According to court documents, Goodheart was told by the SAIC representative that Norfolk Southern actually owned the software and could waive the fees if it so desired.
In May 2012, according to court documents, Goodheart called Norfolk Southern's counsel to inquire about obtaining the software free of charge during the litigation. Norfolk Southern's attorney told Goodheart he'd get back to him on the issue but never did.
In the fall, Goodheart filed a motion to compel discovery of the video footage.
On September 7, 2012, Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas Judge R. Stanton Wettick Jr. granted the motion, giving Norfolk Southern 30 days to produce the video footage and the necessary software to allow it to be viewed on five different computers, at no cost to the plaintiffs.
Norfolk Southern first filed a motion for reconsideration of the order, which Wettick denied, and then appealed the issue to the state Superior Court, according to court records.
In the meantime, 30 days passed and Norfolk Southern failed to comply with Wettick's order, according to Goodheart.
Goodheart filed a motion for sanctions against Norfolk Southern on November 14, alleging that the railroad company was attempting to discourage plaintiffs' access to discovery materials by charging exorbitant fees to view the surveillance footage.
Goodheart also alleged in the motion that Norfolk Southern had engaged in similar conduct elsewhere in the country, citing the 2012 case Norfolk Southern v. Hartry, in which the Court of Appeals of Georgia ordered the company to produce video footage and the RailView software.
Along with monetary sanctions, the motion also sought sanctions in the form of an order precluding Norfolk Southern from using the footage as evidence and an adverse inference jury instruction at trial.
Norfolk Southern, meanwhile, filed a brief in opposition, arguing that requiring it to provide the footage and software for free constituted unfair cost-shifting.
Subscribe to The Legal Intelligencer
