0 0
United States District Court for the District of Columbia - 322 F.R.D. 1
Tags: Civil Procedure, Discovery
In the 2017 case Oxbow Carbon & Minerals LLC v. Union Pacific R.R. Co., Oxbow and four other companies sued Union Pacific and BNSF Railway for breaking antitrust laws by fixing fuel prices and maintaining a monopoly in the rail transportation market. The companies claimed they paid over $1 billion in unlawful fuel charges due to the defendants' actions and wanted three times the damages plus an injunction.
During the trial, defendants requested additional documents from Oxbow's founder and CEO, William Koch, arguing that he had important information proving market forces were behind the losses, not a conspiracy. Oxbow opposed this, saying that the process will cost them over $140,000 and be repetitive. The companies also asked the court to make the defendants pay for the document production.
The court sided with the defendants, using Rule 26 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to balance relevance and proportionality. They considered six factors and found that most of them favored the discovery, like Koch's documents being relevant and the big amount at stake. Additionally, Oxbow had enough resources to cover the costs and the defendants couldn't easily access Koch's information. The court believed the production cost wasn't overly burdensome or disproportionate.
This case is significant as it shows how courts handle different jurisdiction theories and choice of law in federal question cases. It also displays how courts apply civil procedure rules, like Rule 26, that govern discovery in civil lawsuits.
In an antitrust case, the defendants have requested the plaintiffs to produce all documents belonging to their CEO, William I. Koch, to reveal market forces that contributed to increasing rail freight costs and Oxbow's lost profits. The plaintiffs argue that the production of these documents would be unduly burdensome and disproportionate to their value in the litigation. The court has granted the defendants' motion to compel, and the plaintiffs have agreed to analyze a random sample of Koch's records using the agreed-upon search terms. The plaintiff and defendant have different interpretations of the results of the sampling of documents. The defendants seek a ruling on their motion to compel, and the burden is on the party resisting discovery to object and show that the request would impose an undue burden or expense or is otherwise objectionable.
LSD+ gives you access to over 50,000 case briefs, more than anyone else. Be the first to email us the website of a case brief product that offers you more case briefs and we'll give you a free year of LSD+.
Unlimited access. Read as much content as you want during your trial with no device limitations. Cancel any time during your trial and keep access for the full 14 days.
Lawyers and judges love to use big words. And Latin, for some reason.
Highlight a legal term in LSD Briefs and get an instant, plain English definition. Try highlighting contract or specific performance. No need to search or read through a list of definitions, simply highlight the words you don’t know and our LSDefine integration will instantly give you a definition to any of over 30,000 legal terms.
DeepDive allows you to explore legal cases like never before. DeepDive offers multiple levels of case summaries, which empowers you to quickly and easily find the information you need to stay on top of readings. Easily navigate through summary levels and click on any text to get more detail, all the way down to the original legal case text.
Our proprietary state-of-the-art system can instantly brief over 6,000,000 US cases. That means we can probably brief that case that your professor assigned last night when she sent you a poorly scanned pdf and told you to read every third paragraph. Or maybe she uploaded it to Canvas and didn’t really tell you to read it, but you know you probably should. Tenure does wild things to good people.
Study groups are a great way to learn and explore a case. LSD has chat rooms for each case to let you ask questions across the community and hear what other students struggled with and how they put it all together. Learn the key points of every case from other LSD+ users and share your knowledge with LSD High Points.
Don’t settle for mistakes in briefs that have been there for 10 years and never fixed. Find an issue or something missing from a brief? Down vote and we will make improvements. All of our case brief editors graduated from from T14 law schools.