Tucker et al v. Southwestern Energy Company et al
ORDER denying 131 Motion for Ruling; finding as moot 135 Motion to Amend/Correct; finding as moot 136 Motion to Strike ; finding as moot 138 Motion to Strike. An amended final scheduling order will issue soon. Signed by Judge D. P. Marshall Jr. on 7/11/12. (kpr)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
JAMES TUCKER; MINDY TUCKER;
RONALD HOLLARS; FRANCES
ANN HOLLARS; PHILLIP BERRY; and
SOUTHWESTERN ENERGY CO.
and BHP BILLITON PETROLEUM
The Court held a hearing on 10 July 2012 to resolve various discovery
disputes and pending motions. The Court gave its reasons on the record for
its various rulings.
Here is a summary of the Court's decisions,
supplemented on a few points.
The Pleadings and Parties
Plaintiffs' motion to amend, Document No. 140, granted. The Court
notes the complaint has already been filed. Good. This should be the
last amendment. New revised deadline for amending pleadings is 31
Plaintiffs' motion to strike some affirmative defenses, Document No. 138,
is denied as moot. (The Court forgot to rule on this at the hearing.) The
Court directs Southwestern to scrutinize and winnow its defenses in
pleading to the new complaint.
The Court looks forward to a joint motion to dismiss BHP.
Southwestern's deadline to produce all Livelink materials about the
priority wells is extended until 7 August 2012. Press on; and keep
Plaintiffs and the Court posted on progress.
On the joint report about Plaintiff's discovery responses, Document No.
142, Plaintiff will supplement as directed by 24 July 2012 except as to
any settlement materials.
On any settlement materials, Plaintiffs will consult immediately with
the other involved counsel, seeking an agreed disclosure subject to the
current protective order. If that doesn't work out by 31 July 2012,
Plaintiffs and Southwestern should file a joint report and Plaintiffs
should send any responsive materials to chambers only by Federal Express
for filing under seal by hand. The Court is inclined to agree with
Southwestern about the necessity of these materials on contribution
issues.* We'll see.
On the joint report about e-discovery, Document No. 128, the Court
ordered a pause and immediate in-person consultation between the
lawyers and the parties' consultants. Joint report and proposed plan for
reasonable and focused e-mail discovery due by 24 July 2012. Though
no expert, the Court wonders whether staging might help on the
volume issue: gather and produce e-mails without attachments first;
then produce attachments requested by Plaintiffs after they've reviewed
Southwestern's motion for a Lone Pine order, Document No. 131, is
denied without prejudice. The spirit of Lone Pine and like cases,
however, should preside over the parties' collaborations on discovery
An Amended Final Scheduling Order, postponing expert disclosures
and making the minimum amount of other resulting changes, will issue soon.
·The case the Court was trying to remember is Ark. Best Corp. v.
General Electric Capital Corp., 317 Ark. 238, 878 S.W.2d 708 (1994). It deals
with a sealed settlement agreement in the court's file and seems off point.
Motion to amend, Document No. 140, granted. Superseded motions, Document
Nos. 135 & 136, denied as moot. Motion for Lone Pine order, Document No.131,
denied without prejudice.
D.P. Marshall Jr.
United States District Judge
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?