Drummond Coal Sales, Inc. v. Norfolk Southern Railway Company, No. 7:2016cv00489 - Document 267 (W.D. Va. 2019)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Chief Judge Michael F. Urbanski on 07/22/2019. (aab)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
CLERK'S OFFICEU. S.DISX Cour ATROANOKE,VA FILED JUL 22 2912 IN TH E U N IT ED STATE S D IST RICT CO U RT FO R TH E N STERN D ISTkICT OF W RGIN IA RO AN O U D IW SION JULIA C,DUDLEY LERK BY; ' . D RU M M O N D CO AL SALE S,IN C., CivilAction N o.7:16-cv-489 Plaintiffy By: M ichaelF.U rbansld RORFOLK SOUTHERN RM LW AY co M pm ClliefUnited StatesDisttictJudge , D efendant. M E M O R AN D U M O PIN ION This action arises outofa protracted contract dispute between plaindffD mlm m ond Coal Sales, Inc. rfDrummond'') and defendant Norfolk Southetn Railway Company (ffNorfolk Southern'')related to a2006 conttactr<C-9337'')forrailttansportadon services from aterminalin Charleston,SouthCarolinatotwentrthree(23)çontractuallyspecifiedcoalburning pow er plants in the southeastern United States.The pardes resolved their inidal dispute in 2010,agreeing to am end certain provisions of the contractand extend itb tetmk D rum m ond now seeksa declaraéon thatitsperform ance underC-9337,asam ended,should be excused. The pdncipal issue rem aining in this case is the interplay bçtween D m m m ond's Drummond Coal Sales, Inc. v. Norfolk Southern Railway Company conttact with Norfolk Southern, i.e., (2-9337 (as amended), and Norfolk Southezn's Doc. 267 confidentialthird-party contracts rr esénation Contracts'')wit. h variousutility customers rfutilities''lthatownandoperateaspeciûed listofpowerplantsrfDestinadons').Theterms ofC-9337 requited D m m m ond to ship am inim um volum e ofcoalèach yearofthe contract tet'm and pay N orfolk Southern a shortfallfeeifitfailed to m eetthatguaranteed voltlm e.In 1 Dockets.Justia.com : the present acdon, D rum m ond contends that N orfolk Southern's separate D esdnadon Contractspzecluded theU tilitiesfrom accepting coalon C-9337 withoutincurring liquidated dam ages,effecévely evisceradng thevalueof(2-9337 and depriving D rum m ond ofthebenefit ofthe batgain itstzuck with N orfolk Southern. Currently before the colztt are vatious m oéons in lim ine flled by the parties.These m oéonshavebeen fully briefed and areripefordecision.Upon consideradon oftheevidence and argum entspresented by the parties,and forthereasonsstated in opèn colzrtand below , the colzrtrulesasfollow s: 1. D rum m ond CoalSalesyInc.'s M otion in Lim ine N um berO ne Regarding the Interpretation and Operatibn ofthe D estination ContractsyECF N o.210 lnitsflrstmotionitzlimine,Dfnammondrequeststhecoutteitherinfot' m thejuryofits variouslegaldete= inadons (or,asvariously described by Norfolk Southern,the courtis Tfcolloquialobsewadonsy'?ffexplanatorycomments,''and/orê.eneralizations')withrespectto the intem retadon and operation ofthe D esdnadon Conttactsl,orpet-m itD nzm m ond to do so. D m m m ond contends that perdnent provisions of the D estinadon Contracts are unam bigpous, and that because it is well settled that the intem tetation of unam biguous conttactsisaquesdonoflaw,fTgaqllowingthejut'ytodraw theirown conclusionsregardingthe intem retation oroperation oftheD esdnation Contractswould be error ....''ECF N o.210, at 4. Drllm m ond cites m uldple instances wheze N ozfolk Southern conceded that the Destinadon Conttactsarein factunambiguous.See e..ECF No.139,at3 (<TheContract 1DesdnadonContractsreferstoNorfolkSouthem'sseparatecontractswiththeUtilidesthatffownted)andoperatetd) theD estinadonsin the Appendicesto (79337.''ECF N o.210,at1. and D estinaéon Conttacts speak fot them selves, and thei. t propet intem zetadon and applicationatemattersfortllisCourt.'');ECF No.186,at16(<<Thepardesflltt.heragreethat the term sand provisions ofthese contracts speak forthem selvesand are notam biguous.ln other w ords,the parties do notdisagree on what these separate contracts say in term s of guaranteed m inim um s,liquidated dam ages,origins,ratesorreftm dsrelating to specifk origins '). In itsopposiéon to Drummond'smotion,Norfok Southern reaffit-med thatithas . . . consistently m aintained thatthe D esdnadon Contracts are unam biguous and thatthe plain languageofthose contractsrfspeaks foritself.''ECF N o.233,at7. N otwithstanding the pao es' appatent agreem ent that relevant provisions of the DesénaéonConttactsareffunambiguousy''theydivergeastowhatthejuryshouldbetoldand bywhom.Dnzmmond contendsthatalthough thejurymaybeasked to dete= inewhether N orfolk Southern'sactsand omissionsconstitute a m aterialbreach of(2-9337,itshould not be asked to intem ret the D estinadon Contracts.D rum m ond proposes that rather than reqlliting itto callwitnessesto tesdfy aboutand relidgate them eaning and/oroperadon of theDesdnadon Contracts,thejuryshouldbeinsttuctedbythecouttorinformedbycounsel regarding the sam e.Dnzm m ond expressed a willingness to work with counselfor N orfolk Southern on ajointstipulaéon to addressthisissue. Norfolk Southern,forit?part,assettsthat.the jury is endtled to hearitswimesses Tfabout the contextin wllich these conttacts arose''follow ed by f<aytorney argum ent about whatita1lm eans.''ECF N o.262,at11.N orfolk Southern farther asserts thatD mlm m ond offersnoanalysistosupporttheproceduralerroritinvites,i.e.,thatinadeclaratoryjudgment case between two patdesto a specifk conttact(C-9337),the cotutshold itastructthejury 3 aboutinterlocutorylegalnzlings,madewit.hrespecttoothercontractsO esénaéonContracts) between otherparties(Norfolk Southern and theUtilities).ECF No.233,at3. To be sure,theFourth Citcuitand theSuprem e CourtofVirginia have consistently held thatthe intem retation ofan unam biguous contzactisa question of law .See Frahm v. United States,492F.3d258,262 (4th Cir.2007)(cidng Scarborou hv.Rid ewa ,726F.2d 132,135 (4th Cit.1984)9see also CityofChesapeakev.StatesSelf-lnstzrersRisk Retenéon G .lnc.,271Va.574,578,628S.E.2d539,541(2006)(citingBentle Fundin Grou L.L.C. v.SK & R Grou L.L.C.,269Va.315,324,609S.E.2d49,53(2005)9Babcock& W ilcoxCo. v.ArevaNP,Inc.,292Va.165,178,788 S.E.2d 237,243(2016)rTheintemretadon and çonstruction ofaw ritten contractpresentonly queséonsoflaw,witlzin the province ofthe cotvt,andnotofthejuryorothertderoffactaslongasthecontractisunambipzous,andthe intentofthe pardescan bedeterrnined from the faceoftheagreement.');Forèign Mission Bd.ofS.Ba tistConvçntbnv.W ade,242Va.234,238,409S.E.2d144,146(1991)(holding thatthe tdalcourtim properly subrnitted tlw question ofthe intem retaéon ofthe çontractto thejuryl;seealsoVa.ModellulylnstrucéonsCivilNo.45.190,Commentaryrfordinarily,the construction ofawritten contractisam atter forthe couttalone.Ifthe tet'm softhecontract are clear and unam biguous,the courtalone m ustconstrue the contract.ln such a case,itis impropertosubrnittheconttacttothejuryforintemmtation''(citadonsornittedl);cf.Donnert v.FeldEntcft,Inc.,612F.App'x657,661(4thCit.2015)(holdingthatwheteapartypresents a plausible alternaéve intem retadon ofa contractprovision,thatparty isendtled to have the meaningoftheprovijion subnnitted to thejuryforresolution). 4 N eithezD talm m ond norN orfolk Southezn contend thatthe D estinadon Cônttactsat issueare am bi> ous.In genetalterm s,theseD esdnadon Contractsim pose minim um volum e com m i% entsw llich D slm m ond arguesbreach Arécle13 ofC-9337,eitherexpzessly orunder the covenantofgood faith and fairdealing,because D m m m ond wasunable to use the rates itbargainedforinC-9337,resultingintheshortfallfees.Thus,thejuryisnotgoingtobecalled upon to intem rettheseprovisionsofthe D estinadon Contracts.lnstead,theirtask wiltbe to deternaine w hether the existence ofthese D estinadon Contracts constituted a m aterialSrst breach qfArdcle 13 ofC-9337,relievingD nlm m ond from having to pay shottfallfees.Under thecitcum stances,thecouttdoesnotbelieveitto be appropriate oznecessary to prelim inatily insttuctthejury,asDrummondsuggests,ontheoperadonoftheDestinadonContracts.The factthattheseD estinadon Contzactsim posed minim um volum e requirem entsisplain. Thequestion to be resolved,thatofthe operaéon and im pactofthem inim um volum e provisions ofthe D esdnadon Conttactson D rum m ond'sability to perform urider(2-9337,is notoneoflaw,butoffact,requiring them atshaling ofevidenceand argllm ent.Thisdoesnot callfor conttactintem retation requiting a prelim inary instrucdon ftom the court. A s such, Dmnmmond'smodon tohavethecourtinsttuctthejuryon theoperadon oftheDestinadon ContractsisD EN IE D . 2: D rum m ond CoalSalesyInc.'s M otion in Lim ine N qm berTw o R egarding ParolEvidence Relating to the D estination Contracts,E CF N o.211 In itssecond m otion in lim ine,D rum m ond m ovesto precludeN orfolk Southern from offering evidenceoradvancing argum entsthatcontradictunam biguouslanguagecontained itz the D estinadon Contracts.Specifically,D nnm m ond m ovesto preventN orfolk Southern from 5 clniming,through the deposidon testimony ofitsRule309$(6)corporatedesignee,David Law son, that ffas a pracdcalm atter,'' Tfitw ould have counted''z shipm ents under (2-9337 toward thenlinim um voltzm erequitem entsoftheU tilides.Law son'stestim ony,distilled to its essence,appearsto suggestthathad any U tility contacted N orfolk Southetn and expressed a desire to ship coalundet C-9337,itwould have granted thatrequestand counted any such shipmenttoward theUtility'svoltzmecommitment.SeeECF No.234-1,at10 rt W e11,1'm telling you as a m atter ofpracdcalcourse ifthe ton had m oved,Southern Com pany would have said to us,gtjhat's a ton thatmoved in here.Itqualiûes.W e would have said,yeah? absolutelp');seealsoECFNo.158,at7(ff...asapracdcalmatter,ifanyUtilityhadcontacted N orfolk Southern and indicated a desire to putchase D m m m ond coalunder the Contract, N orfolk Sopthern absolutely w ould have coupted any such sllipm çpttoward the minimum volmnecommi% entintheUti lity'sDesénationContract'). D mèm m ond assertsthattheunam biguouslanguage oftheD estinaéon Contractsdoes not allow shipments under (2-9337 to count toward the Utilities' minimum volume rçquirem ents,and N ozfolk Southern should notbepe- itted to clnim otherwiseafterthefact. D lnlm m ond assel'ts that Lawson's statem ents concerning tlnis tfhypothedcal scenado''are speculative,self-serving,and conttary to expresstet'm softhe D esdnation Contracts,aswell asplainlyviolaéve oftheparolevidencertzle.Dszm m ond flxttherassertsthatto allow N orfolk Southern to ffretzoactively and unilaterally''am end unam biguous contractazalprovisionsthat 2N orfolk Southem appears to concedein itsbriesng on itsthird m odon in lim ine,ECF N o.221,thatitwould nothave cotmtedshipmentsunderC-9337towardstheminimum volumereqo ementscontainedintheDestinationContractsof atleasttwoUtilities.SeeECFNo.221,at5(statingthatTfshipmentsmadeptusuantto(79337wouldnothavecotmted towardstheC-9290volumecommitment');idaat6(statingïfshipmentsmadeplzrsuarittoC-9337wouldnothave cotmtedtowardsthe(2-7545vollamecommitment'). 