Smith-Bunge v. Wisconsin Central, Ltd., No. 18-1251 (8th Cir. 2019)
Annotate this Case
The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment to Wisconsin Central in an action brought by plaintiff for unlawful retaliation under the Federal Railroad Safety Act. The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying plaintiff's request for the information defendant's expert acquired in preparation for trial under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(4). The court also held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in blocking a deposition of Wisconsin Central's counsel about her conversations with other employees and whether plaintiff's employment record caused his termination; the information was privileged; and thus the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting the protective order.
The court held that the district court properly granted summary judgment to Wisconsin Central because plaintiff did not make a prima facie case of retaliation under the Act. In this case, plaintiff failed to raise an inference of intentional retaliation prompted by any of his three specified acts, and no reasonable factfinder could infer a retaliatory motive.
Court Description: Benton, Author, with Smith, Chief Judge, and Gruender, Circuit Judge] Civil case - Federal Railroad Safety Act. The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying plaintiff's request for the information defendant's expert acquired in preparation for trial as the work was protected under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(4); nor did the court err in blocking a deposition of defendant's counsel as the test for deposing opposing counsel set out in Shelton v. American Motors Corp., 895 F. 2d (8th Cir. 1986) had not been met; plaintiff failed to make a prima facie of retaliation under the Federal Railroad Safety Act, and the district court did not err in granting defendant's motion for summary judgment
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.