Braase v. Battelle Energy Alliance, LLC, No. 4:2014cv00481 - Document 22 (D. Idaho 2016)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - The Clerk is directed to effectuate the transfer of Braase v. Battelle Energy Alliance, LLC, Case No. 4:14-cv-481-EJL to this Court, and make the necessary changes to the case title. Case reassigned to Judge B. Lynn Wi nmill for all further proceedings and case number is now 4:14-cv-00481-BLW. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that the referral to Judge Bush in Braase v. Battelle Energy Alliance LLC, supra, is withdrawn. Signed by Judge B. Lynn Winmill. (caused to be mailed to non Registered Participants at the addresses listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by (cjs)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO BRIAN SIMMONS, Case No. 4:14-cv-294-BLW Plaintiff, MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER vs. BATTELLE ENERGY ALLIANCE, LLC, organized in Delaware, Defendant. STEVE BRAASE, Case No. 4:14-cv-481-EJL Plaintiff, vs. BATTELLE ENERGY ALLIANCE, LLC, organized in Delaware, Defendant. INTRODUCTION The Court has before it plaintiff Simmons’ motion to consolidate. The motion is fully briefed and at issue. For the reasons expressed below, the Court will grant the ORDER - 1 motion, transferring a similar case from Judge Lodge to this Court and consolidating the two cases for discovery purposes but not for trial. BACKGROUND Plaintiff Brian Simmons asks the Court to consolidate his case with a similar case brought by Steve Braase pending before Judge Lodge. Braase v. Battelle Energy Alliance, LLC, Case No. 4:14-cv-481-EJL. Both Simmons and Braase have sued defendant Battelle Energy Alliance, LLC alleging they were wrongfully exposed to Plutonium-239 while working on November 8, 2011. Simmons and Braase bring 11 identical claims against Battelle; Simmons brings one additional claim for retaliation. Because Simmons and Braase bring 11 overlapping claims that arise from the same event, Simmons asks the Court to (1) transfer the Braase case from Judge Lodge to this Court, and (2) consolidate the two cases for discovery but not for trial. Battelle agrees that the cases should not be consolidated for trial, but objects to consolidation for discovery purposes, pointing out that (1) the parties have already agreed that discovery in the two cases can be used in either case; and (2) the motion to consolidate is an attempt to forum shop by Simmons because this Court denied a motion to dismiss, and Judge Lodge had – at the time of the briefing on this motion – an identical motion pending before him. Battelle argues that Simmons’ attempt to remove the case from Judge Lodge is actually an attempt to get both cases in front of a judge deemed by Simmons to be favorable to his case. That latter point is now resolved because Judge Lodge also denied Battelle’s motion to dismiss. There is no longer any hint of forum shopping in plaintiff’s attempt to ORDER - 2 get both cases before a single judge. Indeed, the transfer would avoid the potential for inconsistent rulings on motions and jury instructions. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 1. For these reasons, the Court will grant that portion of the motion that seeks to transfer Braase to this Court. The only remaining issue is whether the cases should be consolidated for discovery purposes. While the cases are not identical they are sufficiently similar to warrant consolidation for discovery purposes. Battelle argues that complications will arise because one case has a complex retaliation issue that the other case does not share. Battelle is concerned about how consolidation will affect summary judgment motions. However, Simmons is only seeking consolidation for discovery purposes, and the consolidation will have no impact on summary judgment motions – they can be filed separately in each case. Battelle also points out that the parties have agreed to share discovery between the two cases, but that just means that a formal consolidation for discovery purposes will not disrupt either side. The Court will therefore grant the motion to consolidate for discovery purposes only. ORDER In accordance with the Memorandum Decision above, NOW THEREFORE IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, that the Motion to Consolidate (docket no. 20) is GRANTED. The Clerk is directed to effectuate the transfer of Braase v. Battelle Energy Alliance, LLC, Case No. 4:14-cv-481-EJL to this Court, and make the necessary changes to the case title. ORDER - 3 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that this case and Braase v. Battelle Energy Alliance, LLC, Case No. 4:14-cv-481-EJL be consolidated for discovery purposes only and that this case be designated as the lead case for discovery purposes only. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that the Clerk file a copy of this Order in both this case and Braase. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that the referral to Judge Bush in Braase v. Battelle Energy Alliance LLC, supra, is withdrawn. DATED: March 16, 2016 _________________________ B. Lynn Winmill Chief Judge United States District Court ORDER - 4
]]>
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.