6 are detrim entalto itsposidon in laterlitigation w ould undetm inethe parolevidence ruleand nonsensically allow defendants in breach of contract cases to ffoffer up speculadve hypotheicals about what they pum ortedly Twould have' done notwithstanding the -plain language ofa conttactin orderto excuse theirbreach.''ECF N o.211,at3. Norfolk Southern frstarguesthat'because the parolevidence rule applies only to statem ents thatw ere m ade ffprior to or contem poraneous with the contract at issuey''and because the deposition statem entsin quesdon occurred long after C-9337 w asexecuted,the parolevidence rule isinapposite.N orfolk Southezn also argues thatLawson,asa com orate designee, is pe= itted to teséfy about N orfolk Southern's Tfknowledge,percepéons, and opihions,''and how N orfolk Southern w ould have handled a requestthatD nzm m ond coal counttowazd aUtilitfssllippingminimum representsan ffopinion''ofthecomotaéon..See ECF No 234,at3-4 (cidngUnitedStatesv.Ta lor,166F.R.D.356,361(M.D.N.C.),aff'd, 166 F.R.D.367 (M.D.N.C.1996) (holding thata'comorate designee may ffpresentglthe com oration's fposition'on ga glven) topic,''and Tftestify about its subjecéve beliefs and opirlions?l). Irrespecdve ofwhethet Lawson's statem ents are barred by the parolevidence rule, insofarasthey relateto whatN ozfolk Southern Tfwotzld have''donehad aUtilityhypothedcally apprpached itwith adesiteto ship coalunder(2-9337,they areplainlyspeculativeand,assuch, inaclmissible.Rule309$(6)jtatesinpertinentpartthat: ga1partymayin theparty'snoticeandin asubpoenanameasthe deponenta public or private com oration ...and describe with reasonable pardcularity the m atters on wltich examinadon is requested. In that event, the organization so nam ed shall designateoneorm ore officers,ditectors,orm anaging agents,or other personswho consentto tesdfy on its behalf,and m ay set forth, for each person designated, the m attezs on which the person willteséfy ...Thepersons so designated shalltestify as to m attersknown otreasonably available to the organization. Fed.R.Civ.P.309$(6).Inshott,testimonyelicitedattheRule309$(6)depositionrepresents the knowledge ofthe com oration,notofthe individualdeponents.The designated witness, thetefore,isT'speaking for the corporation,''and this testim ony m ustbe clisénguished from that of a ffm ere com oraie em ployee'' whose deposition is not considered that of the' corporation and whose presencem ustbe obtained by subpoqna.8. A W right,M iller& M arcus j2103,at36-37. In United States v. Ta lor, 166 F.R.D. 356 (M.D.N.C.), aff'd, 166 F.R.D.367 (M.D.N.C. 1996), the cotzrt slzmmadzed a designee's role:Tfgtjhe designee, in essence, representsthecom oraéon justasan individualreptesentshim orherselfatadeposidon.''Id. at361;Mardnv.BimboFoodsBakeriesDistdbudon,LLC,313F.R.D.1,8-9(E.D.N.C.2016) (stadng thatffgaqdeposiéon ofa deponentin hisindividualcapacity differs from thatofa deponent as a çorporate representaéve'' in that a com orate designee ffspeaks as the corporadon and testifies regarding the knowledge, pezcepdons, and opinions of thè corporation>). W hilea comorate designeeispe= itted to tesdfybasçd on factswithin the comorateentitfscollecdveknowledge,ratherthanonlyonthebasisoftheindividual'sdirect personalknowledge,he orsheisotherwise bound by the sam e evidentiary rulesthatapply to 1aywitnesses(urzlessdesignatedasap expert,wllichisnotthecasehere,seeECF N o.208,at 2).SeeBrazosmverAuth.v.GE lonics,lnc.,469F.3d416,434(5thCit.2006)Soldingthat aRule309$(6)designeemaytesdfyTfbeyondmatterspersonallyknowntothedesigneeorto mattersinwllich thedesigneewasnotpersonallyitwolved,''includingTfsubjtcdvebeliefsand 8 opinions,''Tfprovided the teslimony isotherwisepermissiblelay testimonf);see also ISG Insolvenc G .Inc.v.M erita eH om esCo .,N o.2:11-CV-01364-PM P,2013W L 3043681, at*4(D.Nev.June17,2013),aff'dsubnom.Dev.S ecialistsInc.v.Merita eHomesCo ., 621F.App'x434(9thCit.2015)(same). G enerally,lay witness testim ony is only adm issible if it is Ttrationally based on the percepdon ofthe witness.''Fed.R.Evid.701.In Sem ra Ener v.M arsh U SA Inc.,N o. CV0705431SJOJCX,2008W L 11335050,at*14(C.D.Cal.Oct.15,2008),thecolzttheld: Given ylaisrequirem ent,an inclividualteséfying as a 1ay witness generally cannot answ er hypothetical quesdons because speculative testim ony about what ffrlaight have happened'' or w hatawitnessffwould have doneunderdifferentcircum stahces cannot possibly be based on the witness's perception.'' See EvanstonBankv.Brink'sInc.,853 F.2d512,515(7t.h Cir.1188)9 A m .G en.Life Ins.Com .v.SchoenthalFam il L.L.C.,248 F R D 298 305 @ .b.'Ga.2008)9Athridgev.AetnaCasualty& SuretyCo.,474 F.Supp.2d 102,105 0 .D.C.2007)(internal citaéonsomitted)(finding thatlaywitnessescould nottesdfy as to w hattheyw ould havedoneifthey had been hom e on theday ofthe accidentbecause such tesdm ony wasffpurely speculative'' butcould tesdfy on othetissues based on personalknowledge, such as whether they generally allowed unlicensed, underage fomily members to use thei. rvehicle).glnstead),the ability to answerhypotheticalquesdonsisthe essendaldifferencebetween expertand 1ay testim ony.United Statesv.H enderson,409 F.3d 1293, 1300 (111 Cir. 2005) (internal citaéons omitted). N evertheless,lay witnessescan testifyregatding the 1ay witness's ffparécularized knowledge ...by virt'ue ofllisorherposidon in aparticplarbusiness.l'Am.Gen.LifeIns.Com .,248F.R.D .at 305 ... 1d.W hile Lawson's testim ony need notbe based on Ttpersonalknowledge''perse given the relaxed knowledge requirem ent afforded corporate designees, it still m ust be based on inform ation within thecorporateknowledge oftheorganizadon.In Sem raEner ,the court held that a 1ay witness cannot teséfy aboutwhether he believes the plnindff com oradon, 9 Sem pra Energy, frwould have''been able obtain an insutance policy had it hypotheécally applied for one despite llisrfpersonalknowledge and experience''working forthe insurance provider because testim ony aboutw hatffwould have':happened under circum stances that nevercam e to passis speculaéve.Id.at*13. The raéonale fot batdng testim ony about what T'would have'' happened in the hypotheticalsittzadon atissuein Sem aEner applieswith equalforceto Lawson'stestim ony despitehisstat'usasacorpozatedesignee.Indeed,justasalaywittlesscannotpossessffpersonal knowledge7'aboutwhatfTw ouldhave''occurred in ahypothedcalsittzadon,neithercan Lawson possesscom orate knowledge aboutwhatprecisely <fwould have''happened if,hypothedcally, a Utility had approached N orfolk Southern with a tequestto count coalslnipped under C- 9337,without engaging in speculadon.Tllis is especially so given that,as far as C-9337 is concerned,no Utilityappeazsto have everapproached N orfolk Southern with such a request. This fnding is consistentwith the handfulofcases holcling thatcom orate designees are generally notallowed to provide opinion testim ony based on hypothedcalsituaéons.See Firefi hters'Ret.S s.v.Citco G .Ltd.,N o.CV 13-373-SD D -EW D ,2018 W L 2158769,at *5n.32(M.D.La.May10,2018)(collecéngcases);Edwardsv.Scri sMedia Inç.,No.CV 18-10735,2019W L 1647803(E.D.Mich.Apr.16,2019)Soldingthathypothedcalquesdons are notappropriate for deposidon of com oradon's designee since deponentw ould have to answerwithpersonalopinionratherthancom orateposition);B rdv.W al-M artTrans .LLC, No.CV609-014,2009WL 3055303,at*3 (S.D.Ga.Sept.23,2009)(findingthathypothetical . queséonsareneverappropriateforaRule306$(6)deposidons);ConsumerFin.Prot.Buteau v.Borders& Bordezs.PLC,2016WL 9460471,*8 (W.D.Ky.June29,2016)(zejecéngtopics thatwereirrelevantand ffentizelyhypothetical7);M C1TelecommunicadonsCo .v.W anzer, 897F.2d703,706(4thCir.1990)(nodngtheclistincdonbetweenopiniontestimonybasedon ffpersonal knowledge'' and opinion testimony based on fThypothetical facts'' (citaéon omittedl). D nzm m ond does notdispute thatN orfolk Southern m ay offet testim ony and other evidence aboutwhatithas actually done under sim ilarcirctzm stances in the past,and from suchtestimony,it(Tcouldtrytosuggesttothejulytheultimatehypotheticalthattheirwitness teséfied to.''ECF N o.263, at 17.D tnlm m onds asserts,however,that N orfolk Southern appearsintentto go one step furthezby asking Law son to opine asto the applicadon ofpast . practicesin thépresentcase.Forthereasonsstated above,thecourtfindsthatsuch testim ony w ould veer into inadrnissible speculation.N either of the.cases ciyed by N orfolk Southern compeladifferentzesult.SeeECF Np.234,at2-3 (citingInt'lOr .ofMasters Mates& Pilots Atl.& GulfRe 'on AFL-CIO v.CoalTetminalTowin Co .,N o.83-446-N ,1984W L 49133 (E.D.Va.Mar.30,1984)andAmosv.Coffe ,228Va.88,320S.E.2d335 (1984)). ln Int'l Or .of M asters M ates & Pilots A tl.