Halle v. BNSF Railway Company et al

From: 	Joshua Miller
To: 	carson@ned.uscourts.gov; dchurch_mwcattorneys.com; Isaiah J. Frohling; bbutner_mwcattorneys.com; Susan K.
Sapp
Cc: 	Paul Banker; Randy LeNeave; Mark Triola; Sherri Maas; Tate McAllan
Subject: 	RE: Galinda Halle v BNSF Railway Company, Zachary Thompson and Aiden Nelson Case No. 8:23-cv-213
Date: 	Friday, October 17, 2025 10:58:20 AM
Attachments: 	image001.png
CAUTION - EXTERNAL:
Judge Carson,
I write in response to Defense counsel’s email below. First, Defense counsel’s timeline
and accusation that Plaintiff’s counsel somehow simply did not respond to the proverbial
requested second bite at the apple depositions is disingenuous at best. Plaintiff’s counsel and
Defendant’s counsel spoke about this request nearly a month ago on September 22, 2025, at
which time Plaintiff’s counsel requested what good cause would warrant Defendant to take a
second deposition of the Plaintiff and a second deposition of her treating doctor. The only
rationale Defendant’s counsel articulated to Ms. Halle’s counsel for re-deposing Halle and her
treating doctor, as seen provided below, was the passage of time. A fact true in every single
case. Plaintiff’s counsel then stated that sole fact is not sufficient good cause to warrant re-
opening discovery and permitting cumulative and duplicative depositions. A fact even more
evident when it is recognized that Defendant has, and continues to, receive medical records
from Dr. Fattig outlining his treatment and interactions with Ms. Halle.
There has been no change in the injuries being claimed by Plaintiff or even some new
surgery performed since the close of discovery in this matter. There is no reason to believe Dr.
Fattig’s opinions and testimony already provided in his discovery deposition have altered or
that there has been any other material shift since that time. It is not at all unusual for treatment
to be ongoing, and defendant has shown no good cause for re-deposing Halle or Dr. Fattig
because it would mean that any routine ongoing treatment would somehow entitle a party to a
second deposition of both a Plaintiff and a treating doctor even if the party articulated no
specific change in the deponent’s condition. If Defendant wishes to develop evidence on
Halle’s subsequent treatment or condition, there is nothing preventing the railroad from
gathering updated testimony at trial, as is done in every case for every witness.
Additionally, there is no reason for Defendant’s eleventh-hour request on the door-
steps of trial submissions and trial. In fact, the trial evidentiary deposition of Dr. Fattig has
already been set for November 4, 2025. Re-deposing Halle and her treating doctor would be
unreasonably cumulative and duplicative because the railroad has not shown any meaningful
difference between the information obtained in the first depositions and the information that
would be obtained from second depositions. Furthermore, Defendant has already had ample
opportunity to seek the same information through earlier discovery, and it retains the
8:23-cv-00213-RFR-RCC Doc # 148 Filed: 10/29/25 Page 1 of 4 - Page ID #
<pageID>

opportunity to seek the same information when Halle and her treating Doctor are on the
witness stand. Under Rule 30 there is a presumption that a person will be deposed only once,
and leave for a second deposition may only be granted with the movant showing a good cause
under very limited circumstances. Here, simply put, there is no good cause to permit
Defendant multiple new depositions.
Sincerely,
Joshua N. Miller
Hunegs LeNeave & Kvas | 1000 Twelve Oaks Center Drive | Suite 101
Wayzata, MN 55391
Direct: 952.767.7188
jmiller@hlklaw.com
From: Daniel Church <dchurch@mwcattorneys.com>
Sent: Thursday, October 16, 2025 5:00 PM
To: carson@ned.uscourts.gov
Cc: Paul Banker <PBanker@HLKLAW.COM>; Isaiah J. Frohling <ifrohling@clinewilliams.com>; Blake
Butner <bbutner@mwcattorneys.com>
Subject: Galinda Halle v BNSF Railway Company, Zachary Thompson and Aiden Nelson Case No.
8:23-cv-213
Judge Carson below is a brief summary of a “discovery” dispute between Plaintiff and
Defendants.
In reference to a recent conversation with Judge Carson’s clerk, below is a brief
summary of a discovery dispute in this case.
As counsel for defendant BNSF, I contacted plaintiff’s counsel requesting dates for
supplemental depositions of Plaintiff Gelinda Halle and Dr. Thomas Fattig.
Plaintiff’s counsel did not respond with any dates or to advise defendant’s counsel he
objects to the depositions proceeding. 	Defendant filed Notice of Depositions for
Galinda Halle and Dr. Fattig for October 28 and 29, 2025. Once counsel received the
Deposition Notices, plaintiff’s counsel contacted the undersigned counsel advising that
he objects to these depositions being taken after the discovery deadline despite
defendant’s counsel explaining why the depositions were necessary.
As this Court is aware, this case has been on file since May 24, 2023. 	A Scheduling
Order (Supplemental Scheduling Order) was approved and filed on August 21, 2024.
8:23-cv-00213-RFR-RCC Doc # 148 Filed: 10/29/25 Page 2 of 4 - Page ID #
<pageID>

