Freeman v. National Railroad Passenger Corporation

• Court: District Court, W.D. Washington
• Decided: May 12, 2020
• Docket: 3:18-cv-05584
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2

5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA 7 PATRICIA FREEMAN, CASE NO. C18-5584 BHS 8 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING 9 v. DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND 10 NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR CORPORATION, d/b/a/ AMTRAK, LEAVE TO FILE 11 SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF, Defendant. REQUESTING A JOINT STATUS 12 REPORT, AND RENOTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR 13 PROTECTIVE ORDER

14 This matter comes before the Court on Defendant National Railroad Passenger 15 Corporation d/b/a Amtrak’s (“Amtrak”) motion for summary judgment on punitive 16 damages and consumer protection act (“CPA”) claim, Dkt. 17, Plaintiff Patricia 17 Freeman’s (“Freeman”) motion for leave to file supplemental brief, Dkt. 62, and 18 Amtrak’s motion for protective order striking the notice of 30(b)(6) deposition, Dkt. 69. 19 The Court has considered the pleadings filed in support of and in opposition to the 20 motions and the remainder of the file and hereby denies the motion for summary 21 judgment and motion for leave to file supplemental brief and renotes the motion for 22 protective order for the reasons stated herein. 1 I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY 2 On July 18, 2018, Freeman filed a complaint against Amtrak asserting a claim for

3 negligence and a claim for violation of Washington’s CPA statute. Dkt. 1. Freeman 4 seeks actual and punitive damages. Id. 5 On October 31, 2019, Amtrak filed the instant motion for summary judgment on 6 Freeman’s request for punitive damages and Freeman’s CPA claim. Dkt. 17. On 7 December 2, 2019, Freeman responded. Dkt. 22. On December 6, 2019, Amtrak replied 8 and submitted substantial evidence in support of the reply. Dkts. 57, 58–58-11. On

9 December 10, 2019, Freeman filed a motion for leave to file a supplemental brief. Dkt. 10 62. On December 12, 2019, Amtrak responded. Dkt. 65. On December 20, 2019, 11 Freeman replied. Dkt. 67. 12 On April 30, 2020, Amtrak filed a motion for protective order striking the notice 13 of 30(b)(6) deposition. Dkt. 69. On May 6, 2020, Freeman responded. Dkt. 71. On

14 May 8, 2020, Amtrak replied. Dkt. 73. 15 II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND 16 On December 10, 2017, Freeman purchased a ticket to ride Amtrak 501 for $45. 17 On December 18, 2017, Freeman boarded the train in Seattle, Washington, and the train 18 subsequently derailed on its way to Portland, Oregon. Freeman alleges that she suffered

19 numerous injuries caused by the accident. 20 21 22 1 III. DISCUSSION 2 A. Punitive Damages

3 Amtrak filed the instant motion in this and twenty other related cases. Dkt. 17 at 4 1–4 (caption of motion). Based on events in previous cases stemming from Amtrak 5 501’s derailment, Amtrak focused its punitive damages argument on Washington law as 6 opposed to Delaware, Pennsylvania, or the District of Columbia’s laws. Id. at 19 (“there 7 is simply no evidence that Amtrak’s offices in Pennsylvania, Delaware, or the District of 8 Columbia had any significant role in the planning or operation of [Amtrak 501’s route]”).

9 Freeman responded by arguing that the Court should consider the law of Oregon on the 10 issue of punitive damages. Dkt. 25. Instead of withdrawing its universal motion and 11 filing a motion addressing Oregon law, Amtrak replied and improperly included new 12 evidence and arguments in that reply. See Provenz v. Miller, 102 F.3d 1478, 1483 (9th 13 Cir. 1996) (“[W]here new evidence is presented in a reply to a motion for summary

14 judgment, the district court should not consider the new evidence without giving the non- 15 movant an opportunity to respond.”). Freeman identified the inappropriate submissions 16 and filed a motion for leave to file a short supplemental brief in response. Dkt. 62. 17 Amtrak opposed this motion curiously stating that “Plaintiff raised Oregon’s punitive 18 damages issue. . . . Amtrak’s Reply responded to those arguments and offered no new

19 factual submissions or new arguments on punitive damages.” Dkt. 65 at 2 (emphasis 20 added). The 61 pages of additional evidence attached to the Declaration of Andrew 21 Yates undermines this argument. See Dkts. 58-1–58-11. 22 1 Complicating matters further, Amtrak has filed a motion for a protective order to 2 strike a deposition requested by Freeman because the “Court’s rulings in Related Cases

3 dismissing punitive damages . . . [has] also rendered the requested liability discovery 4 irrelevant in this compensatory damages case.” Dkt. 69 at 1. Thus, Amtrak is refusing to 5 participate in discovery based on rulings in other cases considering facts relevant to 6 jurisdictions other than Oregon. 7 In light of these issues, the Court concludes that the most appropriate course of 8 action is to strike Amtrak’s improperly submitted evidence, deny Freeman’s motion for

9 leave to file a supplemental brief, and deny Amtrak’s motion for summary judgment 10 without prejudice for failure to establish that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law 11 at this time. Fed. R. Civ. P 56(a) (“The court shall grant summary judgment if the 12 movant shows that . . . the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”). The 13 dispositive motion deadline is July 15, 2020, which allows sufficient time to complete

14 discovery and then file a fully supported motion for summary judgment on the issue of 15 punitive damages. 16 B. CPA 17 Upon review of the briefs, the Court denies Amtrak’s motion as to Freeman’s CPA 18 claim on the same grounds and for the same reasons set forth in Garza v. Nat’l R.R.

19 Passenger Corp., 418 F. Supp. 3d 644, 651–56 (W.D. Wash. 2019). 20 C. Protective Order 21 In light of the Court’s denial of Amtrak’s motion for summary judgment, 22 Amtrak’s position that the requested discovery is irrelevant has either been completely 1 mooted or severely undermined. At the very least, discovery related to liability seems 2 entirely relevant given the survival of Freeman’s CPA claim. Thus, the Court orders the

3 parties to meet and confer regarding the discovery issues set forth in the motion for a 4 protective order. After the meeting, the parties shall file a joint status report (“JSR”) 5 informing the Court of the remaining disputes that require Court intervention. 6 IV. ORDER 7 Therefore, it is hereby ORDERED that Amtrak’s motion for summary judgment 8 on punitive damages and CPA claim, Dkt. 17, and Freeman’s motion for leave to file

9 supplemental brief, Dkt. 62, are DENIED. 10 The parties shall meet and confer regarding the issues in Amtrak’s motion for a 11 protective order, and then file a JSR no later than May 22, 2020. The Clerk shall renote 12 Amtrak’s motion, Dkt. 69, for consideration on the Court’s May 22, 2020 calendar. 13 Dated this 13th day of May, 2020. A 14 15 BENJAMIN H. SETTLE 16 United States District Judge

17 18 19 20 21 22