Congress has barred the discovery and admission of documents relating to safety enhancements for  railroad-highway crossings.{footnote} [3436]   Notwithstanding any other provision of law, reports, surveys, schedules, lists, or data compiled for the purpose of identifying, evaluating, or planning the safety enhancement of potential accident sites, hazardous roadway conditions, or railway-highway crossings, pursuant to sections 130, 144, and 152 of this title or for the purpose of developing any highway safety construction improvement project which may be implemented utilizing Federal-aid highway funds shall not be subject to discovery or admitted into evidence in a Federal or State court proceeding or considered for other purposes in any action for damages arising from any occurrence at a location mentioned or addressed in such reports, surveys, schedules, lists, or data.

23 U.S.C.A. §§ 130, 409; Harrison v. Burlington Northern R. Co., 965 F.2d 155 (7th Cir. 1992)(letter and report relating to Illinois Commerce Commission investigation inadmissible); Lusby v. Union Pacific R. Co., 4 F.3d 639 (8th Cir. 1993)(records inadmissible even though not compiled solely for purposes of reporting to federal government).
            Sawyer v. Illinois Cent. Gulf R.R., 606 So. 2d 1069, 1073 (Miss. 1992) (excluding reports and testimony as to their contents); Claspill v. Missouri Pac. R.R., 793 S.W.2d 139, 140 (Mo. 1990) (excluding a list of "most dangerous
railroad crossings" prepared under § 409 and testimony based on list); Perkins v. Ohio Dep’t of Transp., 584 N.E.2d 794, 802 (Ohio App. 1989).{/footnote}  This statute has been held to bar admission of newspaper articles based on documents which fall within the ambit of the statute.{footnote} [3437]Robertson v. Union Pac. R.R., 954 F.2d 1433, 1435 (8th Cir. 1992).{/footnote}  Some courts interpreted the statute expansively so as protect the underlting information once it has been compiled in a statutory report,{footnote} [3438]St. Louis Southwestern Ry. v. Malone Freight Lines, 39 F.3d 864 (8th Cir. 1994), cert. denied, 115 S. Ct. 1963 (1995); Lusby v. Union Pac. R.R., 4 F.3d 639 (8th Cir. 1993); Robertson v. Union Pac. R.R., 954 F.2d 1433 (8th Cir. 1992); Shots v. CSX Transp., 887 F. Supp. 204 (S.D. Ind. 1995); Fuester v. Cornrail, 1994 WL 463449 (Del. Super. Ct. 1994); Seaton v. Johnson, 898 S.W.2d 232 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1995).{/footnote} while others have interpreted it narrowly, so as to permit discovery and admissibility of facts available from another source even if incorporated into a confidential report.{footnote} [3439]Kitts v. Norfolk & W.Ry., 152 F.R.D. 78 (S.D. W. Va. 1993)
            Southern Pac. Transp. v. Yarnell, 181 Ariz. 316, 890 P.2d 611, cert. denied, 116 S.Ct. 352 (1995); Wiedeman v. Dixie Elec. Membership Corp., 627 So. 2d 170 (La. 1993), cert. denied, 114 S. Ct. 2134 (1994); Light v. State, 149 Misc. 2d 75, 560 N.Y.S.2d 962, 965 (Ct. Cl. 1990) (statute "does not, expressly or by implication, make the information contained in . . . reports confidential");  Tardy v. Norfolk S. Corp., 1995 WL 262303 (Ohio Ct. App. 1995).{/footnote}

Bibliography

Patrick J. Ballard, 28 U.S.C. 409: Evidentiary Bar for Railroad Crossing Evaluations, 19 Am. J. of Trial Advocacy 471 (1995).