Wright v. BNSF Railway Company, No. 4:2013cv00024 - Document 116 (N.D. Okla. 2015)
Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER by Magistrate Judge Frank H McCarthy ; granting 104 Motion to Compel (tjc, Dpty Clk)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Wright v. BNSF Railway Company Doc. 116 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA JAMES E. WRIGHT, Plaintiff, v. BNSF RAILWAY CO., Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No. 13-CV-24-JED-FHM OPINION AND ORDER Defendant BNSF Railway Co.’s Motion to Compel Plaintiff to Second Deposition on Newly Produced Evidence, [Dkt. 104], is before the court for decision. The motion has been fully briefed. [Dkts. 106, 113]. In forming his expert opinions, Plaintiff’s expert considered detailed factual information Plaintiff provided about Plaintiff’s work activities during his thirty two years working for Defendant. The information included an extensive questionnaire filled out by Plaintiff, an interview of Plaintiff by the expert, and other material about Plaintiff’s work activities. Although the questionnaire was completed by Plaintiff before his deposition, it was not provided to the Defendant before Plaintiff’s deposition. The other materials considered by Plaintiff’s expert concerning Plaintiff’s work activities were generated after Plaintiff’s deposition. Defendant seeks a second deposition of Plaintiff to examine the reliability and accuracy of the factual assertions Plaintiff has conveyed to his expert about his work activities over the years. Plaintiff responds that Defendant had the ability to question Plaintiff about his work activities at Plaintiff’s first deposition. Dockets.Justia.com The court finds that Defendant has established good cause for a second deposition of Plaintiff. At Plaintiff’s first deposition, Plaintiff had not provided Defendant with the extensive questionnaire of Plaintiff’s work activities and it was not clear that Plaintiff’s expert would be relying on Plaintiff’s detailed account of his work activities over many years as the basis for Plaintiff’s expert’s opinion. In fairness, Defendant should have the opportunity to test the reliability and accuracy of Plaintiff’s factual assertions. Defendant BNSF Railway Co.’s Motion to Compel Plaintiff to Second Deposition on Newly Produced Evidence, [Dkt. 104], is GRANTED. SO ORDERED this 19th day of October, 2015. 2
]]>
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.
