cir. 2009). Trial courts have broad discretion in managing discovery matters and are subject to review only for abuse of discretion. Smith v. Sentinel Ins. Co., 2011 WL 2883433, *1 (N.D.Okla. July 15, 2011).
To continue reading
Request your trial