Phlypo v. BNSF Railway Co, 4:17-cv-00566

Decedent David L. DeForge worked for BNSF (formerly Burlington Northern & Santa Fe) for 37 years; plaintiffs (his spouse and estate) allege occupational exposure to multiple toxic substances caused his non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma and death.
Plaintiffs sue under the Federal Employers Liability Act (FELA), claiming exposure to chemicals, solvents, diesel fuel/exhaust, benzene, heavy metals, creosote, manganese, and mineral/rock dust and fibers.
Complaint identifies DeForge, his employment dates, general duties, a non‑exhaustive list of alleged toxic exposures, and a causal link between exposure and disease/death.
BNSF moved under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(e) for a more definite statement, arguing the complaint is too vague about which substances, when, where, and in what amounts exposure occurred.
Plaintiffs responded that they provided all available specifics and that BNSF, as employer, is better positioned to identify precise exposures; additional detail can be developed through discovery.
The court evaluated whether the complaint gave BNSF sufficient notice under Rule 8 and whether the pleading was so ambiguous that a Rule 12(e) order was required.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the complaint is so vague that Rule 12(e) requires a more definite statement	Complaint provides identity, employment dates, duties, types of substances, and causal connection — sufficient notice	Complaint lists many substances and timeframes vaguely across 37 years, preventing a meaningful response	Denied: complaint meets Rule 8 plausibility and gives adequate notice; specificity can be addressed in discovery

MacNeil Auto. Prods., Ltd. v. Cannon Auto. Ltd., 715 F. Supp. 2d 786 (N.D. Ind. 2010) (Rule 12(e) motions are disfavored and should be granted only when a pleading is unintelligible)
U.S. for Use of Argyle Cut Stone Co., Inc. v. Paschen Contractors, Inc., 664 F. Supp. 298 (N.D. Ill. 1987) (Rule 12(e) relief appropriate only when movant cannot draft a responsive pleading)
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (complaint must plead facts showing entitlement to relief and be plausible on its face)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (established standard for plausibility and the need for factual allegations beyond conclusions)