& Gulf Re ion AFL-CIO v. Coal Tet-minalTowin Co .,No.83-446-N,1984 WL 49133 (E.D.Va.Mar.30,1984),thecotut sim ply held thatbecause the parol evidence rule does not app1y to f'subsequent acts''or frconduct''by the parties,courtsm ay examine a course ofperfo= ance to determine ifthe ffclear m eaning of the words''at issue was later Tflim ited in any way.''1d.at *6.N orfolk Southern doesnotpointto any subsequentactsorconductbetween partiesin thiscase ofthe sortatissue before the courtin Int'lOr .ofM asters,which,notably,wenton to hold thatthe defendantcould have chanked the meaning ofthe term atissue by Tfinserdng appropdate languageto clarify thealleged trueintenéony''butbecauseitchose notto do so,it(Tcannotbe heard attlzispointduring liégation to say thatthe plxin wotdsdo notm ean whatthey say.'' 1d.at*4.InAmosv.Coffe ,228Va.88,320S.E.2d335(1984),theSupremeCourtofVirginia, although nodng thattheparolevidencertzleconcernsffpriororcontem poraneous''statem ents, nevertheless af6t-m ed a lower court's refusal to adm it testim ony w hich, m uch like the testim ony offered by Lawson,d'tended to vary and conttadictthe intçntion oftheparties''as expressed in an ffunam biguousand unconditional>'deed.Id.at94,320 S. . E .2d at338. In slzm ,because Law son'stestim ony zegarding how N orfolk Southern ffwotzld have'' handled a request from a U dlity to count coal sllipped undet (2-9337 is speculadve,itis inadmissible,and D tn'm m ond'sm odon isGRA N TE D to thisextent.N orfolk Southern m ay, howevet,offerevidenceasto how ithasresponded llistorically to sim ilarrequestsfrom other custom ers. 3. D rum m ond CoalSales,Inc.'s M otion in Lim ine N um berThree Regarding the Parties'PdorLaw suit,Settlem entAgreem entand N egotiations,E CF N o.212 & D rum m ond CoalSales,Inc.'sM otion in Lim ine N um berSix Regarding O therLitigatiom ECF, N o.215 ln its third and sixth m oéons in lim ine,D rum m ond m oves to preclude N orfolk Southern from referencing, discussing, or offering evidence of prior lidgadon,settlem ent agreçm ents,and/or settlementnegoéadons in the cases styled Norfolk Southern Railwa Com an Inc.v.DtnzmmondCoalSales lnc.,7:08-cv-340 (W.D.Va.),andDrummond Coal Sales,lnc.v.IiinderM organ OperadngLP <fC''2:16-cv-345(N .D .A1a.). A. In itstlnird m otion in lim ine,D nzm m ond m ovesto preclude N orfolk Southern from referencing thepatties'priotlitkation and settlementin thecasestyled Norfolk Southern Railwa Com an Inc.v.Drtzmmond CoalSales Inc.,7:08-cv-340 (W.D.Va.),in amanner thatportraysitasundulyliégiousand/oraffseriallitkant''whosecl/imsshouldbediscreclited. ECF N o.263,at20.D nlm m ond clnim sthatN orfolk Southern ffclearly wishesto argueto the jtzrythatitshoulddisregardDrllmmond'sclnimsbecause gitjisaseriallidgant,looldngforany w ay to escape its obligudonsundèz (2-9337.7'ECF N o.254,at5.D m m m ond stated atoral argumentthatitisnotconcernedthatcounselmightffltint''attheexistenceofpriorlitkaéon, butthatNorfolk Southernwillincensethejurybyattemptingto portrayit,in thewordsof counselforN otfolk Southern,asTfusing lidgation asan extension ofitscom m ercialpracdces'' orasa ftbusinesstoolto renegodateorgetoutofthisconttact.''ECF N o.263,at37-38. D slm m ond requests thatreferencçs to and evidence ofN orfolk Southern Railwa Com an Inc.v.Drtzmmond CoalSales lnc.,7:08-cv-340 (W .D.Va. ),beexcluded because such evidenceisirrelevantundezRule 401,and itsprobadvevalueissubstandally outweighed bythe potentialprejudice underRule 403 oftlaeFederalRulesofEvidence.Specifically, D mzm m ond cbim sthatbecauseN orfolk Southern'sactsand onlissionsthatform thebasisof its prior m aterialbteaçh clnim occtured after the parées executed their settlem entin 2009, evidence ofthe parties'priorlitigation and/or settlementagreem ent,and related theories, clsim s,and defenses,isinadnlissiblebecauseithasno bearing on whetherN orfolk Southern com m iued a m aterialbreach afterthe settlem entofthatprior litigation.ECF N o.254,at5. D rum m ond furtherassertsthatsuch evidenceisinadnlissible underRule 408,which,btoadly speaking,lim itsthe adm ission ofstatem entsorconductintended to bepartofcom ptomiseor settlem entnegodations.Fed.R.Evid.408. N otfolk Southern contendsthatthe courtshould allow the introducéon ofevidence pertaining to N orfolk Southern Railw a Com an Inc.v.Drllm m ond CoalSales Inc.,7:08- cv-340(W.D.Va.),becauseitprovidesffitreplaceablefacmalcontextforthepresentlawsuit'' and iscm cialin elucidaéng the ffhistory ofthe parées'relationsllip.''2CF N o.263,at30. N orfolk Southern fllrthercontends thatRule 408 does n6tbarevidence thatpriorlitigadon occr red;ratheritbatstheuseofsettlem ent-telated evidenceto Tfproveordisprovethevalidity or am ount of a disputed cl/im '' or to ffim peach by a prior inconsistent statem ent or a contradiction.'?Fed.R.Evid.408. W it.h respect to relev>ncy,N orfolk Southern's argum ent is twofold.Fitst,N orfolk Southern nqtesthatitisforapurported bzeach of(2-9337,theterm sofwhich weze am ended pursuant to the 2009 settlem eny agreem ent, that D rum m ond is ptesently stzing on, and restticdngitsabilitytointtoduceevidenceofthesettlementagreementwouldpreventthejury from receiving the f<whole storp''ECF N oy263,at22-23.Second,N orfolk Southern clnim s thatbecause D rum m ond has specifically alleged a breach ofthe covenantofgood faith and fairdealing,evidenceofthe parties'ffbusinessrelationship,''which includesthecircum stances sutroundingthesettlementofitspriorlitkation,wouldassistthejuryin (1)interpreéngC9337,(2)determining the çfintenf'ofthe pltties,and (3)making an infot-med fincling asto w hetherN orfolk Southern m aterially breached itsgood faith obligadonsby entezing into the D estination Contracts.ln short,N orfolk Southezn arguesthatthe evidencein question w ould pzovidethejurywithTdmuch-neededcontextandfacmalbackgroundwhenintetw etingtheC9337 and attem pting to ascertain the parées'intent.''ECF N o.235,at6. Itw as evident at the couzt's hearing that despite talldng past one another in their respecévebdefs,the paréesagree thatsom ereferencesto and evidenceoftheunderlying facts that ulém ately resulted in the 1ate-2009 settlem ent and am endm ent of C-9337 m ay be adnnissible atttialinspfar as such evidenceisrelevantand nototherwise batred by Rule 408. G iven thatitisnotatallclearwhatftevidegce''isprecisely atissue othow itwillbe used,the courtcannotl'uledefinitivelyon itsrelevancyand aclm issibility.Cettain issuesand factsrelated to the disputethatform ed thebasisforthe 2009 settlem entarerelevantin contextualizing the pm sentdispute betv een the parties.See,e.g.,Ftanke v.Tig Ins.Co.,N o.13-CV -13432-D T, 2015WL 5697597,at*3 (E.D.Mich.Sept.29,2015)Solding thatffgallthough evidenceof pastlitigation and settlementsistobeexcluded,':itwouldbeunfairlyprejudicialtoplnindffto excludeanymention oftheunderlying factsresultingin thepastlidgadon and settlements'). Drummondappearedtoconcedeasmuchatoralargument.ECF No.263,at33rfrllherecan bediscussion thattheparéesgotinto adisputeaboutgshortfallfeesq,tzltimatelyresolved that dispute with an amended conttact.');idaat31 rfl'm notconcerned ...about F orfolk Southernqtalldngaboutthellistoryofthepardes,therewasan originalconttactandthete'san am ended contract,and therewassom e course ofdealing leacling up to the am ended conttact . . . gajllofthosearefactual...(tlheycan talk aboutthat'l.Dm mm ond asksonlytopreclude N orfolk Southern from perseverating about and overelaboraéng the existence of prior litigation such thataffseriallitkant''themeofthecaseemergesandimpairstheabilityofthe juryto decidethepresentcaseon themedts.Id.at33-35(arguingthatffwhosuedwho,whose theorieswerewhat,':Tddid itgetto summary judgment,wasitmediated in frontofYour Honor,''ffwasitlateatnighty''ffwhatwastalked about''isinadmissible). The m otion is GRAN TE D to the lim ited extentthatN orfolk Southern m ay attem pt to argueorinvokeitspriorM gation historywith D tnlm m ond to portray D tnzm m ond asaserial M gantasitappeared to do atoralargum enton thism odon.The m otion isD EN IE D to the extentthatN orfolk Southern referencesthepriorlitigaéon forthepteposeofproviding som e IVStOV and ContextaSto the Pêesentdispute. B. In itssixth m otion in lim ine,Drum m ond sim ilarly m ovesfor the exclusion ofany referencesto,discussion of,orevidenceregarding thecase styled D tn'm m ond CoalSales, Inè.v.Ivi' nderMoz anO eradn LP <fC'7>2:16-cv-345(N.D.Ala.)rflvinderMor an'')> on . groundsthatitisirrelevantto the narrow issuein thiscase underRule401,and itsprobadve valueisoutweighedbythedangerthatit* 1confusethejuryandisundulyprejudicialundet Rule 403 oftheFederalRulesofEvidence. G enerally,colzrtsexcludeevidenceofotherlawsuits,even ifsuch lawsuitsarerelated to thecasebeforeit.SeeBoard ofTrs.oftheAlRTRA Ret.Fundv.lpM organ ChaseBank, N.A.,860F.Supp.2d251,254 (S.D.N.Y.2012);seealsoUnited Statesv.Hill,322 F.3d 301, 306(4thCir.2003)(affitmingatrialcourt'sexclusionofevidenceofanotherlawsuitwilich Tf would havenecessitatedanexhaustivecasewitilin acasethatwouldhaveconfusedthejury asto theissuesto bedecided');N ew Am.M kt .FS1LLC v.M GA Entm't Inc.,187F. Supp.3d 476,481(S.D.N.Y.2016)(agteeingwit.hplnintiffthatevidenceofotherlitigadon to whichplaindffwasapartywould beirrelevantand undulyprejudicial);ParkW .Radiolo v. CarecoreNat.LLC,675F.Supp.2d314,330(S.D.N.Y.2009)(hndingthatanyptobaéve valueoftheevidence ofotherlidgation isfrsubstandally outweighed by the risk ofunfair . i . . p, preludice,con/ slon oftheissues,nlisleading theJury,andwasteoftlme );L-3 CommunicadonsCor .v.OSIS stems Inc.,No.'02Ciy.9144(PAC),2006W L 988143,at *10(S.D.N.Y.Apr.13,2006)(notingthat,ffgajlthoughevidencerelatedtogpriorlidgaéon) mayberelevantitnmstherisk ofbeingllighlyprejudicial');Arliov.Livel,474F.3d46,53 (2dCir' .2007)(notingthatTfcourts' rereluètanttoèloudtheissuesinthecaseattrialby aclmitdng evidencerelatingto previousM gadon itwolving oneorb0th ofthesamepardes'); W texProd.Co .v.XTO Ener lnc.,No.CIV-12-339-JHP,2014W L 12799569,at*5-6 (Aug.29,2014)(holdingthatotherlpwsuitsagainstdefendantçfarenotrelevanttotllis lawsuitunlessthequtcome' isres'udicataon anissueitwolved hezein7);AbuDhabi CommezcialBankv.Mor anStanle & Co.,No.08-C1v.-7508 (SAS),2013WL 1155420 (S.D.N.Y.M arch20,2013)Sôldingthatthatthetestimonyofpardesinthecasediscussing relevantissuesm ay be adm issible,butreferencesto otherlaw suits,Tfincluding theirfacm al allegationsandevidence,''azeinidmissible). N orfolk Southern opposesD rum m ond'sm otion;clnim ing thatthe fTcentralissues''in the present case are the sam e as thqse in liindet M or an,nam ely,Tfshotzld D rum m ond be excused from shipping iysguarapteed m inim um volum esofcoal... and paying the shortfall fees due to the allegedly wrongfulacdons oz oe ssions of N orfolk Southern and K inder M organ ...golrshould Dnxmmondbeheld to perfo= ingitscontractualobligationsto slaip or pay, because D rum m ond's failure p ship its minim um s thus far is the result of D rum m ond's calculated business decision to sellitscoalelsewhere form ore m oney?''ECF No.238,at1-2.Norfolk Southern notesthatevidenceof(1)Dmzmmond's2012 SideLettet zkgreenAentMd:h Ifnderslorgan,(2)Dmmmond's decision to remove cranes from the Charleston Shipyard mverTerminal,and (3)Dmlmmond'sstatementstoIûnderMorganin 2012 thatitdid notintend to deliver any coalto the Chatleston Shipyard ltiverTerminalare . relevantin the preseptcase.Specifkally,N orfolk Southern asserts thatthe aforem enéoned evidence tendsto prove thatDrum m ond wasnotprecluded from shipping coalon C-9337 due to theD esénation Contractsor anything else thatN orfolk Southern did or failed to do, butrather opted to sellits coalelsew here ata greatet profit.ECF N o.238,at3-4.N orfolk Southern urges the courtto deny the m otion and perm itit to refer to ' and offer evidençe regarclingthelunderMor an caseTfinsofarasthatevidenceisrelevanttotheissuesthejury V