| SURFACE TRANSPORTATION BOARD DECISION DOCUMENT | |||
| Decision Information | |||
Docket Number:   | NOR_42125_0 | ||
Case Title:   | E.I. DUPONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY V. NORFOLK SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY | ||
Decision Type:   | Decision | ||
Deciding Body:   | Director Of Proceedings | ||
| Decision Summary | |||
Decision Notes:   | DECISION GRANTED E.I. DUPONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY'S MOTION TO MODIFY THE PROCEDURAL SCHEDULE FILED ON DECEMEBER 12, 2011. | ||
| Decision Attachments | |||
| 19 KB 22 KB | |||
| Approximate download time at 28.8 kb: 20 Seconds | |||
If you do not have Acrobat Reader, or if you have problems reading our files with your current version of Acrobat Reader, the latest version of Acrobat Reader is available free at www.adobe.com. | |||
| Full Text of Decision | |||
|
42152 SERVICE DATE – LATE RELEASE JANUARY
13, 2012 DO SURFACE TRANSPORTATION BOARD DECISION Docket No. NOR 42125 E.I. DUPONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY v. NORFOLK SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY Decided: January
13, 2012 This decision grants a motion to
modify the procedural schedule filed by E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Company
(DuPont). By
decision served on February 24, 2011, the Board established a procedural
schedule for DuPont’s challenge to the reasonableness of rates established by
Norfolk Southern Railway Company (NSR).
By decision served on August 25, 2011, the Board granted a motion filed
by DuPont to modify the procedural schedule. On
December 12, 2011, DuPont filed its second motion to modify the procedural
schedule. DuPont states that NSR did not
complete its production of data in response to DuPont’s discovery requests
until November 21, 2011, and as a result, DuPont asserts that an additional 90
days is required to develop and submit its opening evidence. Specifically, DuPont requests that the Board
adopt the following modified procedural schedule: Complainant’s
Opening April
30, 2012 Defendant’s
Reply August
30, 2012 Complainant’s
Rebuttal December
21, 2012 Closing
Briefs January
31, 2013 NSR
replied to DuPont’s motion on December 20, 2011. NSR argues that the discovery issues relied
on by DuPont are not significant enough to support the requested extension and
that granting DuPont’s request would prolong excessively the procedural
schedule. NSR requests that, if DuPont
is granted an extension, NSR also be granted an equal extension of time to
submit its reply evidence. On December 21,
2011, DuPont submitted a reply to NSR’s reply, disputing NSR’s statements
regarding the timing and significance of the discovery issues referenced in its
motion. DuPont asks the Board to accept
its reply because doing so would not prejudice a timely decision by the Board,
as DuPont filed its reply only one day after NSR’s reply. By letter submitted on December 23, 2011, NSR
asks the Board to reject DuPont’s December 21, 2011 filing. In the interest of compiling a more complete
record, the surreplies will be accepted.
DuPont’s
motion to modify the procedural schedule, filed on December 12, 2011, will be
granted, and the procedural schedule in this proceeding will be revised as described
above. The parties express widely
divergent opinions regarding the importance of the discovery materials
requested by DuPont and the timing of various discovery communications, but
their arguments underscore one key fact:
the unusual scope and complexity of this proceeding. Even if the data received by DuPont on
November 21, 2011, were not central to the case, as NSR asserts, it would still
be important to ensure that the complainant in a case of this extraordinary
size has enough time, after assembling a full set of information, to develop
its evidence without shortcuts. NSR’s
request for an extension of time in which to file its reply will be rejected as
premature at this time. NSR will have an
opportunity to seek additional time, if warranted, after DuPont has filed its
opening evidence. This
decision will not significantly affect either the quality of the human
environment or the conservation of energy resources. It
is ordered: 1. DuPont’s December 21, 2011 filing and NSR’s
December 23, 2011 filing are accepted into the record. 2. DuPont’s motion to modify the procedural
schedule, filed on December 12, 2011, is granted. The procedural schedule in this proceeding is
revised as described above. 3. NSR’s request for an extension of time in
which to file its reply is rejected as premature. 4. This decision is effective on its service
date. By
the Board, Rachel D. Campbell, Director, Office of Proceedings. | |||