Ellis v. CSX Transp. (Ex parte CSX Transp.)
| Decision Date | 07 October 2022 |
| Docket Number | SC-2022-0518 |
| Parties | Ex parte CSX Transportation, Inc. v. CSX Transportation, Inc. In re: Christopher M. Ellis |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
(Montgomery Circuit Court: CV-20-901397)
PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS
BOLIN Justice CSX Transportation, Inc. ("CSX"), petitions this Court for a writ of mandamus directing the Montgomery Circuit Court to, among other things discussed infra, vacate its order granting Christopher M. Ellis's motion to compel discovery and either enter an order denying Ellis's motion to compel or a protective order barring production of materials CSX contends to be protected work product or patently irrelevant. We grant the petition in part and deny it in part.
Facts and Procedural History
Ellis was employed by CSX as a remote-control foreman at CSX's Montgomery yard. While riding on the ladder of a railcar during the course of his employment with CSX, Ellis was struck in the torso by the broken door handle and latch assembly of a railcar on an adjacent track. The impact of the blow knocked Ellis off the railcar on which he was riding causing him to suffer significant injuries. On November 17, 2020, Ellis sued CSX asserting claims under the Federal Employers' Liability Act ("FELA"), 45 U.S.C. § 51 et seq., and the Safety Appliance Act ("the SAA"), 49 U.S.C. § 20301 et seq. Ellis propounded 25 multipart interrogatories and 62 requests for production to CSX with his complaint.
On February 5, 2021, CSX served its responses to Ellis's discovery requests.
According to Ellis, CSX failed to provide complete responses to his discovery requests. On January 11, 2022, Ellis submitted a letter to CSX in an effort to resolve the discovery issues pursuant to Rule 37(a)(2), Ala. R. Civ. P., outlining the allegedly deficient responses and requesting supplementation of those responses by February 1, 2022. Ellis agreed in the letter to limit the scope, as to time and geography, of some of the discovery requests that pertained to prior accidents. Ellis also objected to the language used by CSX to verify the interrogatory responses provided by CSX. On February 2, 2022, CSX notified Ellis that it was working on responding to his letter seeking supplementation of its discovery responses and that it would "get that out to [him] shortly."
On February 17, 2022, Ellis moved the trial court for an order compelling discovery, asserting that CSX had yet to provide complete information responsive to his discovery requests and specifically identifying those discovery responses that he contended were deficient. Ellis also sought an order compelling CSX to execute a proper verification of its interrogatory responses.
On February 25, 2022, CSX filed its response in opposition to the motion to compel, stating that it was in the process of responding to Ellis's request for supplementation and that, although CSX's counsel had advised Ellis's counsel that supplemented responses would be provided shortly, Ellis chose to file the motion to compel. CSX asserted that Ellis's only effort to obtain supplemental responses was sending the letter of January 11, 2022, requesting supplementation. CSX further stated that, although Ellis technically had complied with the mandate of Rule 37(a)(2) regarding contacting opposing counsel before filing a motion to compel, Ellis had made no actual effort to determine what issues were actually in dispute and had made no further inquiries about the status of CSX's supplemental responses. CSX contended that many of the issues Ellis presented in his motion to compel had been rendered moot upon CSX's providing supplemental responses after the filing of the motion to compel and that additional issues could have been resolved informally between the parties without a motion to compel.
CSX also addressed in its response to the motion to compel those responses that Ellis asserted were deficient. CSX in particular addressed Ellis's request for production no. 4, explaining that it sought "any and all files relating to personal injuries and/or on-duty injuries pertaining to Plaintiff and kept by Defendant in the ordinary course of Defendant's business." CSX stated that, after making various objections to the request, it directed Ellis to his personnel and medical files that had been previously produced. CSX argued that Ellis, however, in his motion to compel, had attempted to broaden the scope of the request by suggesting that his request for his "personal injury files" also included documents maintained by CSX in its risk-management system ("the RMS"), a proprietary electronic database created and maintained by CSX, such as "claim search results, claim information, claim value, injury/illness info, property damage claim(s), lost days, notes, and settlement/structure information." CSX objected to the expansion of the scope of request for production no. 4, arguing that the materials sought by Ellis in his motion to compel were privileged attorney work product created in anticipation of litigation. CSX also filed on February 25, 2022, its privilege log identifying claims files created by the CSX's risk-management department ("the RMD") and information contained in the RMS purportedly constituting "mental impressions, conclusions, opinions and legal theories relating to [CSX's] investigation, analysis and evaluation of [Ellis's] claims and [CSX's] defenses."
