Oxbow Carbon & Minerals LLC v. Union Pacific R.R. Co.
United States District Court for the District of Columbia
322 F.R.D. 1 (2017)
- Written by Rose VanHofwegen, JD
Facts
Oxbow Carbon & Minerals LLC and four related coal and petroleum mining companies (collectively, Oxbow) (plaintiffs) sued, alleging that Union Pacific and BNSF Railway Company (defendants) violated antitrust laws. Oxbow claimed the railroads conspired to fix fuel rates and surcharges at anticompetitive levels and maintain a monopoly. Oxbow claimed it paid $50 million in illegal fuel charges as a result and sought treble damages plus lost profits. During discovery, Oxbow produced documents from 19 records custodians. However, the railroads sought the records of William Koch, Oxbow’s founder, CEO, and principal. The railroads claimed Koch had unique information that would show market forces—not the alleged railroad conspiracy—caused increasing rail freight costs and Oxbow’s losses. Oxbow resisted the discovery as unduly burdensome, expensive, and duplicative of the documents already produced by its 19 records custodians. However, Oxbow willingly conducted a sample search to determine the relevant percentage. A vendor searched almost half a million documents from Koch’s physical and electronic files, at a cost of $57,000. About 12 percent returned as responsive, and Oxbow produced about 1,300 records from that sampling. But Oxbow estimated that searching, reviewing, and producing the remainder would cost another $85,000 and objected to production as unduly burdensome and costly. Alternatively, Oxbow asked the court to shift the production costs to the railroads.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Harvey, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 802,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.