This Order provided a discovery deadline for depositions was November 15, 2024.
What has precipitated the need for these two very brief zoom depositions is the
following:
Gelinda Halle
Plaintiff was deposed on May 1, 2024. Since her deposition, Ms. Halle has continued
to treat with Dr. Fattig. Ms. Halle has seen Dr. Fattig on multiple occasions since her
deposition and, apparently, received Toradol injections weekly. 	Plaintiff claims she
cannot return to work as an engineer but stated in her deposition a desire to do so.
Since her treatment has continued after her deposition, defendant needs to inquire
about the treatment, what Ms. Halle has told Dr. Fattig about returning to work and
what she should do so she can return to work for BNSF, particularly since Dr. Fattig lists
no reason why she cannot return to work on the scant paperwork provided to BNSF .
This evidence is important to defendant’s expert witnesses.
In addition, since her deposition, Ms. Halle has purportedly applied for various jobs
outside the Railroad in the Alliance, Nebraska, area. She claims she could not get hired
because her skills are outdated. 	Defendant should be entitled to inquire about the
applications for employment and what occurred at the interviews. 	This evidence is
important to BNSF’s vocational rehabilitation expert witness. 	Since her deposition
plaintiff has filed seven(7) Supplemental Disclosures, providing limited documents
about some of the prospective employers .
Further, 	since 	Ms. 	Halle’s 	deposition, 	she 	has 	enrolled 	at 	Western 	Nebraska
Community College, which is being paid for by BNSF. According to her attorney, she
has reduced her course load to one class due to her anxiety of being an older,
outdated student. 	All of these issues need to be explored at her deposition. 	This
evidence is also important to defendant’s vocational rehabilitation expert witness.
These subjects could be addressed in a fairly short time frame and can be done by
Zoom at very little inconvenience to the parties.
Dr. Fattig
Plaintiff contacted defense counsel requesting an evidentiary deposition on November
4, 2025, for Dr. Fattig. Defense counsel requested that he be afforded an opportunity,
approximately one hour before the evidentiary deposition, to conduct a brief discovery
deposition, since Dr. Fattig has continued to treat plaintiff after both Ms. Halle and Dr.
Fattig’s 2024 depositions. Plaintiff’s counsel refused to agree to this request and now
objects to any other deposition of Dr. Fattig.
Dr. Fattig continues to submit one sentence records that Ms. Halle cannot return to
work but gives no reason. 	He continues to treat Ms. Halle, prescribing Toradol
injections every week. 	Defendant should be entitled to inquire about why he
continues to keep Ms. Halle off work and why these Toradol injections are necessary
8:23-cv-00213-RFR-RCC Doc # 148 Filed: 10/29/25 Page 3 of 4 - Page ID #
<pageID>

and whether this treatment is in accordance with health care standards. 	All this
evidence is important for defendant’s expert orthopedic surgeon to review regarding
his opinions in this case as well as defendant’s vocational rehabilitation expert witness.
These two depositions would be very short in duration but should be conducted
before Fattig’s evidentiary deposition scheduled for 10:00 a.m., on November 4, 2025.
The foregoing discovery is necessary and should be allowed to avoid prejudice to
defendants, which outweighs any inconvenience to any party even though the
discovery deadline has passed. 	In many cases, when a plaintiff continues to receive
medical 	attention 	throughout 	the 	case, 	the 	parties 	are 	typically 	afforded 	an
opportunity to conduct further discovery about any new facts. Defendants should be
afforded the same opportunity here.
Daniel F. Church
MORROW WILLNAUER CHURCH, L.L.C.
8330 Ward Parkway, Ste. 300
Kansas City, Missouri 64114
816.382.1382
F: 816.382.1383
C: 816.225.2171
dchurch@mwcattorneys.com
The information contained in this e-mail and any attachments hereto is confidential. If you are
not the intended recipient, you must not use or disseminate any of this information. If you
have received this e-mail in error, please immediately notify the sender by reply e-mail and
permanently delete the original e-mail (and any attachments hereto) and any copies or
printouts thereof. Although this e-mail and any attachments hereto are believed to be free of
any virus or other defect that might affect any computer system into which it is received and
opened, it is the responsibility of the recipient to ensure that it is virus free and no
responsibility is accepted by Allied World Assurance Company Holdings, GmbH or its
subsidiaries or affiliates, either jointly or severally, for any loss or damage arising in any way
from its use. If you'd prefer not to hear from me by email, please reply back and let me know
and I'll update my records accordingly.
CAUTION - EXTERNAL EMAIL: This email originated outside the Judiciary. Exercise caution
when opening attachments or clicking on links.
8:23-cv-00213-RFR-RCC Doc # 148 Filed: 10/29/25 Page 4 of 4 - Page ID #
<pageID>