Rigney et al v. CSX Transportation, Inc. et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
NASHVILLE DIVISION
Matthew Rigney et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
CSX Transportation, Inc.,
Defendant.
Case No. 3:22-cv-00342
Judge Waverly D. Crenshaw, Jr.
Magistrate Judge Luke A. Evans
To: 	The Honorable Waverly D. Crenshaw, Jr., District Judge
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
On November 20, 2025, defendant CSX Transportation, Inc. (CSX) filed a motion to
dismiss this case under Rules 41(b) and 37(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (Doc. No.
196.) The crux of the motion is CSX’s allegation that plaintiffs withheld voluminous discovery
and 	misrepresented 	what 	information 	they 	had 	when 	responding 	to 	discovery 	demands.
Specifically, plaintiffs allegedly obtained over 2,000 files and numerous videos from the Waverly
Police Department through a public records request in 2022 but then disclosed only a small portion
of these files when CSX served written discovery demands from 2023 to 2025. CSX claims that
it did not receive the full amount of discovery until the Waverly Police Department responded to
its own public records request in February 2025, which was a follow-up to a public records request
that it submitted to the Waverly Police Department in 2023. Three depositions occurred by the
time CSX obtained the full set of discovery materials. Plaintiffs also allegedly manipulated some
discovery by, for example, removing timestamps from certain videos that would have helped
clarify the chronology of events. CSX accuses plaintiffs of bad faith that has been severe enough
to warrant the sanction of dismissal.
Case 3:22-cv-00342 Document 230 Filed 03/17/26 Page 1 of 4 PageID #: <pageID>

2
Plaintiffs deny manipulating any discovery and note that the parties never met and
conferred to try to resolve CSX’s concerns. Plaintiffs also argue that, since CSX obtained the full
set of discovery materials from the Waverly Police Department, “the parties have submitted six
Joint Status Reports and six Discovery Dispute Statements, many of which required conferences
with the Court. At no point during any of these proceedings did Defendant assert or so much as
mention that it believed Plaintiffs had been withholding evidence.” (Doc. No. 207 at 15.)
The Court has decided under Rule 78(b) that oral argument for CSX’s motion is not
necessary. The Court will deny the motion for oral argument (Doc. No. 199) by separate order.
Both Rule 37 and Local Rule 7.01 contain requirements that a party moving for a
discovery-related order first confer with the other parties to try to resolve the dispute short of court
intervention. 	Several months before CSX filed its motion, Magistrate Judge Newbern further
reminded the parties of his dispute resolution protocol, which required that the parties request a
discovery dispute resolution conference and file a joint discovery dispute statement before
resorting to motion practice. 	(See Doc. No. 162.) 	The parties did not confer in advance, and a
conference would have been helpful in resolving serious accusations such as whether the Waverly
Police Department produced certain videos without time stamps or whether plaintiffs intentionally
removed them. (Compare, e.g., Doc. No. 197 at 15 (citing “the removal of critical time stamps
from the four videos Plaintiffs produced”) with Doc. No. 207 at 17 (“Once again, neither Plaintiffs
nor their attorneys altered or edited nor caused to have altered or edited any video or other evidence
in this case.”).) The Court acknowledges CSX’s motion to supplement (Doc. No. 201) and will
grant it separately for the sake of the docket, but a conference among counsel still should have
occurred in advance.
Case 3:22-cv-00342 Document 230 Filed 03/17/26 Page 2 of 4 PageID #: <pageID>

3
The Court also is concerned about the timing of CSX’s motion. 	Under Rule 37, “long
delays in seeking a court order may weaken or undermine the argument that the additional
discovery is important.” 8B Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ. § 2285 (3d ed. and 2025 Supp.). Rule 37 has
no specific deadlines for motions to compel discovery or to impose sanctions, but a lack of
diligence in seeking resolution of a discovery problem can justify the denial of a motion. 	See
Brandt v. Vulcan, Inc., 30 F.3d 752, 756 (7th Cir. 1994) (affirming denial of a sanctions motion
because of plaintiff’s “failure to take action far earlier in the litigation when he first learned of
other possible discovery abuses”); cf. Audi AG v. D’Amato, 469 F.3d 534, 541 (6th Cir. 2006)
(affirming denial of a motion to extend a discovery deadline, where a party knew of the discovery
issue in question two and a half months before the discovery deadline). Here, according to CSX’s
motion papers, CSX received by February 11, 2025 all of the discovery materials that plaintiffs
allegedly withheld. (Doc. No. 197 at 7.) Since then, and as Magistrate Judge Newbern required
(Doc. No. 158 at 2), the parties filed multiple joint discovery status reports. (Doc. Nos. 161, 169,
174, 187, 191, 194, 215.) In none of these status reports did the parties refer to any problems with
the discovery production in question, misrepresentations about that discovery production, or
possible manipulation of discovery materials. The passage of time, and the course of conduct seen
through the status reports, undermine the serious nature of CSX’s allegations. Further weighing
against the severity of the allegations is Judge Crenshaw’s recent order denying CSX’s motion to
stay proceedings pending the outcome of the motion to dismiss. (Doc. No. 225.) In effect, Judge
Crenshaw already has decided that CSX’s allegations are not severe enough to prevent this case
from moving forward.
Case 3:22-cv-00342 Document 230 Filed 03/17/26 Page 3 of 4 PageID #: <pageID>

4
RECOMMENDATION
For the foregoing reasons, the Court recommends that CSX’s motion to dismiss (Doc. No.
196) be denied. Because CSX’s motion for leave to file video exhibits (Doc. No. 198) is related
to the motion to dismiss, that motion will be denied by separate order.
Any party has fourteen days after being served with this Report and Recommendation to
file specific written objections. Failure to file specific objections within fourteen days of receipt
of this Report and Recommendation can constitute a waiver of appeal of the matters decided.
Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 155 (1985); Cowherd v. Million, 380 F.3d 909, 912 (6th Cir. 2004).
A party who opposes any objections that are filed may file a response within fourteen days after
being served with the objections. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2).
Entered this 17th day of March, 2026.
____________________________________
LUKE A. EVANS
United States Magistrate Judge
Case 3:22-cv-00342 Document 230 Filed 03/17/26 Page 4 of 4 PageID #: <pageID>