Henderson v. National Railroad Passenger Corp.

Justia Dockets & Filings Second Circuit New York Southern District Henderson v. National Railroad Passenger Corp.

Henderson v. National Railroad Passenger Corp.

Plaintiff:	Nathaniel Henderson
Defendant:	National Railroad Passenger Corp.
Case Number:	1:2013cv06792
Filed:	September 25, 2013
Court:	US District Court for the Southern District of New York
Office:	Foley Square Office
County:	Queens
Presiding Judge:	Paul A. Engelmayer
Nature of Suit:	Federal Employers Liability
Cause of Action:	45 U.S.C. § 51
Jury Demanded By:	Plaintiff

Follow case documents by RSS

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed	Document Text
February 19, 2015	Filing 69 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER re: 49 MOTION in Limine filed by National Railroad Passenger Corp. Plaintiff Nathaniel Henderson brought this action against National Railroad Passenger Corporation d/b/a Amtrak ("Amtrak ") under the Federal Employers Liability Act ("FELA"), 45 U.S.C. § 51 et seq., alleging that, while working for Amtrak as a signal foreman, he was struck by a train and injured as a result of Amtrak's negligence. Amtrak no w moves in limine to preclude Henderson from offering evidence or argument at trial relevant to negligence claims purportedly precluded by the Federal Railroad Safety Act ("FRSA"), 49 U.S.C. § 20101, et seq., and the regulations pro mulgated thereunder. For the foregoing reasons, Amtrak's request that the Court preclude Henderson from offering evidence or argument at trial relevant to conduct that does not establish a violation of an FRSA regulation is denied. (Signed by Judge Gregory H. Woods on 2/19/2015) (mro)
July 14, 2014	Filing 24 OPINION & ORDER: For the foregoing reasons, the Court enters a protective order to cover the following five categories of information: The investigation report and draft investigation report concerning the incident, on May 18, 2012, in which Hender son was injured; the notes of the investigators who conducted that investigation; three audio CDs containing recordings of witness interviews from that investigation; training and safety histories of 10 Amtrak employees; and an Amtrak financial in voice for East River Tunnel work. Henderson may not disclose any of these materials to the public, and may only use the materials in support of this litigation. However, Amtraks application for a protective order to cover audio recordings of calls and radio communications between Amtrak personnel and the Penn Station Central Control and the Amtrak Trouble Desk on May 18, 2012 is denied. This decision is, of course, without prejudice to Hendersons right to move to vacate or modify this pro tective order at a later date, including when and if the materials covered by it are implicated either by pretrial motions or trial proceedings. The Court is mindful that the facts necessary to show good cause for a protective order applicable to d iscovery documents that are not yet implicated in judicial proceedings will not necessarily meet the higher threshold imposed by the First Amendment with respect to judicial documents. Newsday LLC, 730 F.3d at 166(citing In re Midland Natl Life Ins. Co., 686 F.3d 1115, 1120 (9th Cir. 2012); Union Oil Co. of Cal. v. Leavell, 220 F.3d 562, 568 (7th Cir. 2000); Rushford v. New Yorker Magazine, Inc., 846 F.2d 249, 25253 (4th Cir. 1988)). (Signed by Judge Paul A. Engelmayer on 7/14/2014) (cd)

Date Filed

Document Text

February 19, 2015

Filing 69 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER re: 49 MOTION in Limine filed by National Railroad Passenger Corp. Plaintiff Nathaniel Henderson brought this action against National Railroad Passenger Corporation d/b/a Amtrak ("Amtrak ") under the Federal Employers Liability Act ("FELA"), 45 U.S.C. § 51 et seq., alleging that, while working for Amtrak as a signal foreman, he was struck by a train and injured as a result of Amtrak's negligence. Amtrak no w moves in limine to preclude Henderson from offering evidence or argument at trial relevant to negligence claims purportedly precluded by the Federal Railroad Safety Act ("FRSA"), 49 U.S.C. § 20101, et seq., and the regulations pro mulgated thereunder. For the foregoing reasons, Amtrak's request that the Court preclude Henderson from offering evidence or argument at trial relevant to conduct that does not establish a violation of an FRSA regulation is denied. (Signed by Judge Gregory H. Woods on 2/19/2015) (mro)

July 14, 2014

Filing 24 OPINION & ORDER: For the foregoing reasons, the Court enters a protective order to cover the following five categories of information: The investigation report and draft investigation report concerning the incident, on May 18, 2012, in which Hender son was injured; the notes of the investigators who conducted that investigation; three audio CDs containing recordings of witness interviews from that investigation; training and safety histories of 10 Amtrak employees; and an Amtrak financial in voice for East River Tunnel work. Henderson may not disclose any of these materials to the public, and may only use the materials in support of this litigation. However, Amtraks application for a protective order to cover audio recordings of calls and radio communications between Amtrak personnel and the Penn Station Central Control and the Amtrak Trouble Desk on May 18, 2012 is denied. This decision is, of course, without prejudice to Hendersons right to move to vacate or modify this pro tective order at a later date, including when and if the materials covered by it are implicated either by pretrial motions or trial proceedings. The Court is mindful that the facts necessary to show good cause for a protective order applicable to d iscovery documents that are not yet implicated in judicial proceedings will not necessarily meet the higher threshold imposed by the First Amendment with respect to judicial documents. Newsday LLC, 730 F.3d at 166(citing In re Midland Natl Life Ins. Co., 686 F.3d 1115, 1120 (9th Cir. 2012); Union Oil Co. of Cal. v. Leavell, 220 F.3d 562, 568 (7th Cir. 2000); Rushford v. New Yorker Magazine, Inc., 846 F.2d 249, 25253 (4th Cir. 1988)). (Signed by Judge Paul A. Engelmayer on 7/14/2014) (cd)

Access additional case information on PACER

Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.

Access this case on the New York Southern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Henderson v. National Railroad Passenger Corp.
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Plaintiff: Nathaniel Henderson
Represented By:	Marc Twyman Wietzke
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Finance	[ Google Finance \| Yahoo Finance \| Hoovers \| SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Justia Dockets \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Defendant: National Railroad Passenger Corp.
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Finance	[ Google Finance \| Yahoo Finance \| Hoovers \| SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Justia Dockets \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?