 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Winslow v. Montana Rail Link11/27/2000
of the privacy rights of the other workers, MRL cannot reveal their names or identities. Although the District Court has not ruled on this issue, Winslow asks that, in the interests of judicial economy, we review the privacy issue in the context of this appeal. We decline to do so.
Since the discovery issue has not been ruled upon by the District Court, the issue is not ripe for appeal under Rule 1, M.R.App.P. Although Rule 3, M.R.App.P., allows for suspension of the rules for "good cause" shown, we do not find that such good cause has been shown. The District Court did not rule on the pending discovery requests because it did not believe that it had subject matter jurisdiction over the underlying claims. Now that the preemption issue has been resolved favorably to Winslow, we are confident that the District Court will address the discovery requests in a timely fashion and develop the record with regard to any discovery disputes which arguably implicate the privacy rights of other employees.
This matter is reversed in part, affirmed in part, and remanded for further proceedings consistent with the above opinion.
W. WILLIAM LEAPHART
We concur:
J. A. TURNAGE
KARLA M. GRAY
MICHAEL C. PREZEAU
District Judge sitting for Justice Jim Regnier
Justice James C. Nelson concurs and dissents:
I concur with the Court's analysis of Issues 1 through 6, inclusive, and with our decision on those issues. I dissent from our refusal to address Issue 7, the discovery dispute. As to this last issue, I would address and decide the discovery question presented.
Winslow was terminated from his employment nearly five years ago. Upon filing his complaint, he timely commenced and diligently attempted to obtain discovery of the identities of other workers who had either sustained injuries similar to his from similar job duties or who had been fired or disciplined after they turned in a personal injury report. MRL opposed this discovery in nearly every way possible. The trial court was brought into the dispute early on but never resolved the discovery question despite Winslow's continuous attempts to get a decision. A trial date was lost, and Winslow's claims, ultimately, were dismissed. We have now ruled that the District Court erred in dismissing Winslow's claims and we are sending the case back for further proceedings.
Unfortunately for Winslow, however, he is essentially back to square one as far as the discovery issue goes; his case is still at ground zero despite years of litigation. No doubt he is looking at months, if not years, of further delay before he has his day in court.
The privacy matter which is at the heart of the discovery issue is purely one of law. This Court is as capable of deciding this issue as is the trial court and, in matters of law, our review is plenary, in any event.
Winslow has a constitutional right to speedy remedy afforded without delay. Art, II, Sec. 16, Mont.Const. If this constitutional right has any meaning in the context of this case, then we should suspend the Rules of Appellate Procedure and decide the discovery issue in this appeal. Our refusal to do so is to continue the frustration of Winslow's Article II, Section 16 rights that has already taken place in the trial court for far too long.
I dissent from our decision as to Issue 7.
JAMES C. NELSON
Justice William E. Hunt, Sr., and Terry N. Trieweiler join in the foregoing concurrence and dissent.
WILLIAM E. HUNT, SR.
TERRY N. TRIEWEILER
|