IIbeasked to decidein thisacéon.''ld.at4. N orfolk Southern'stendentious framing of the ffcenttalissues''above elidesthe fact thatthereisno discernibleKfoverlap''between the solerem aining legalissuein K inderM organ and the sole rem aining legal issues in the present m atter.3 Indeed,lo nder M ot an never invplved a priorm aterialbreach clnim ,seeECF N o.238,at2 n.1;ECF N o.238-1,at6.N or does D rum m ond's dispute with Ioinder M ozgan involve C-9337 specifkally or D estinadon Contractsgenerally.Thememorandmn opinion and motion f:rsummaryjudgmentattached asexlzibitsto N orfolk Southern'sopposition briefindicate thatthesoletem aining issuein the If-inder M oz an case is whether D m m m ond is excused from perfo= ing because the Charleston Sh pyard RiverTernainaldid nothave the throughputcapacityof4,000,000 m ettic 3WhilebothcasesiniHallyinvolvedaforcemajeureclqim,thecout' tgrantedsllmmaryjudgmentastotlzatclqim.See ECF N o.181. tonsofcoalayearasrequited by contract.SeeECF N o.238-1,at25-289E CF N o.238-2,at8 (indicaéng thatthe only remaitling countseeldng rescission ofthecontractisTfbased on the Telvninal'sso-called fcapacityn). H ere, again,D rum m ond indicated at oral argum ent thatit is not requesdng that N orfolk Southern be preem ptively precluded from refetencing facts or Tfcertain pieces of evidence ...in theItinderM or an casey''ECF N o.263, 'at36,such asD nlm m ond'sexecudpn ofaSid:LetterAgreem entwith lc derM ozgan,= ECF N o.257,at2.D m m m ond conceded thatsuçh evidence <Tcould be relevanta''and thatitwillobjectto any such evidence as appropriateifand when N orfolk Southern attemptsto offerit.J. dz.at36.Drtzmmondwishes to.specifcally Iyeclude.reference to ffthe factyhatthere islitigation ongoing between usand londerMorgan.''Lda;seeECF No.257,at2(requeséngNorfolkSouthern beprecluded from arguing orreferencing thefactthatD m m m ond isinvolvedin aseparate law suitpgainstIG nder M organ).Drtzmmondisyetagain attempéng to preventNorfolk Southern fzom framingits defensearound whàtiscallsan ffentirelyim properthem e,''nam ely,thatD rum m ond isaserial lidgantattem pdng to escape its conttacm alobligadons.Drum m ond's clliefconcern is that N orfolk Southern willinvokethe IiinderM or an case to argue,asitdid dtuing oralargum ent on thism odon,thatD rum m ond ffuseslitigation asan extension ofitscom m ercialpzacdces'' and/orasaTfbusinesstool''to renegodateoravoiditsconttactualobligationsandhasdoneso on Tftwo fronts.''ECF N o.263,at37-38. Dnzm m ond appearsconcerned thatreferencing or argaing aboutthe IG nder M or an case w olzld engender a minittialon ongoihg,untesolved liégation and unnecessarily distractand confuse thejury,aswellaspreventitfrom deciding tllis case on the m erits. Theinttoducdon ofevidenceto suggestthataplqinéffislitigiousistypicallyprohibited , becauseitposesasubstandaldangerofjur 'ybias.See,e.g.,Cuthiev.1&JMaterialHandling S s.Co.,No.1:10-CV-555,2012R 13001385,at*2 (M .D.Pa.Feb.2,2012)(excluding evidenceofpriorlitigation dueto thehighlikelihood thatthejuryw111draw theprejudicial inference thatthe plaintiffisafttigiousperson''and because (Treference to priorliégaéon or settlementwilllikely,asitso often does,lead usto a trialwithin a trial''l;S ellbound Dev. G .Inc.v.Pac.H and CutterInc.,N o.SA CV 09-0951 D O C AN X ,2012 W L 8748801,at ( *3 (C.D.Cal.Feb.24,2012)(cautioningplaindffto limititsevidenceto the factsad .duced in thepriorlitigaéon qnd to notintroduce evidence merelyto show defendant'sM giousness); Alwoodv.Ecolab,Inc.,No.CV 14-101-BLG,2016W L 5793352,at*2 (D.Mbnt.Oct.3, 2016)(holdingthatnoevidencewillbeadmissibleattrialmerelyasavçhiclefordemonstraéng plaindff'st'pum ortedlylitigiousnatate''assuchevidenceisffllighlylikelytounfaitlyprejudice thejury,and thatpossibilitysubstandallyoutweighsitsnegligibleprobativevalue');Norton v. . Rosier,No.7:14-CV-00260-FL,2019WL 346709,at*4 (E.D.N.C.Jan.28,2019),g-qamended (Mar.1,2019) @randng plaindff'smotion to.exclude evidence ofseven otherlawsuits). G enerally, to be adm issible, evidence of a plainéff's prior liégation m ust tend to show som ething otherthan plainéff'stendepcy to sue.See G astineau v.FleetM ort a e Cor .,137 F.3d490,495-96(7th Cir.1998). The m oéon isG RAN TED to thelim ited extentthatN orfolk Southern m ay attem pl to invoke or argue about D rum m ond's ongoing litigation with Iiinder M organ to cast D tnzm m ond asaserialEtigant.Them odon isotherwiseT AKEN U N D ER ADW SEM EN T undlsuch tim easthe m otion isplaced in theappropriate context.To theextentthatN orfolk 20 Southern identifiessom eproper,relevantpurposeforteferencing oroffering evidencerelated toDrtzmmondCoalSales Inc.v.KinderMoran O eratin LP TKC'?2:16-cv-345(N.D.Ala.), tllisevidencem aybeadmitted.N otfolkSouthern m aym akeno m ention oftheIiinderM or an casein opening statem entorattrialuntilfattherorderofthe court. 4. D tum m ond CoalSales,Inc.'sM otion in Lim ine N um berFourRegarding Its FinancialCondition and Sale ofCoalyE CF N o.213 In itsfourth m otion in lim ine,D tnam m ond urgesthe colzrtto preclude reference to or evidenceofD rum m ond'sfinancialcondiéon,includingitssaleofcoalto custom etsotherthan thoseUtilitieswhich ownek oropezated theD estinaéonsidenéfied in C-9337,aswellasthe Profit generated from its overses sales. D m m m ond clatiûed at otal argum ent that its - Kfconcern isgei ng into thenumbersand exactlywhereitgsj(coaljwent....''ECF No.263, at41.D m m m ond claim s such evidence is notrelevantbecause itis notseeking rhonetary dam agesin theform oflostprohts;ratheritisseelcingonly thatitsperform anceunder(2-9337 beexcusedthroughadeclaratoryjudgment.Stateddifferently,Dmmmondarguesthatbecàuse itdoes nothave to prove,nor doesitassert,m onetary dam ages as partofits priorm aterial breach clnim ,evidencerelated to itsEnancialorsalesinform adon isirzelevantunderRule 402 ofFederalRulesofEvidence. N orfolk Southefn argtzesthatevidence ofD rtzm m ond'scoalsalesoverseasisdirectly relevantin severalrejpectsto D m m m ond'sm uldfaceted breach ofcontractclnim asthat clnim hasbeen fram ed by the courtin itsdisposition ofN orfolk Southern'sm otion for sllmmaryjudgm ent: There are three aspects to D m m m ond's m aterial breach of contractclnim .First,D mlm m ond allegesthatN orfolk Southern breachedArdcle13ofC-9337and/orthedutyofgood faith and fair dealing by actively im pairing D rum m ond's ability to use its bargained-forrates.Second,D rum m ond contends thatN ozfolk SouthernbreachedArécle27(i)ofthecontzactbyfailingtowork in good faith with D m m m ond to idendfyalternativesthatw ould allow D rum m ond to m eet its m inim llm volum e requirem ents. Third, D rum m ond claim s that N orfolk Southern breached Ardcle20$)by failingto payin an'melymannerinfrastructure refundsdue to D m m m ond. ECF No.181,at12-139seeECF No.64,at8-9 rfNorfolkSouthèrn did notmakeany offers or any other good faith effortsto assistgDrumm ondjin m eeéng its Guaranteed Voltune oblkations.').Norfolk Soutlwrn assertsthatthe evidence Drtzmmond seeksto excludeis directly relevantto the flrsttwo aspects the colzrtidentified - D tnlm m ond's Ardcle 13 and Article27(i)clnims.Tlaismotioniseasilyresolved on thebasisofArécle27(i)alone. Article27(i)providesthatintheeventDrummondandcipatesnotbeing ableto saésfy itsrninimum volum e requirem entsperthe tezm s ofC-9337,the Tfpartiesshallwork together in good faith to identify and implem entsales and transportalternaéves....''See ECF N o. 181, at19.Dt nlmmond FegesthatNorfotk Southern bre'ached itscontracttzalobligadon to workwithitingoodfaithunderArdcle27(i)by(1)doingfdabsolutelynothing''inresponseto D m m m ond'sannualnoticesstatingthatitdid notandcipatem eeting thecontracm alm inim um volmnes,(2) rejecéng allofDrummond's transportalternative proposals,(3) offedng no alternadvesofitsown,and (4)incendvizing theUtilitiesnotto sourcecoalfrom Drummond by penalizing them for doing so.SeeECF N o.255,at6. N orfolk Southern has m aintained throughout thislitigadon thàt D m m m ond never expresslyinvokedArticle27(i).orattemptedtocooperateinidendfyingtransportalternaéves. Specifk ally,N orfolk Southern cbim sthatD mzm m ond did notcontactitto requestthatthe pardes<fw ork together''in identifying and im plem enting salesortransportalternatives;rather D m m m ond sent perfunctory Tfzero ton''letters simply advising N orfolk Southern thatit andcipated sllipping no coalunderC-9337,and paid the corresponding shortfallfee itw oice withoutprotest.See ECF N o.124,at16.N orfolk Southern fartherassertsthatD nlm m ond's failtzreto pressfortransportaltetnativesorm eaningfully engagewith iton theissueofshortfall fees was a product of D m m m ond's business decision to sell its coal m ore profitably in European m arkets.See ECF N o.241,at40.G iven the alleged fm ancialincentives to sellits coalabroad,N orfolk Southern asscrtsthatDrum m ond had no intentto ffwork together''w1t.11 itto find alternaévewaysto sellitscoalitathesoutheastern United States. . ln denying the parties'crossmptions for summary judgment,the couttnoted that D rum m ond offçred eyidence thatitapproached N orfolk Southern with w aysto m itigate its liquidated dam ages undet (2-9337.The courtalso noted thatN orfolk Southern knew about potenéalopporm nitiesthrough which D rum m ond could ship coaland yvoid shortfallfeesbut failed to share that inform ation with Dm m m ond.ECF N o.181,at20.Finally,the court concluded thatwhethet these actsorom issionson the partofN orfolk Southern violated its fTgoodfaith''obligadonsunderArdcle27(i)presentedagenlzineissueoffactforthejury.1d. N otwithstanding these findings,the court agrees wit.h N otfolk Southetn that evidence of D rtzm m ond's coal sales overseas and any prohts derived therefrom is cleatly probadve of Drummond'sintent(orlackthereoflto ffworktogethetingood faith''with NorfolkSouthern in identifying transportalternadves.Accordingly,D mxm m ond'sm odon isD EN IE D . 