Railroad Management Company LLC v. CFS Louisiana Midstream Co.
United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
428 F.3d 214 (2005)
- Written by Sean Carroll, JD
Facts
Under a license agreement, CFS Louisiana Midstream Company (CFS) (defendant) was required to make annual payments to Union Pacific Railroad Company (Union Pacific) for a pipeline that ran across Union Pacific’s land. Railroad Management Company LLC (Railroad Management) (plaintiff) believed that it had been assigned the rights to those payments and billed CFS. CFS did not pay the bill, and Railroad Management brought suit. During discovery, CFS requested a copy of the purported agreement assigning the payments from Union Pacific to Railroad Management. Railroad Management declined to produce the document, citing confidential information in the agreement. However, Railroad Management did introduce an excerpt of the assignment agreement (Exhibit D). Railroad Management also sought to introduce an apparently retyped version of the entire assignment agreement (Exhibit G) that omitted any confidential information. The district court declined to admit Exhibit G into evidence, finding inconsistencies between Exhibit D and Exhibit G, including page numbering and differing marks at the bottom of the pages. The district court granted CFS summary judgment. Railroad Management appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Garza, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 805,000 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.