| SURFACE TRANSPORTATION BOARD DECISION DOCUMENT | |||
| Decision Information | |||
Docket Number:   | NOR_42128_0 | ||
Case Title:   | SOUTH MISSISSIPPI ELECTRIC POWER ASSOCIATION V. NORFOLK SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY | ||
Decision Type:   | Decision | ||
Deciding Body:   | Director Of Proceedings | ||
| Decision Summary | |||
Decision Notes:   | DECISION GRANTED A MOTION FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER. | ||
| Decision Attachments | |||
| 25 KB | |||
| Approximate download time at 28.8 kb: 38 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 | |||
|
41365 SERVICE
DATE – JANUARY 21, 2011 DO SURFACE
TRANSPORTATION BOARD DECISION Docket No. NOR 42128 South
mississippi electric power association v. NORFOLK
SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE
ORDER Decided: January 20, 2011 This decision grants a motion for a protective order
for this proceeding. Southern Mississippi Electric Power Association (SMEPA)
challenges the reasonableness of rates, rules and other terms established by Norfolk
Southern Railway Company (NS) for the
transportation of coal from NS-served mine origins and origin groups in
Kentucky, Virginia, West Virginia, Tennessee, and Alabama and NS-served docks
in Mobile, Ala., to SMEPA’s R.D. Morrow, Sr. Generating Station, near Richburg,
Miss. On January 7, 2011, SMEPA filed a motion for protective order with respect
to evidentiary submissions and discovery.[1] SMEPA states that it is
authorized to inform the Board that NSR does not oppose the motion. The proposed protective order, as set forth
in the appendix to this decision, is consistent with the protective orders
entered by the Board in recent rate proceedings.[2] It includes provisions governing the
production of highly confidential material and other related provisions
required by Procedures to Expedite Resolution of Rail Rate Challenges to Be
Considered Under the Stand-Alone Cost Methodology, 6 S.T.B. 805,
813-15 (2003). The protective order also
stipulates (at paragraph 7) that the protected exchange of material will not be
deemed a violation of 49 U.S.C. § 11904. Also at paragraph 7, in order to avoid the
need for routine, unopposed motions to compel the disclosure of confidential
contracts related to the dispute, the protective order specifically provides
for the production of such contracts to enable a more efficient discovery
process. Good cause exists to grant the request for protective
order. The unrestricted disclosure of
confidential, proprietary, or commercially sensitive material could cause
serious competitive injury. Issuance of
the requested protective order will ensure that the material, produced in response to a
discovery request or otherwise, will be used only in
connection with this proceeding and not for any other business or commercial
purpose. The motion conforms with 49 C.F.R. § 1104.14 governing requests for
protective orders to maintain confidentiality of materials submitted to the
Board, and 49 C.F.R. § 1114.21(c) governing protective orders
regarding discovery. Accordingly, the
request for protective order will be granted. This decision will not significantly affect either
the quality of the human environment or the conservation of energy resources. It is ordered: 1. SMEPA’s motion
for protective order is granted. 2.
The parties are directed to comply with the
protective order in the appendix to this decision. 3. This decision is effective on its service
date. By
the Board, Rachel D. Campbell, Director, Office of Proceedings. APPENDIX PROTECTIVE ORDER 1. Any
party producing information, data, documents, or other material (hereinafter
collectively referred to as “material”) in discovery to another party to this
proceeding, or submitting material in pleadings, that the party in good faith
believes reflects proprietary or confidential information, may designate and
stamp such material as “CONFIDENTIAL,” and such material must be treated as
confidential. Such material, any copies,
and any data or notes derived therefrom: (a) Shall
be used solely for the purpose of
this proceeding and any judicial review proceeding arising herefrom,
and not for any other business, commercial, or competitive purpose. (b) May
be disclosed only to employees, counsel, or agents of the party requesting such
material who have a need to know, handle, or review the material for purposes
of this proceeding and any judicial review proceeding arising herefrom, and only where such employee, counsel, or agent
has been given and has read a copy of this Protective Order, agrees to be bound
by its terms, and executes the attached Undertaking for Confidential Material
prior to receiving access to such materials. (c) Must
be destroyed by the requesting
party, its employees, counsel, and agents, at the completion of this proceeding
and any judicial review proceeding arising herefrom. However, outside counsel and consultants for a
party are permitted to retain file copies of all
pleadings filed with the Board. (d) If
contained in any pleading filed with the Board shall, in order to be kept confidential, be filed only in pleadings submitted
in a package clearly marked on the outside “Confidential Materials Subject to
Protective Order.” See 49 C.F.R. §
1104.14. 2. Any party producing material in discovery to another party
to this proceeding, or submitting material in pleadings, may
in good faith designate and stamp particular material, such as material
containing specific rate, traffic, or cost data or other competitively
sensitive information, as “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL.” If any party wishes to challenge such
designation, the party may bring such matter to the attention of the Board. Material that is so
designated may be disclosed only to outside counsel or outside consultants of
the party requesting such materials who have a need to know, handle, or review
the materials for purposes of this proceeding and any judicial review
proceeding arising herefrom, provided that such
outside counsel or outside consultants have been given and have read a copy of
this Protective Order, agree to be bound by its terms, and execute the attached
Undertaking for Highly Confidential Material prior to receiving access to such
materials. Material designated as
“HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL” and produced in discovery under this provision shall be