5. D rum m ond CoalSalesyInc.'sM otion in Lim ine N um berFive Regarding IllinoisB asin CoalReserves O wned by N on-partiesyE CF N o.214 In itsfifth m otion in lim ine,D rum m ond m ovesto precludeN orfolk Southern from refezencing oroffering evidence thatGarry N çilD tnzm m ond's4children own dghtsto coal reservesin the IllinoisBasin.D m m m ond clnim sthatN orfolk Southetn'sdeposidon designadonssuggestthatitintendsto offetevidence thatsom e ofD rum m ond'sclaildren own an intetestin an unspe 'cihed am ountofIllinoisBasin res 'erves.Considering thatonly D tnxm m ond CoalSales,lnc.isthepal:ty to C-9337,D rum m ond assertsthatwhetherand to w hatextentD rum m ond'schildren m ay individually hold an interestin som e am ountof Illinois Basin reservesisirrelevantto the cbim sand defensesin thiscaseunderRule402, x and undulyprejudicialand/orlikelyto confusethejuryunderRuk 403 oftheFederalRules ofEvidence. N orfolk Southern again arguesthatthe inform ation D nzm m ond seeksto exclude would deprivethejuryofdfimportantcontexty''asitffexplainshow theentirecontzactual relationship between D rlpm m ond and N orfolk Southern started.''ECF N o.237,at1. N orfolk Southern cllim sthatdiscussionsaboutD m m m ond'sIllinoisBasin reservesform ed the Tfhistoricalbasis''fortheinitialdiscussionsbetween theparéesthatultim ately 1ed to the execution of(2-9337 in 2006.Additionally,N orfolk Southern assertsthatevidence of D mzm m ond'sffready access''to IllinoisBasin reservesisffclitectly relevant''yo rebut D rum m ond'sclnim thatby incentivizing theU tilidesto source coalfrom theIllinoisBasin, N otfolk Soul etn wasttyitag to cutD tum m ond ffoutofitsbusinesschannel.''ECF N o.237, 4GarryN eilD rnm m ond isthe formerChiefExecudve O ffcerofD rllm m ond Com pany,Inc. at3.N orfolk Southern argued in open cotlrtthatffifthe Dm m m ond children owned these copiousreservesin lllinoisBasin,Itlnink there'sa ...reasonableinferenceto bem ade thatif D m m m ond reallywanted to bein thatm arkeyitcould have been in thatm arket.':SeeECF N o.262,at50-51.N orfolk Southern'sonly otherargum entisthatbecause theIllinoisBasin reservesarem endoned in m uldpleinternalD rum m ond teports,evidenceregarding D nxm m ond'saccessto thiscoalbasin isrelevantand admissible.Id. D nlm m ond notesthatthereisno evidendarysupportforthe false conclusion N orfolk Southernwishesthecourtandajurytoreach,namelythatfr slmmondCoalSales,Inc.-the plaindffin thiscase- ownsand nainesglllinoisBasinjcoalreservesand therefozebenehtted from the (IllinoisBasin)rate reductions,refundsand nlinimum volume requitements that N prfolk Southern included in the D esdnation Contraçys.''ECF N o.256,at 1.D rum m ond . flltthernotes thatitspresident,under persistentquestiorling by N orfolk Southern,afflrm ed thatDrum m ond neitherownsIllinoisBasin coalnorhaseverproduced couloutofthelllinois Basin.N orfolk Southern appeared to concede at oralargtzm entthatitwillnot assertthat DrtzmmondCoalSales,Inc.acttmllyffowns''IllinoisBasin coal.SeeECF No.262,at50(<<lf their m otion isthey don'twantus to say thatD tnlm m ond CoalSales,the party in tlais case, acttzally owned those reserves,Idon'tthink we have an issue aboutthat.'').Nevertheless, N orfolk Southern stood by thei. rcontendon thatevidenceofthe factthatffpeopleorentides'' affiliated with D rum m ond own Illinois Basin reserves ffcasts doubt on the creclibility of p rtzmmond'sqargpm entthat...Norfolk Southern wastrying ...to cutg I p rummondqout ofthisparticularm arket.''ECF N o.263,at50-51. N orfolk Southern,however,hasm ade no showing thatdtuing the life ofC-9337,the m serves pum ortedly owned by the D rum m ond childten w ere accessible or otherwise could havebeen mined,tendeting evidenceoftheow netsltip ofsuch teservesby non-patdesto this, litigation ene ely irrelevant.D rumm ond added that notonly is thete no evidence ofacdve m ining,butthere is also no evidence ofany tesdng or that there is provable,econonnically zecoverable coalin the Illinois Basin reservesowned by the Drumm ond children.ECF N o. 262,at52.The couttfindsthatthereisno relevantbasisforadrniténg thecontested evidence. G iven thatthereservesin question ate notowned by eitherparty to tllislidgadon,adm itting evidenceastotheirownershipcreatesanunnecessaryriskofconfusingtheissuesandthejury.. The m otion istherefore GR AN TED . 6. N orfolk Southengs M otion in Lim ine to E xclude ParolEvidence,E CF N o. 216 In its fastm otion in lim ine,N orfollt Southern m oves to preventD nzm m ond from presenting any evidence or argum entregarding alleged promisesorrepresentadonsm ade by N orfolkSöuthern to D rum m ohd priozto theexecuéon ofC-9337 thatarenotexpressly found in C-9337.Speciically,N brfolk Southern wishes to prevent D tnlm m ond a' nd its witnelses from claim ing thàt while negotiadng C-9337 in 2005, N orfolk Southern ffprom ised'' Dtqlmmond that their relaéonship represented a (1) ffstrategic paztnership''between the pardesandthatthe(2)ratesunderC-9337wouldalwaysbelowerthantheratesunderNorfolk ' Southern'sseparatecontractswith theUélidesand/orotherthird pardes.N orfolk Southetn clnim sthatsuçh statem entsareinatlm issiblebecause(2-9337 containsaclearintegration clause and because they areexcludableundertheparolevidencertzle.SeeECF N o.217,at2-7. D rllm m ond concedesthatC-9337 contains an integradon ot ffm etger''clause staing thatçfgtqhisContractconsdtutesthe entire understancling ofthe patéeswith respectto the subjectmatter hezeofand may notbe modiûed ozchanged exceptby written amendment signed by an authorized representadve ofeach party.''ECF N o.240,atl;seeECF N o 217,at 3.D rum m ond fl'rtlner conceded atoralargum entthatregatding the alleged prom ise thatits ratesunder(79337 would alwaysbelowerthan any ratesbetween N orfolk Southern and the U tilities,'such aprom iseisrendered inadm issibleby theintegration clause.SeeE CF N o.263, at59(regardingNorfolkSouthern'spromisethatff we'realwaysgoingtohavebetterratesthan anybodyelse,1'11concedeweprobably can'tgo thatfardueto theintegradon clause...');ida at60 (regatding theffpromiseofalwayslowerrates,Ithink Ihaveto concedethatwecannot go there.').lnEghtoftlaisconcession,andthecolzrt'sagreementwith Drummond'sbasesfor m aking it,thecourtwillnottrudgethrough theparties'variousargtunentson thisissue.Suffke itto say,the com blned effectof(2-93373sintegradon clause,theparolevidence tule'sbaron the inttoducdon of prior negotiations and agreem ents of the sort alleged here, and the conspicuous absence of a m ost-favored-nation clause azanteeing D m m m ond lowe'r rail rates,isto unequivocally preclude theinttoduction ofevidence ofN orfolk Soutlwrn'salleged Pre-execudon rate-telate' d prom ise. W it. h respectto the evidencethatN orfolk Southern allegedly indicated to D mnm m ond thatC-9337 wasihtended to representaffstrategic partnership''w1:. 11Drum m ond,generalized statem entsofthissortdo not,in and ofthem selves,violatetheparolevidencerule.lnVirginia, Tfparolevidence ofpriororcontem poraneousoralnegotiationsorsdplzladonsisinadmissible to vaty,conttadict,add to,oz explain the term sofa complete,ugam biguous,unconditional, written insttum ent.''In re BN X S s.Co .,310 F.App' x 574,576 (4th Cit.2009)(cidng G odwin v.K erns, 178 Va.447, S.E.2d 410,412 (1941)).The Kfstrategic pattnership'' tepresentation doesnotobviously fT vary,contradict,add to,or explain''the term sofC-9337 itza m anner thatundermines the effectofthe integration clause or runs afoulofthe parol evidence rule.D rum m ond asserted atoralargum entthatthiszepresentation m erely provides ffcontextand background''explaining why D rum m ond entered into thisTfunique''conttactin theftrstplace.ECF N o.263,at59.lnsofarasD rllm m ond confinesitsevidenceand argtzm ent to tllisspecificpum ose,thecouttcannothold thatitsintroducdon isim pe= issible.Thepatol evidence rtzle,however,doespreclude the use, oftllisevidence to argue for orinsinuate the existence ofadditionalobligationson thepartofN orfolk Southern. In sum , the m otion is G RAN TED as to any evidence or argum ent concerning promisesallegedly m adeby N orfolk Southern related to railratesthatpredate the execuéon . ofC-9337.The m otion isD EN IE D asto the Tfstzategic parm ersllip''representaéon to the lim ited vxtentthatsuch evidenceisused to prokidepertinentcontext. 7. N orfolk Southetn'sM otion in Lim ine to Exclude Reference to Relocation or Closure ofN orfolk Southern'sRoanoke Opetations,EC# N o.218 In its second m odon in lim ine, N orfolk Southern m oves to exclude reference to ' orgartizationalchangesandrelocationsthataffected asignifkantnum berofN orfolk Southern em ployees in the Roanoke,Virgitlia area.N orfollc Southern is concerned that based on questioning duting depositions,Dm m m ond m ay reference the ofhce relocadon and the resulting effect on em ployees. N orfolk Southern argues that such references would be inappropriate,itrelevant,and unduly prejudicial,as the relocation ofNorfolk Southern's 28 Roanoke offk e has no bealing on any cbim ot defense in this case.D tnlm m ond did not tespond to this m odon,nor did it express any intentto discuss thisissue unless needed to respond to argtunentsozissuesraised by N orfolk Southern atttial.The m oéon is thereforè GM N TED. 8. N orfolk Southetn'sM otion in Lim ine to E xclude Evidence Relating to T ransportation ConttactsEntered into Ptiorto M utualRelease,E CF N o.220 ln its thit'd and hnalm otion in lim ine,N orfolk Southern contends thatthe mutual release executed by the paréesin January 2010 in the coutse ofsettling Nozfolk Southern Railwa Com an v.DmzmmondCoalSales lnc.,No.7:08>340(W.D.Va.),barsanycllims and theintroduction ofanyevidenceassociated with conttactsthatcould haveotherwisebeen brought in the prior acéon. Speçifkally, N orfolk Southern asks the couct to prohibit , D m m m ond from introducing evidence or testim ony in supportofitspriorm aterialbteach clnim under(2-9337related to theratesand nninim llm volum e com m itm entssetforth in three D esdnadon Contracts:C-9290,(2-7545,and C-9289.D m m m ond indicated thatithas ffno intendon oftelying on C-9289 as fotm ing tlae basisofitspriotm atetialbteach clqim''unless needed to respond to som e argum entorissue raised by N orfolk Southern attrial.ECF N o. 241,at3.N evertheless,D rum m ond asksthe courtto deny N orfolk Southern'sm odon as to evidence of(2-9290 and C-7545.To provide contextforthisruling,certain relevantfactsare repeated below . A. M ore than a decade ago,the pardes to thiscase entered into a conttactpursuantto which N ozfolk Southezn agreed to haulfor D rum m ond cettain coalptoducts by railftom Chatleston,South Catolina to vatiousD estinations.In M ay 2008,N otfolk Southetn hled suit againstD rum m ond alleging breach ofconttactundez C-9337,seeldng paym entsforshottfall fees and for inftastluctkue im provem ents, each of wlaich was requited by C-9337. The undersigned,then a United StatesMagistrateJudge,conducted a settlementconference on D ecem ber14,2009,àtwhich thepartkszeached aresolution oftheitdispute.Thezesoludon wasm em orialized in a settlem entagreem ent,pursuantto which D m m m ond agreed to pay N orfolk Southern a certain sum and thepartiesagreed to am end