Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Paris v. Union Pacific Railroad
Citations: 450 F. Supp. 2d 913; 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 71476; 2006 WL 2790420Docket: 4:04CV656 JLH
Court: District Court, E.D. Arkansas; September 28, 2006; Federal District Court
Jimmy Paris filed a lawsuit against Union Pacific Railroad Company under the Federal Employers' Liability Act (FELA), claiming that his carpal tunnel syndrome resulted from his work. Union Pacific filed a motion in limine to exclude testimony from employees Tommy Stuart and Clint Lacy, arguing that Paris's attorneys communicated with them unethically, violating Rule 4.2 of the Arkansas Rules of Professional Conduct. This rule prohibits lawyers from communicating about the subject of representation with individuals known to be represented by another lawyer unless consent is obtained. Union Pacific contends that Stuart's and Lacy's statements could be considered admissions against the party, invoking Rule 801(d)(2) of the Federal Rules of Evidence. Union Pacific did not claim that Stuart or Lacy regularly consults with its attorneys or has the authority to obligate the company. Instead, it referenced earlier cases that interpreted a previous version of Comment 7 to Rule 4.2, which stated that communication was prohibited with anyone whose statements could constitute an admission for the organization. However, this interpretation was modified in 2002, removing the broad prohibition against such communications to avoid ambiguity and overreach. Rule 4.2 was interpreted in Weeks v. Independent School District No. 1-89 to prohibit ex parte communications with any employee who could legally bind the organization. The ABA subsequently amended the commentary to Rule 4.2 to clarify this issue. As of May 1, 2005, Arkansas adopted the revised Comment 7 to Rule 4.2, which no longer prohibits communications with individuals whose statements may be considered admissions by the organization. Therefore, the court determined that it is unnecessary to assess whether the statements from employees Stuart and Lacy could be admissions on behalf of Union Pacific. The only relevant question is whether their actions could be attributed to Union Pacific for liability purposes, which Union Pacific failed to demonstrate. Consequently, the court ruled that Paris's lawyers can communicate with Stuart and Lacy, denying Union Pacific's motion to exclude their statements. Additionally, the court addressed a discovery matter, noting that after a scheduling order cutoff of June 23, 2006, Paris disclosed six new witnesses on July 12, 2006. Despite Union Pacific's objections, the court ruled that allowing these employees and former employees to testify will not hinder a fair trial for Union Pacific. The court reopened discovery for depositions if necessary and permitted Union Pacific to identify additional witnesses in response. The court ultimately denied Union Pacific's first motion in limine.