Norfolk Southern Railway v. Hartry
316 Ga. App. 532
| Ga. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- June 16, 2010, Norfolk Southern train collided with tractor-trailer in Clayton County; RailView data recorder (SAIC-owned) capturing video and train data; NS licensed SAIC software and limited access to data for third parties; Hartrys sought RailView data, NS offered data only with license or alternative methods; trial court granted motion to compel and denied protective order; appellate court affirmed no abuse of discretion and addressed cost-shifting concerns.
- RailView data is a data compilation subject to OCGA § 9-11-34(a) and translation into a usable form may be required by the producing party.
- Dispute centered on who bears the cost to translate and provide the data in a usable form, potentially including SAIC software license costs.
- Trial court allowed several access methods (license, software, or other agreed method) and did not require NS to violate SAIC agreements.
- Court emphasized public policy that parties ordinarily finance litigation but affirmed no clear abuse of discretion to require cost-bearing for this crucial evidence.
- Record shows license cost alleged to be nominal and court found cost modest relative to lawsuit value, with NS having equipped locomotive with SAIC-licensed device.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion on discovery cost allocation | Hartrys seek data relevance; NS should bear or share cost | NS bears cost due to license and contractual limits | No clear abuse; court proper to require cost-bearing as determined. |
| Whether RailView data qualifies as a 'data compilation' needing translation | Data should be translated into usable form for inspection | NS may provide data via usable form without violating SAIC agreement | OCGA 9-11-34 allows inspection after translation; no abuse. |
| Whether NS must pay for a new SAIC license for Hartrys | License cost should be advanced to enable access | License need not be purchased if alternative access methods exist | Not required to pay license; order permitted alternative methods. |
| Whether protective order should have restricted access or copying | Access should be broader to facilitate discovery | Access appropriately limited; no undue burden shown | Protective order not clearly abused; conditions limiting use were permissible. |
| Whether the trial court’s order impermissibly shifted costs in a no-fault manner | Cost-shifting violates general principle of litigation funding | Cost shifting permissible given circumstances and evidence importance | Not a general rule violation; circumstances supported the decision. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ambassador College v. Goetzke, 244 Ga. 322 (Ga. 1979) (undue burden standard for abuse of discretion in discovery)
- McKinnon v. Smock, 264 Ga. 375 (Ga. 1994) (Follows dissemination of discovery principles (citing federal analogs))
- Trammel v. Nat. Bank of Ga., 159 Ga. App. 850 (Ga. App. 1981) (limits on excluding personal property in discovery)
- Nichols v. Ga. Television Co., 250 Ga. App. 789 (Ga. App. 2001) (reasonableness of costs in copying videotapes)
- Moses v. Jordan, 310 Ga. App. 637 (Ga. App. 2011) (trial court may allow inspection/testing; cannot confiscate property)
- Williams v. Sprint/United Mgmt. Co., 230 F.R.D. 640 (D. Kan. 2005) (broad reasoning on data compilations and usable form)