subject to all of the other provisions of this Protective Order, including
without limitation paragraph 1. 3. In the event that a party produces material
which should have been designated as “CONFIDENTIAL” or “HIGHLY
CONFIDENTIAL” and inadvertently fails to designate the material as
“CONFIDENTIAL” or “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL,” the producing party may notify the other
party in writing within 5 days of the discovery of its inadvertent failure to
make the confidentiality designation. The
party who received the material (“receiving party”) without the confidentiality
designation will return the non-designated portion (including any and all
copies in any form or format) or destroy it, as directed by the producing
party, or take such other steps as the parties agree to in writing. The producing party will promptly furnish the
receiving party with properly designated material. 4. In the event that a party inadvertently
produces material that is protected by the attorney client privilege, work
product doctrine, or any other privilege or protection from discovery or
disclosure, the producing party may make a written request, within a reasonable
time after the producing party discovers the inadvertent disclosure, that the
receiving party return the inadvertently produced privileged document(s). The receiving
party will either return the inadvertently produced document(s) (including any and all copies in any form or format) to the producing
party or destroy that (those) document(s) immediately upon receipt of the
written request, as directed by the producing party. By returning or destroying the document, the
receiving party is not conceding that the document is privileged and is not
waiving its right to later challenge the substantive privilege claim, provided that it may not challenge the privilege claim by
arguing that the inadvertent production waived the privilege. 5. If any party intends to use
“CONFIDENTIAL” and/or “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL” material at hearings in this
proceeding, or in any judicial review proceeding arising herefrom,
the party so intending shall submit any proposed exhibits or other documents
setting forth or revealing such “CONFIDENTIAL” and/or “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL”
material to the Board, or the court, as appropriate, with a written request
that the Board or the court: (a)
restrict attendance at the hearings during discussion of such “CONFIDENTIAL”
and/or “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL” material; and (b) restrict access to the portion
of the record or briefs reflecting discussion of such “CONFIDENTIAL” and/or
“HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL” material in accordance with the terms of this Protective
Order. 6. If any party intends to use
“CONFIDENTIAL” and/or “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL” material in the course of any
deposition in this proceeding, the party so intending shall so advise counsel
for the party producing the materials, counsel for the deponent, and all other
counsel attending the deposition, and all portions of the deposition at which
any such “CONFIDENTIAL” and/or “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL” material is used shall be
restricted to persons who may review the material under this Protective Order. All portions
of deposition transcripts and/or exhibits that consist of or disclose
“CONFIDENTIAL” and/or “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL” material shall be
kept under seal and treated as “CONFIDENTIAL” and/or “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL”
material in accordance with the terms of this Protective Order. 7. Each party is ordered to produce to the
other party contracts (including but not limited to, rail transportation
contracts) or other documents or information which, because of confidentiality
provisions, cannot be produced without a Board order directing their production
to the extent that (1) the other party has requested that the contracts be
produced in discovery, and (2) the parties agree that the requested contracts
would be properly discoverable in this proceeding but for the confidentiality
provision(s). Such documents shall be required to be
produced only after the other party(ies) to a
contract (or other document subject to a confidentiality provision) who are
entitled to prior notice have been provided written notice and a reasonable
opportunity to object to that production and obtain a ruling from the Board on
that objection. Any documents or
contracts produced pursuant to this Section 7 shall be
treated as “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL” and shall otherwise be subject to the
terms of this Protective Order. To the extent that material reflecting the terms of contracts,
shipper-specific traffic data, other traffic data, or other proprietary
information is produced by a party in this or any related proceedings and is
held and used by the receiving person in compliance with this Protective Order,
such production, disclosure, and use of the material and of the data that the
material contains will be deemed essential for the disposition of this and any
related proceedings and will not be deemed a violation of 49 U.S.C. § 11904. 8. Except for this proceeding, the parties
agree that if a party is required by law or order of a governmental or judicial
body to release “CONFIDENTIAL” or “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL” material produced by
the other party or copies or notes thereof as to which it obtained access
pursuant to this Protective Order, the party so required shall notify the
producing party in writing within 3 working days of the determination that the
“CONFIDENTIAL” material, “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL” material, or copies or notes are
to be released, or within 3 working days prior to such release, whichever is
soonest, to permit the producing party the opportunity to contest the release. 9. Information that is publicly available or obtained outside
of this proceeding from a person with a right to disclose it shall not be
subject to this Protective Order even if the same information is produced and designated as “CONFIDENTIAL” or “HIGHLY
CONFIDENTIAL” in this proceeding. 10. Each party has a right to view its own data, information, and