vatiousprovisionsofC-9337 and extend the contractterm through 2019.The partiesalso executed a mum alrelease,and flzrtheragreed thatany disputesconcerning the term softhe settlem entagreem entwould be resolved by theundersigned. The queséon presented in N orfolk Southern'sm odon iswhether the parties'm um al release operates as a waiver ofallclnim s connected with C-9290 and C-7545 and,relatedly, D mlm m ond's.dghtto intzoduce evidence ofthese contractsin supportofits prior m aterial breach clnim underC-9337.In otherw ords,thism odon reqtziresthe courtto detetm ine the scopeofthqmutualrelease.Therelease,executed onlanuary14,2010,inrelevantpart,states thatDrtzm m ond releasesN orfolk Southern: from allcbim s,dem ands,debts,causesofacdon,orobligadons ofany kind whatsoever,know n orunknown,arising oraccruing from thebeginning oftim e to theEffecéve D ate ofthis m utazal release,and atising outofthe form aéon orpetform ance ofthe Contm ct, inclucling but not lim ited to all cbim s, defenses ot avoidances m ade or asserted in the Action, and all claim s, defensesoravoidancesthatcould havebeen m adeorasserted in the A ction. . ECF N o.249 (Ex.B).Norfolk Southern arguesthatthemutualreleaseisa ffgeneralrelease fzom allclnim sor causesofactions,including unknow n ones,arising outofthe fozm adon or performanceofC-9337 and beforeJanuary 14,2010.7)ECF No.221,at3.Ftzrther,Norfolk Southern clqim sthatbecausethecotzttrtzled thattheD estination Conttacts,inclui ng (2-9290 and C-7545,invariablyim plicated N orfolk Southern'sperform ance under (2-9337,therelease m ustsim ilazly be construed to reach and waive clnim srelayed to these conttacts.LdaNorfolk . Southezn also assertsthateven though C-9290 and C-7545 are only being used in supportof the breach of contract cause of acdon under C-9337, as opposed to being asserted independently,the broad language of the release nevertheless barstheir use in this m anner. SeeECFNo.221,at5n.4(cidngMississi iPower& LihtCo.v.UnitedGasPieLineCo., 729 F.Supp.504,507 (S.D.Miss.1989) (TfThe tetms used in the release Tfobligadons, dem ands, rights, clnim s, right of acdon,rem edies': clearly evidence an intent to cover som ethingbroaderthan amezecauseofaction.7ll. The D esénadon Contracts presently at issue, C-9290 and (2-7545,were originally entered into onJuly 1,2009 (although notexecuted untilNovember 11,2009)and April5, 1989,respectively,each beforethedateofmutualreleaseonJanuary 14,2010.Dnlmmond contendsthatbecause (1)C-9290 and C-7545were subsequently amended and/orhad theit tet'msèxtendedafterthedateofthepardes'release,andbecause(2)NorfolkSouthern'sfailed to disclose C-9290 orC-7545in thepardes'priotM gaéon,D rum m ond should notbeheld to have waived any cbim srelated to these two D esdnadon Contracts.See ECF N o.245,at3-7. D rum m ond filt-tlnerassertsthatin itsdisposition ofN orfolk Southern'sm oéon forsum m ary judg ment,thecourtffimplicitlyrejected,''ECF No.263,at61,theargumentforexcludingCI 9290 and C-7545w1ùch N orfolk Southetn m akeshere.Thecourt,however,did notspecifically addressor rule definidvely on the applicability ofthe m um alrelease to C-9290 and C-7545. SeeECF No.181,at8n.5(nodnggenetallythattheDestinadonConttactsoverlaptherelevant tet'm of(2-9337 ffin somezespect'l.s B. W ith respectto C-7545specifk ally,D m m m ond clnim sthatsincethedateofthem uttzal release,theterm of/-7545hasbeen ffextendedatleastonceforan addidonal5yearspursuant to j 1 of thatDesdnation Contract.''ECF No.245,at3 (ciéng ECF No.76-1 atj 3). D rum m ond assertsthatthe effectofthisextension wasto eviscerateitsability to supply coal to the Cloverplantunder C-9337 for an additionalperiod oftim e afterthe pardes executed the mutualrelease in January 2010,and thatffgalbsentthe extension ofC-7545,the 90% minimtmavolum e com mi% entwould have ceased to exist.''LdxD rummond relieson two am endm ents as the basis for its opposiéon to N orfolk Southern's m otion:A m endm ent 1, ECF N o.132-26,at12,and Am endm ent2,ECF N o.132-26,at2. N orfolk Southern assertsthatthe factthatC-7545 and (2-9290 havebeen am ended on various occasions after the effective date of the release is irtelevantto the issue of waiver because al1of D m m m ond's ffclnim s''witla tespect to these D estination Contzacts existed beforethelanuary2010releaseandcouldhave,butwerenot,broughtintheprioraction.ECF N o.221,at4.lndeed,N orfolk Southezn aversthatatalltim essince the effecdve date ofC- 7. $45 and (2-9290,which preceded the m utualrelease,ffthe relevant contractualtenns have been the sam ev''1d. 5D rlmm ondnotesthatregatdlessofwhetherthem utualteleaseisheldto apply toC-9290 orC-7545,itspdorm atedal breach claim has Rclear m ezit'' given the other D estinadon Conttacts betv een N ozfolk Southem and the Utilides fv disputably''enteredintoand/oramended afterthepardes'executed themut' ualrelease.ECF No.245,at7n.3. Asto C-7545,N orfolk Southern asserts thatnone ofthe am endm entsexecuted after the m utualtelease altered the Tfbases':ofD tum m ond's clqim sundet this contzact.N otfolk Southetn notes,forexam ple,thatatalltim essincetheeffecévedate ofC-7545,the fozowing havebeen ttue:(1)theminimum volumecomtlaitmentwasatleastttinety(90)petcent,(2) there hasbeen no ratelisted it a the contractfzom the Chazleston Shipyazd RivetTetm inalto theClovetplant,and(3)shipmentsmadeputsuantto(2-9337wouldnothavecountedtowatds theC-7545volumecommi% ent.ECF No.221,at6(citingECF No.76-1).NorfolkSouthern clnim s,therefore,thatbecause these clnim s could have been broughtin the originalacéon, Dmzmmond waivedthoseclnimswhen itexecuted theJanuary2010release. C. W ith respectto C-9290,D mlm m ond notes thatsince the date ofthe m utualrelease, theterm sofC-9290 have been am ended atleastfourtim es.D tnpm m ond contendsthatsince these am endm ents pertain to rail rates, nlinim tlm volum e requirem ents, and liquidated dnmagesprovision?in (2-9290,and postdatethelanuary2010release,they supplyitwith new basesforclnim sunder C-9337. N orfolk Southern again argues thataswith C-7545,the relevantcoptractualterm s of (2-9290 havebeen the same atalltimessince theeffectivedate oftlliscontract,is. tz,July 1, 2009.Specifically,Norfolk Southern notesthat(1)ratesin (2-9290 from the Charleston Sllipyard RiveiTerm inalto Roxboro and M ayo havebeen lzigherthan theratesunder(2-9337, (2) C-9290 failed to pzovide a rate betveen the Charleston Sllipyard ltiver Tet-minaland Asheville,(3)tlaetninimtmavoltmaecommitmentin C-9290hasbeen ninetrûve(95)percent at every Destinaéon except for Asheville, wllich was eighty-five (85) percent, and (4) shipm ents m ade puzsuantto (2-9337 w ould nothave counted towatds the (2-9290 volum e commitment.ECF No.221,at4-5 (cidngECF No.76-6).Again,NotfolltSouthern clqims that since the am endm ents to C-9290 aftet the release did not alter the ffbases'' for D t-um m ond'sclqim s,and since D rum m ond could have btoughtthose clqim s in the original acdon,thoseclsim swete ffwaived''in accordancewith therelease.ECF N o.221,at5. D. The narrow quesdon ptesented in this m oéon is whether the alleged post-release amendments to C-7545 and (2-9290 give rise to new clqimsand/orcausesofacéon upon which Dm mm ond may rely in the presentaction.In Virginia,ffgtlhe scope of a release agreem ent,like the tetm sofany contract,isgenerallygoverned by the expressed intendon of thepardes.':FitstSecurityFederalSavingsBank,Inc.v.M couilken,253 Va.110,113,480 S.E.2d 485,487 (1997)).çt' W here pnt-tiescontractlawfully and their contractis free from am bigaity or doubt,the agreem ent between them farnishes the law w hich governs them .'' ChatlesE.Russez Co.,lnc.v.Carroll ,194Va.699,703,74S.E.2d685,688(1953). . Thereislittledoubtthatanycbim and/orcauseofacéon adsing otaccruingpriorto thepardes'execudon ofthemutualreleaseinJanuary2010isbarred bytheexpresstet'msof the relezse.Itisequally clear,however,thatthe release only applies to Tfallclnim s,dem ands, debts,causesofaction,oroblkations''wllich existed on the effective dateofthemutual release.In other words, the zelease is not a prospecdve waiver of the right to sue for subsequent violaéons of C-9337 as am ended. The quesdon then, contrary to N orfolk Southern's characterizaéon, is not whether the post-release am endm ents Kfresurrect'' or ffrevive''old clnimsand/orcausesofacdon,butwhethertheygiverisetoene elynew clnim s orcausesofacéon. In its opposition to N orfolk Southern's m odon,Dm m m ond cites m chfood,Inc.v. Jennings,255Va.588,499 S.E.2d 272 (1998),acasein wllich theSupreme Cout'tofVirginia held thatclnim sbased on conductthatoccurred afteithe execuéon ofa generalreleasewere nùtdischatged despite the factthatthe conductin question w asffconnected w1t14 ...m attets referred toin theggeneralqgrqelease.''Id.at591,499S.E.2dat275.In m chfood,theplaindffs, a food distributor and its wholly-ow ned subsidiary insurance com pany,brought an acéon seeking the reim butsem ent of insurance prennium refund proceeds from several form er shareholders of a grocery store corporadon, of which the food disttibutor had also been shatçholdqr,following the sale o' fthegrocery store com oration.ln the course of selling the grocerystore com oraéon,ihepardesexecuted ageneralrelease discharging the'defendants andtheiragentsfrom,interalia,allcbim sand/orcausesofacéon,knownorunknown,based upon orin connectionwith anyrelaéonslzip otdealingsinvolvingthegrocerystore.JA at590, 499 S.E.2d at274.Severalm onthsafterthesaleand execudon ofthegenetalrelease,apordon of the grocery store's prepaid insurance premium s w ere refunded to the defendants,who refused to retazm itto theplaindffs. The quesdon presented in m chfood waswhetherthe plaintiffs'clnim wasbarred by tlaerelease.The Suprem e Cout'tofVirginia firstw ted thatthegeneralrelease,m uch like the m um alrelease at issue in the present case,covered only clnim s that accrued prior to its execution.J-dsat592,499 S.E.2d at275.In otlaetwords,the genetalteleasew asnotforward looking,i.e.,did notdischarge cllim snotin existence orarising outofconductoreventsthat 35 had notoccutred on orbefore the date ofthe release in queséon.ln overrtzling the Virginia circtlit court,the Suprem e Coutt ofVirginia observed that the <falleged wrongful conduct givingrisetotheclqim ...asserted by gplaintiffsqagainst(defendants)didnottranspirebefore theexecution ofthe greleasej.''LdaWhiletheplaintiffsand defendantsmayhaveknown ffthat thete w ould be a prem ium refund from the workers'compensation insurance carrier,''the alleged wrongftzl conduct,i.e., the zetenéon by the defendants