In Re: Rail Freight Fuel Surcharge Antitrust Litigation - Mdl 1869

CourtDistrict Court, District of Columbia
DecidedJune 7, 2010
DocketMisc. No. 2007-0489
StatusPublished

This text of In Re: Rail Freight Fuel Surcharge Antitrust Litigation - Mdl 1869 (In Re: Rail Freight Fuel Surcharge Antitrust Litigation - Mdl 1869) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, District of Columbia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
In Re: Rail Freight Fuel Surcharge Antitrust Litigation - Mdl 1869, (D.D.C. 2010).

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

IN RE: RAIL FREIGHT FUEL SURCHARGE ANTITRUST LITIGATION MDL Docket No. 1869 This document relates to: Misc. No. 07-489 (PLF/JMF/AK)

ALL DIRECT PURCHASER CASES

ORDER

In accordance with the accompanying memorandum opinion, the following is, hereby,

ORDERED Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Production of Documents [#340]1 is

GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. It is further, hereby,

ORDERED that BNSF produce for an in camera review the five AAR-related

documents to which plaintiffs object to the application of the attorney-client privilege. The

documents should be produced to chambers within five days of this Order. It is further, hereby,

ORDERED that UP produce for an in camera review the one document (PRIV-M-772)

to which plaintiffs object to the application of the attorney-client privilege based on the subject

matter (“client communication to attorney re attorney directed memorandum re telephone call

with BNSF and request for attorney advice re revisions to memorandum”). The documents

should be produced to chambers within five days of this Order. It is further, hereby,

ORDERED that plaintiffs’ motion to compel documents prepared in connection with

1 The motion to compel was filed under seal. Pursuant to the protection order in this case, plaintiffs also filed a public version of the motion. Both the sealed motion and the public version bear their own docket number. This opinion will refer to the docket number of the public filings of all documents. STB proceedings and designated as protected by work-product privilege is DENIED.

Defendants will not have to produce these documents. It is further, hereby,

ORDERED that BNSF will produce for an in camera review those documents related to

the STB hearings which BNSF withheld pursuant to the attorney-client privilege only, including:

BNSF_LOG0000786-787, BNSF_LOG0000788-789, BNSF_LOG0002184,

BNSF_LOG0002238, BNSF_LOG0002273-274, BNSF_LOG0010048-049,

BNSF_LOG0010071, BNSF_LOG0010455-056, BNSF_LOG0011328, BNSF_LOG0011337,

and BNSF_LOG0011338. The documents should be produced to chambers within five days of

this Order.

SO ORDERED. Digitally signed by John M. Facciola Date: 2010.06.07 14:13:44 -04'00' __________________________________________ JOHN M. FACCIOLA UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
In Re: Rail Freight Fuel Surcharge Antitrust Litigation - Mdl 1869, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-rail-freight-fuel-surcharge-antitrust-litiga-dcd-2010.