documentation (i.e., information originally generated or compiled by or for
that party), even if that data, information, and documentation has been
designated as “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL” by a producing party, without securing
prior permission from the producing party. If a party (the “filing party”) files and
serves upon the other party (the “reviewing party”) a pleading or evidence
containing the filing party’s “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL” material, the filing party
shall also prepare and serve contemporaneously upon the reviewing party a
“CONFIDENTIAL” version of the pleading or evidence from which the filing
party’s “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL” material has been redacted. The “CONFIDENTIAL” version may
be provided in hardcopy or electronic format at the option of the filing
party, and may be disclosed to those personnel employed by the reviewing party
who have read a copy of this Protective Order and executed the attached
Undertaking for Confidential Material (“In-house Personnel”). 11. Any party filing with the Board a “CONFIDENTIAL” or “HIGHLY
CONFIDENTIAL” pleading in this proceeding should simultaneously file a public
version of the pleading. UNDERTAKING
CONFIDENTIAL
MATERIAL
I, _______________________________, have read the
Protective Order served on January 21, 2011, governing the production of
confidential documents in STB Docket No. NOR 42128, understand the same,
and agree to be bound by its terms. I agree not to use or permit the use of any
data or information obtained under this Undertaking, or to use or permit the
use of any techniques disclosed or information learned as a
result of receiving such data or information, for any purposes other
than the preparation and presentation of evidence and argument in STB Docket
No. NOR 42128 or any judicial review proceeding arising herefrom. I
further agree not to disclose any data or information obtained under this
Protective Order to any person who has not executed an Undertaking in the form
hereof. At the conclusion of this
proceeding and any judicial review proceeding arising herefrom,
I will promptly destroy any copies of such designated documents obtained or
made by me or by any outside counsel or outside consultants working with me,
provided, however, that outside counsel may retain file copies of pleadings
filed with the Board. I understand and agree that money damages would not be
a sufficient remedy for breach of this Undertaking and that parties producing
confidential documents shall be entitled to specific performance and injunctive
or other equitable relief as a remedy for any such breach, and I further agree
to waive any requirement for the securing or posting of any bond in connection
with such remedy. Such remedy shall not be deemed to be the exclusive remedy for breach of this Undertaking
but shall be in addition to all remedies available at law or equity. Signature:
__________________________________ Date:
___________________ UNDERTAKING
HIGHLY
CONFIDENTIAL MATERIAL
As outside [counsel] [consultant] for
_______________________________, for which I am acting in this proceeding, I
have read the Protective Order served on January 21, 2011, governing the
production of confidential documents in STB Docket No. NOR 42128, understand
the same, and agree to be bound by its terms. I further agree not to disclose any data,
information or material designated “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL” to any person or
entity who: (i)
is not eligible for access to “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL” material under the terms of
the Protective Order, or (ii) has not executed a “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL”
undertaking in the form hereof. I also understand and agree, as a condition precedent to my
receiving, reviewing, or using copies of any documents designated “HIGHLY
CONFIDENTIAL,” that I will limit my use of those documents and the information
they contain to this proceeding and any judicial review proceeding arising herefrom, that I will take all necessary steps to assure
that said documents and information will be kept on a confidential basis by any
outside counsel or outside consultants working with me, that under no
circumstances will I permit access to said documents or information by
personnel of my client, its subsidiaries, affiliates, or owners, and that at
the conclusion of this proceeding and any judicial review proceeding arising herefrom, I will promptly destroy any copies of such
designated documents obtained or made by me or by any outside counsel or
outside consultants working with me, provided, however, that outside counsel
may retain file copies of pleadings filed with the Board. I further understand that I must destroy all
notes or other documents containing such highly confidential information in
compliance with the terms of the Protective Order. Under no circumstances will I permit access to
documents designated “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL” by, or disclose any information
contained therein to, any persons or entities for which I am not acting in this
proceeding. I understand and agree that money damages would not be
a sufficient remedy for breach of this Undertaking and that parties producing
confidential documents shall be entitled to specific performance and injunctive
or other equitable relief as a remedy for any such breach, and I further agree
to waive any requirement for the securing or posting of any bond in connection
with such remedy. Such remedy shall not be deemed to be the exclusive remedy for breach of this Undertaking
but shall be in addition to all remedies available at law or equity. ____________________________________ OUTSIDE [COUNSELCONSULTANT] Dated:
_____________________________ [1] On January 11, 2011, SMEPA also filed a
motion to establish a procedural schedule.
That motion, and any related motions, will be ruled
on in a separate decision. [2] See, e.g., E.I.
DuPont de Nemours & Co. v. Norfolk S. Ry., NOR 42125 (STB served Jan.
11, 2011); M&G Polymers USA, LLC v. CSX Transp., Inc., NOR 42123
(STB served Aug. 4, 2010); Total Petrochemicals USA, Inc. v. CSX
Transp., Inc., NOR 42121 (STB served June 23, 2010); US
Magnesium, L.L.C. v. Union Pac. R.R., NOR 42116 (STB served
Dec. 16, 2009). | |||