of the insurance reftm d, oçcurred aftezthe partiesexecuted the generalreleaseu1d. N orfolk Southezn cites,albeitforaslightlydifferentpum ose,N oellCraneS s.G m bH v.Noell'crane& Serv.,Inc.,677F.Supp.2d 852(E.D.Va.2009),in suppdrtofitscontention tlp tthe m utualrelease precludes D rum m ond from buttressing its clnim under C-9337 by referring to oroffering evidence ofC-7545 and C-9290.In thatcase,N oellCrane,theplninéff cranem anufacturer,broughtan acdon againstN CSI,thedefendantcranevendor,alleging that N CSIviolated the plt-ties'priorsettlem entagreem entby filing a cross-com plaintagznstitin a state-courtaction btoughtby athird partyagainstN CSI. The dispute between N oellCrane and N CSI originally involved,inter alia,clnim s of ttadem ark infringem ent.In settling thatdispute,the partiesentered a fulland finalrelease of allcbim s,wherein NCSIdischarged N oellCrane from allclnim s and/or causes ofacdon tesuldng ftom conduct ftom the Kfbeginning of tim e up thtough and including M atch 28, 2006.:'JA at858.Shortly before the partiesentezed the relexse on M arch 28,2006,N oell Crane,among others,wassuedin Californiastatecourtin apersonalinjuryacdon arising out ofa2005accident.Thepersonalinjuryacdon involved acranemanufactured byN oellCrane and soldbyNCSI.NCSIwasdtimatelyadded asadefendantin thepersonalitjuly acdon.In 2007,N CSI flled a cross-com plaintagainstN oellCtane alleging,inter alia,thatN oellCrane owed N CSIindem tlity. The distdctcourtflrstheld thatthegeneralrelease executed byN CSIbarred any çlnim againstN oellCrane based upon any çfconduct,action,etroror onnission''occurring before M arch 28, 2006. Jtk at 869. Consequently, the couzt held thgt because the indemnity -. agreem ents and the accidentwhich sesved as the bases for N CSI'S cross-com plaint wete formed and/oroccurredin2000and 2005,respectively,priorto theexecution oftherelease, the clear and unam biguous term softhe release barred N CSIfrom relying upon eitherin its cross-com plaint.Id.at 870. Indeed,the cotzrtheld thatffthe actionswhich gave rise to any indem nityrightsthatN CSIm eanttorexercisethzough thecross-com plaint,orthe acéonsthat pum oztedly e ountyd to fraud and deceitby N oellCrane,alloccurted prioz to M atch 28, . 2006,including theexecution oftheindemnityagreementsguly2000)and theactualaccident . . . (May17,2005).''Id.at870.lnshort,theçouztconcludedthatfçgtll' kisisnotacasewhere Post-release cbim s arose out of post-release conduct,''as al1the actions alleged by N CSI occurred priorto M arch 28,2006.The coutttherefore held thatthe bases forN CSI'Sctosscom plaintunquestionably fèllwitlzin the scopeoftherelease. Taken together,these casesstand fotthe proposition thatwhete areleaseappliesonly to claim sand/orcausesofacdon accruing orconductoccutling beforeitsexecution,postreleaseconductgiying riseto postsrelease claim sm ay serv'easabasisfotpost-releaselitigation. These sam e cases also illustrate the difficulty in categorizing conductas either pre or postteleaseand determiningw hethetsuch conductgivesbitth to new claim s.H ete,itisplainly the case thatita asseréng itspriorm aterialbreach clnim underC-9337,D rum m ond m ay notrely 37 on anyallegedcl/im and/orcûuseofacéon relatedtoC-7545orC-9290thatcould havebeen broughtptiotto theexecudon ofthemutualteleaseinJanuaty2010.6Howevet,detetnniing whether the post-zelease amendm ents cteated new clnims and/oz causes ofaction falling outside the scope ofthezelease zequires athorough understanding oftheirterm s.The court willpzdceed by addressing each ofthepzoffered am endm entsto C-7545 ozC-9290. E. The two am endm ents atissue with respectto C-7545,Am end> ent1,ECF N o.132- 26,at12,andAmendment2,ECF No.132-26,at2,wereexecuted onluly 1,2001andAugust A 19,2011(effectiveSeptember1,2011),respectively.Theoriginalconttactwasexecuted on April 5, 1989 between N orfqlk Southern and Virginia Electric Power Com pany, doing businessin Virginia asD onninion Virgl 'rzl 'aPower.See ECF N o.1. 32-26,at81. Amendment1.toC-7545adjuststheT<effectiverateforprivatecars'', undertheTKCSXT lnterchange''through Glasgow,Virginia.LdaThattheam endmentwassignedlong beforethe execution ofthemutualreleaseinJanuas-y2010su% ests,atleastpreliminarily,thatanyclnims and/or causesofaction arising outofthisspecifk amendm entwete waived.Dmzm mond, how ever,asks the courtto preclude N orfollt Southern from invoking the release because N orfolkSouthernallegedlyfailedtodisclose(2-7545inthepatties'pziorW gation.Drummond assertsthatasa resultoftlnisfailure to disclose,itTfwasnotaw are ofthe existence orterm s'' ofthiscontractatthe tim eitsigned therelease.ECF N o.245,at5.D tum m ond furtherclnim s thatthisfailure to disclose engendered a failure ofconsidezation,whetein TfN otfolk Southern 6Therelease barsffallcllim s,dem ands,debts,causesofacdon,orobligadonsofany kind whatsoever'''Tazisitzg or accmling''priorto theeffecti ve date oftherelease,ffazising outofthe form adon orperformance''ofthe contract clnim s ffm ade orasserted''in thepzioracdon,and clqim sthatçfcottld havebeen m ade orasserted''in the pzioracdon. 38 sim ply accepted tens of millions of dollars . without disclosing that the value of the consideration received by D tum m ond in exchange forthispaym ent- an extension ofC-9337 and theguaranteed,calculablezatesthetein- had alteadybeen m atetially altered to gits)direct dettiment.''Id.at6(citing66Am.Jut.2dReleasej 15rAvhereareleasehastobesupported by consideration,a failvu:e ofconsidetation willtesultin the voidipg ofthe telease and m ay affectsuch thingsasjudgmentsorcausesofaction thatwerebazredbytherelease.'l). N orfolk Southern correctly notes that w hether D rurrim ond w as dfaware'' of the existence ortel' m sofC-7545 when itexecuted the release isirrelevantgiven thatthezelease plainly encom passed 170th Cfknown or unknown':clqim s and accounted for the risk thatthe latter exist.Indeed,here,as in N oellCrane,where the release atissue sim ilarly included a fçknown orunlm ow n''clause: gfjtisappatentto thecout'tthatthepatùesspecifcallyagreed to absorb the risk of having rfinferior lm owledge''by agreeing to release any and allclnim s,regardless ofwhethez the claim swere fKknown orurlknow n.';For thatclause to have any significance, thepartieshave to assum e,oratleastbeartherisk,thatthereare exisdng, unknown claim s at the tim e they enter into the agreem ent. 677 F.Supp.2d at 873-74;&eelti chfood,,255Va.at593,499S.E.2dat272 Soldingthat . release language.wllich dischatged liability for ffany and allcbim s ...w hethez known or unknown,based upon arising outoforconnected witlaanythingw hatsoevetdone,onnitted or . suffeted to be done''unam biguously fotbade claim s arising out of conduct ot events that occurredon orbeforethedateofthereleaseagreement);seealso Crosswhitev.M id-M ountain Foods.Inc.,No.3667,1987WL 488612 (Va.Cir.March 9,1987)(finding thatareleasefrom Kfany and allliability ...foranyand a1lclaim s,....whetherknow n orunknow n,arising outof, 3? resulting ftom ,orzelated to any''pastconduct,Kccontaining brold,genetallanguage ofzelease, entered into bJrcom petentparties,atarm 'slength,with the advice ofcounselclearly evinces an intentby the parties to severthe relationship once and for a1land to pzeclude any future clnims7).Drummond assumed therisk thattherewereclnimsrelated to Norfolk Southern's contzacting with the Udlities ofw hich itwasunawate and,in electing to execute the release, relinquished itsrightto those unknown claim sin favor ofresolving the litigation pencling at thattim e. N orfolk Southezn also correctly notes thatD rum m ond did notspecifically assettthat any alieged frfailure to disclose''consétuted a specific discovel'y violation orwas enough to supporta free-standing fraud in theinducem entclaim .D rum m ond sim ply assertsthatitw as ffpotaw are''ofthe çxistence orterm s ofC-7545 orC-9290 because N orfolk Southern failed , to disclose these contzacts.W hile Virginia law isclear thatm um alzeleases can be rescinded forfzaudin itsinducementand/orKfconcealment''through theornission ofmaterialfacts,see MetrocallofDel.v.ConénentalCellular,246Va.365,374,437S.E.2d 189,193-94 (1993)9 AllenRealtyCorp.v.Holbert,227Va.441,450,318S.E .2d592,597(1984),itisequallyclear thatsuch allegaùonsm ustbe specifkally alleged.In N oellCrane,forexam ple,thecourtupheld the challenged release (discussed above)in the faceofan expressly pleaded ftaud in the inducemqntclaim,holdingthatffgrjegardlessofthetheol'yoffpud,theelementsand factsin supportoffraud m ustbe pled wit.h particulariy ''and thatTfweakly substantiated''and/or ftgcjonclusorystatementsare insufficientto establish ...fzaud.''677.F.Supp.2d at871-72. The court further observed thatN CSI clid notidentify sufficientevidence to establish that 40 N oellCrane possessed ftaudulentintentot,telatedly,a duty to disclose the existence ofthe personalinjuryacdon,i.e.,thesupposedlyconcealedinformation,atissuein thatcase.Id. D m m m ond hasoffezed no m ore,and indeed,farless,tlaan thatprovided by N CSIin N oellCranein supportofitsfailute to disclose allegaéon.Cm cially,D rum m ond hasfailed to idenéfya specificduty orobligation on thepartofN orfolk Southern which required itto cliscloseC-7545 (orC-9290)duringthepriorlitigaéon and/ozsettlement,and ffliqtiswellsettled in Virginialaw thataduty to disclose inform ation doesnotnorm ally atisewhen the partiesareengaged in an arm 'slength ttansaction.R?See N oellCrane,677 F.Supp.2d at872 (citingCostellov.Latsen,182Va.567,29S.E.2d856(1944)SoldingthatTfplaintiffwas dealingwit.h defendantatot-m'slength (and,thereforejitwasthedutyofplzntiffto make inquj. tyinmgard,tothetrtzestat'usofaffairs7l).NorfolkSouthernmpresentsthat D tnzm m ond'scliscovel' y requestsdid notim plicate(2-7545,asD rtzm m ond only requested N orfolk Souyhetn contractswith certain D estinadons,which (lid notinclude the Clover plant.SeeECF No.221,at8, 'idaat873 (notingthatTfgcqertainlythe1aw cannotimposea blzrden to discloseinform aéon in an arm 'slength transaction,in the eventthatthe inform aéon lnight,atsom epointin tim e,be zelevantto the otherparty who isreptesented by counseland notatanydisadvantageinbargainingpower'). D rum m ond futthezasserts,albeitin a cursory fashion,thatN orfolk Southern'sfailure to dijclose thatf'D rum m ond's rate dudng the extended tetm of(2-9337 to the Clovet plant wasacqmlly worthlessdue to C-7545'snainim um volump requirem ent''invalidatesthe release on failute ofconsideration grounds.Virginia,however: M ollowgsj the rpeppercorn'theory of consideration,'' under w