CSX also objected to several of the discovery requests in Ellis's motion to compel as being vague, overly broad, unduly burdensome, and/or seeking irrelevant and prejudicial evidence. CSX also contended that its verification of its interrogatory responses complied with Rule 33(a), Ala. R. Civ. P.
On March 7, 2022, CSX moved the trial court for a protective order pursuant to Rule 26(c), Ala. R. Civ. P., and requested that the trial court deny Ellis's motion to compel insofar as it sought production of information and materials that CSX asserted was protected from disclosure by the attorney work-product doctrine pursuant to Rule 26(b)(4), Ala. R. Civ. P. CSX explained in its motion that Ellis's request for production no. 4 demanded "any and all files relating to personal injuries and/or on-duty injuries pertaining to Plaintiff and kept by Defendant in the ordinary course of Defendant's business." CSX stated that it had objected to Ellis's request for "personal injury files" on various grounds but, nevertheless, had produced Ellis's personnel and medical files. CSX further asserted that Ellis had claimed in the letter of January 11, 2022, that CSX's response to request for production no. 4 was insufficient and that his request for "personal injury files" included documents maintained by CSX in the RMS, such as "claim search results, claim information, claim value, injury/illness info, property damage claim(s), lost days, notes, and settlement/structure information." CSX argued that Ellis sought through his motion to compel materials that would include privileged attorney work product created and maintained by the RMD.
CSX stated in its motion that it had no "personal injury files" on Ellis and specifically objected to Ellis's effort to expand the scope of request for production no. 4 to include privileged materials protected from disclosure under Alabama law. CSX contended that if Ellis were to specifically request the production of CSX's risk-management files, it would be obvious, on the face of the request, that such a request was intended to invade the attorney-client/work-product privileges protected under Alabama law. CSX explained that, rather than directly requesting CSX's risk-management files, Ellis had asked for "personal injury files" in the hope of acquiring privileged documents similar to documents previously inadvertently produced in a Georgia case involving CSX and Ellis's counsel and subsequent cases in which the parties have dealt with this same issue. CSX argued that Ellis, bolstered by that prior inadvertent production of privileged documents, essentially sought CSX's privileged risk-management file relating to his injury. CSX contended that Ellis's counsel was undeniably aware that the materials sought in Ellis's motion to compel were privileged work product of CSX's in-house counsel and risk-management professionals. CSX argued that Ellis was merely attempting to capitalize on the inadvertent disclosure of privileged CSX risk-management materials made by a former CSX outside counsel in another action and that Ellis's filing his motion to compel discovery of such privileged materials appeared to be intended solely to harass and annoy CSX, to vexatiously expand the scope of discovery, and to impose a substantial burden and expense on CSX.
On March 24, 2022, the trial court notified the parties that it would consider the pending motions at a hearing on April 18, 2022. On April 11, 2022, Ellis filed a reply to CSX's response in opposition to the motion to compel, stating that, since the motion to compel had been filed, CSX had supplemented its discovery responses on two occasions and that some issues were no longer in dispute. Ellis informed the trial court that the issues that had been resolved were not addressed in his reply to CSX's response in opposition to the motion to compel and that, in his reply, he had attempted to "streamline" for the trial court the issues that remained between the parties. Ellis then outlined and argued the discovery issues that he said remained between the parties. Ellis also filed a response to CSX's motion for a protective order on April 11, 2022.
Although the trial court had set the pending motions for a hearing on April 18, 2022, the trial court, on April 17, 2022, the day before the scheduled hearing, entered an order granting Ellis's motion to compel discovery and directing that...
To continue reading
Request your trial