Kemmer et al v. David H Arrington Oil & Gas Inc
ORDER granting 45 Motion to Clarify. Signed by Judge Brian S. Miller on 1/6/10. (bkp)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION ROY KEMMER, LETA KEMMER, SHERRY L. KEMMER, SHEILA L. KEMMER, KENNETH RAY GARRISON, MARY J ANE GARRISON, TRACY SCOTT MCCARTY, JANETTE MCCARTY, W.T. ALTOM, EVALEE ALTOM, THOMAS SHANE STONE, EACH INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHER SIMILARLY SITUATED CITIZENS OF ARKANSAS VS. CASE NO.: 2-09-CV-0073-BSM DEFENDANT
DAVID H. ARRINGTON OIL AND GAS, INC. ORDER
Defendant David H. Arrington Oil and Gas, Inc. ("Arrington") moves for instructions (Doc. No. 45) concerning the December 14, 2009 order granting certain discovery (Doc. No. 42). That order compelled responses to interrogatories and requests for production numbered 1, 2, and 5. It denied the motion to compel responses to interrogatory and request for production number 4. Clarifying instructions follow below: Interrogatory No. 1 and Request for Production No. 1. Arrington is directed to identify and provide the requested information for every person that returned a signed lease agreement for mineral rights located in the state of Arkansas. While those who had their lease bonuses paid by Arrington may not be a part of the putative class, they are still individuals that returned a signed lease agreement to Arrington. Arrington must produce information concerning these individuals.
Interrogatory No. 2 and Request for Production No. 2. Arrington is directed to produce documents regarding the requests for admission numbered 19, 20, 27, 28, 34, 61, 78, 79, 93, 107, 121, 144, 145, 146, 147, and 149. Arrington has up to and including February 8, 2010 to produce the information compelled under the December 14, 2009 order (Doc. No. 42). IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 6th day of January, 2010.
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?