hich even the m ostpicapzne pronlise m ay be enough to m ake an agreem entbinding.Sfreddo v.Sfreddo,59 V a.App.471,720 S.E.2d 145,153 (2012).Consideradon can take the form ofa benefitbestow ed or a dettim entendtzred.Brewerv.FirstN at'l BankofDanville,202Va.807,120 S.E.2d273,279 (1961).Even a ffslight advantage'?or a fftrifling inconvenience''can suffice. R.K .Chevrolet,Inc.v.H ayden,253 Va.50,480 S.E.2d 477,480 (1997).W hateverthefot'm,considezationisTfthepricebargzned forand paid foraprornise.''Btewer,120 S.E.2d at279. JTH Tax,Inc.v.Aime,744F.App'x787,791(4thCit.2018),cert.denied,139S.Ct.855,202 (2019)9seeESC ov Inc.v.BMC Software,Inc.,No.1:13-CW 1344 GBL/TCB,2014 WL 3891660,at*5 (E.D.Va.Aug.7,2014),aff'd,597 F.App'x 181 (4th Cir.2015)rtW here a promisor receives and accepts,in exchange for his pronaise,Tsom etlning which he was not previously entitled to zeceive,'itis Tadequate consideration to supportthepronaise,'even ifit isTbutapeppercotn.'7') Norfolk Soutietn persuasively arguesyhatthe mutualrelease was supported by far m oze than a notionalfTpeppercorn,''and thatthe benefitsaccruing to D rum m ond from its execution w ete m anifold.N orfolk Southern notes, fot exam ple, that am ong the benefits bestosved on Drum m ond and detdm entsincurred by itin exchange for the m utualrelease includeareducdon in D rum m ond'srninim um volum ecom rnitm entin (2-9337 and an increase . . . ' . . of the refund am ount payable to D rum m ond by N orfolk Southetn.See ECF N o.249-2 (Sealed).lnsofarasDrummond elected to pay shortfallfeesto Norfolk Southern in each of the years from 2010 to 2014,and to the extent those fees were substantially less than it otherwise would have paid, cannot be said that the release was unsupported by consideration.The courtw ould pote that D rum m ond offezed rninim al argum ent and no evidencein suppoztofitsfailure ofconsideraéon theoryon briefand provided no argum ent 42 regarding the sam e at oral arglpm ent.Indeed,N orfolk Southern's contenéons sllm m atized above tegarding consideration w ententirely unzebutted. Am endm ent2,which w asalso executed after the m um alrelease,am ends C-7545 by adding A rdcle 25A , which relates exclusively to fuel surcharges. D rumm ond does not specifically allege thatthe f'uelsurcharge com ponentofA m endm ent2 itselfgivesriseto anew claim and/orcauseaction orotherwisesuppottsitsArticle13,Article27,orArticle20matezial breach claims.Rather,Drummond appearsto assertthatj3 ofAmendment2 extended the term ofC-7545 frforan adclitional5yearsputsuantto j3ofthatDestination Conttact.''ECF N o.245,at 3.Section 3 of(2-7545,i.e.,the durationalclause ofthe D estination Contract, states,in zelevantpart: ThisAgzeem entshallconértuein fullforceand effectfotaperiod oftwenty(20)yearsfrom December21oftheyearin which Coal Shipm ents aze frst received at D estination.The term of ihis Agreement shallbe extended for up to tvvo (2) consecutive adcliéonalfive(5)yearperiodswithoutadclitionalactionbyeither Party,provided thatisO D EC givesnoécethatitdoesnotdesire such çxtension priorto theexpitadon ofthe originalterm oftllis Agreem entorthe expiration ofthe then cturentextension,such extension shallnotoccur. ECF No.132-26,at54.Secdon 3 ofAmendment2 states,in full,thatffgelxceptasherein am ended,theAgreem entshallremainin fullfozce'and effect.''Ldaat4.Giventhattheoriginal contractwasexecuted in April1989,theflrstoppo= nityto extend (2-7545would presum ably havebeeninApril2009,priorto theexecuéonofthemutualreleaseinlanuary2010.In other words,although Drummond appearsto characterizej3ofAmendment2,executedinAugust 2011,as a post-release extension ofC-7545,itisentirely unclear,and indeed,doubtfill,that theclause in queséon wasintended to petfozm thealleged ftm cdonl Insofarasthe courtcan discezn,Am endm ent2 relatesentirely to fuelsurcharges,and j3,i.e.,thef'ullforceand effectclause,merely affit'msthattheremainderofC-7545remzns undistazrbed and in effect.W hile the execudon ofAm endm ent2 in August2011 appearsto suggestthatC-7545 wasatsom e priorpointextended,itdoesnotitselfappearto zeptesent, asD rumm ond appeatsto assett,thatextension,otconstitute post-zelease conductrelevantto D m m m ond'sprior m aterialbreach cbim s.W hile itm ay be the case thatthe term ofC-7545 w asTfextended atleastonée foran addidonal5yearsy''neitherAm endm ent1notAm endm ent 2 providethecourtwith sufficientinform adon to deternainewhen thatextension occurred.If thçextension occurred in April2009,when theplain language ofj 3 of(2-7545 suggestsit would havç occtzrred,then any clnimsand/or causesofacéon arising from thatextension wouldbebarredbythelanuary2010release.Neitheramendmçntnoranyargumenyproffered in opposiéon to N orfolk Southern's m otion provides a basis for a post-release clnim : Amendment1wasexecutedpriorto therelease,andthesubjectmatterofAmendment2is orthogonal to D mlm m ond's (2-9337 clnim s. N orfolk Southern's m otion is therefore GR AN TE D asto C-7545. F. 7NorfolkSouthernappearedto 'believethatDmlmmondwasreferringtoj3of(77545,ratherthanj3ofAmendment 2.lfindeed tlaisiswhatD rum m ond intended,N orfolk Southem 'scharacterizadon ofthatduradonalclauseasa selfexecudng evergreen pzovision isplninly correct.e fhatclausewascontained in the originalcontract.UnderN oellCrane, any cbim sforreliefzelated to the extensionscontained in tlzisclause,prospecdve ozotherwise,existed priorto the execudonoftlzemutualreleaseinlanuary2010and,accozdingly,arebarzedbytherelease.Cf. 44 W ith respect to C-9290, D rum m ond cllim s that the following fout postuelease amendmentsgiveriseto new clqimsand/orcausesofaction:Amendment1,ECF No.132- 31,at25 (executed Febtuaty 24,2010);Amendment2,ii at12 (executedJuly 1,2011); Amendment3,LQ at9 (executedFebruary26,2013))andAmendment4,Ld.. zat2(effective Januat'y1,2014).TheamendedandrestatedcontzactwasexecutedonJuly1,2009,between N orfolk Southern and Carohna Power and Light Com pany,doing business in Virginia as ProgressEnergy Catolinas,lnc.SeeECF N o.132-32,at28. A m endm ent 1 to (2-9290 contains three clauses,wlnich,as described by D rum m ond fdchange som eoftherateprovisionsin the contract,''nam ely the Cape Fearbaseratesforthe K enova,K anawha,Virginian origin disttict. ECF N o.245,at4.Am epdm ent2,am ong other things,cancelsAm endm ent1 in its entitety.and deletesthe base tate provision'ofArdcle 13, replacingitwith pew ratessetforth in an attached appendicessecdon.Am endm ent3 deleted and replaced Arécle 26,the m inim um volmne and liquidated dam ages provision ofC-9290. Thereplacementprovisionincluded,interalia,aninety-five(95)percentrninimum volume commi% entatRoxboroandMayostations,aneighty-hve(85)percentvolumecommitment atA sheville,and a 1,125,000-ton rninim um requitem entfrom the W aynesburg and Fni= ont distdcts.Lastly,Am endm ent4 yetagain replaced the baseratessetforth in Ardcle 13. The question iswhether the above-refetenced am endm ents,allwhich were executed afterthe m um alrelease,individually orin concert,consdtute post-release conductgiving rise to nem post-release claim s to which D sxm m ond m ay refer in atguing itsArticle 13 clnim . D rtzm m ond asserts that these post-release am endm ents unequivocally give rise under X chfood to new causesofaction to which itnnightcitein supportofitsm aterialbreach cbim s. 45 N orfolk Southern asserts that m chfood is inapposite to the facts of tlnis case because the amendmentsmadeto C-9290 (and (2-7545)aftertheeffectivedateofthemutualreleaseçfclid notalterthebasesfotD rum m ond'sclqim s.':ECF N o.249,at3.Richfood,how ever,doesnot hold thatso long asthe r<bases'?are the sam e or sim ilarbetween cbim saccmzing before and aftetthe execution of.a telease,the post-telease clqim isbatted because a sim ilatpze-zelease claim could havebeen broughtbutwasnot.Richfood wasconcerned Nvith when theconduct allegedly giving rise to apost-release claim occurred. H ete,asin Richfood,theconductin question,nam elyN orfolk Southern'sam endm ents to (2-9290,occurzed aftertheexecution ofthem uttzalteleaseinJanuary2010.SeeN orfolk S. Ry.Co.v. 'Drummond CoalSales,Inc.,No.7:08CV00340,2016W L 4532411,at+8(W .D .Va. Aug.29,2016) (holding that because severalcouqtsof the.com plaint are premised on . circum stances alleged to have occurred afterthe partiesrsettlem entof the instantbreach of contzactcase,çfthey do notdirectly implicate ...the scopeorconstruction ofthe gmluttzal grlelease').Further,unlikeAmendment2 to C-7545,thesubstanceoftheamendmentsto C9290,especially.those related to the m inim um volum e requirem entand liquidated dam ages , provision in Am endm ent3,are ofthe sortexplicitly alleged by D lmm m ond to haveim paired itsability to usethe scheduleofratessetforth in Ardcle 13 ofC-9337.Clearly,a sim ilarclnim bpsed'on theoriginalterm sof(2-9290,including thelninim urh volum eandliquidated dam ages pzovision (Arécle26),isbarred perthe muttzalreleaseand forthezeasonsdiscussed above with zespectto C-7545.Thoseclaim sarosçand/oraccrued priorto themumalrelease,and, therefoze,asstatedin therelease,ffcould havebeen m adeorasserted''in theprioracdon.ECF No.249 (Ex.B).However,the execution ofsubsequentam endmentsaftetthe release date moclifying and/or reimposing the volume requirem entand liquidated dam ages provision constim tes discrete post-release conductforwhich a new,albeitsubstantively sinailar,claim potentiallyexists.In short,unlike N oellCrane,thisisacasewherealleged post-releaseclaim s aroseoutofpost-releaseconduct.ltisnotthecasethatthepost-reteaseamendmentscliscussed above frzesuzzected,';see ECF N o.249,at4,waived clnim sso m uch as they potendally gave birth to new ones.Cf.Norfolk S.R .Co.,2016 WL 4532411,at*7 (noting thatalthough Countlm ay reference theAm ended Contract,the allegationsplainly çoncern term sfound in the original2006 Transponaéon Contract,ffnotprovisions thatwere am ended or added in 20107').Forthe foregoing reasons,Norfolk Southern'smotion asto C-9290 isDEN IED . D rum m pnd m ay rely upon the post-release am endm entsto (79290 in supportofitsAlfcle 13 clnim undeyC-9337.8 ItisSO O RD E RED . sntered, ov -g-x -2.0 /y . w *r J -6* . . ' ,t,.r,g , -.*.4 -. ui - . #: tiryj, M ichael ' .Urbansld ChiefUnitedStatesDistdctludge 8Forthesam ereasonsthattb. ecotutfotm d thefailureto discloseand faillzreofconsideration argum entsunavnilingasto (77545,itSndsthem equally unaw iling asto (2-9290.Tlzus,C-9290 m ay berelied upon to theextentthe term softhe am endm entsonly fo= the basisofD rnm m ond'sclaim s.
]]>
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.
