May et al v. BHP Billiton Petroleum (Fayetteville) LLC

Filing 175

ORDER: The Court is attaching its current working drafts of (1) the key parts of the voir dire areas, (2) the preliminary instructions, (3) the final instructions, and (4) the verdicts. Please file any objections to the preliminary instructions by no on on Friday, April 1. There's no need to comment or object yet on the final instructions or the verdicts. The Court will instruct about depositions when it comes up during trial. Counsel should consider a counter-proposal on opening statements. Twenty minutes a side Monday afternoon to sketch the whole; then five minutes a side, first thing every morning each day thereafter, to explain the witnesses and proof expected that day. If not, we'll have thirty minute openings on Monday previ ously ordered. Counsel should also consider letting the jurors ask questions. This proposal is subject to unanimous consent. Signed by Judge D. P. Marshall Jr. on 3/31/2016. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4)(jak)

Download PDF
Verdict No. 1—Mays’ Section 23 Lease 1. Did BHP fail to drill additional wells on the Mays’ Section 23 lease that a reasonably prudent operator would have drilled? Yes_____ No_____ Instruction: If you answered Question 1 “No,” then your deliberations are done on this lease. If you answered Question 1 “Yes,” then go to Question 2. Court’s Draft Verdict Forms 31 March 2016 1 May et al. v. BHP 4:13-cv-494-DPM 2. What sum of money, if paid now in cash, would fairly and reasonably compensate the Mays for the lost royalties that resulted from BHP’s failure to drill additional wells on the Section 23 lease that a reasonably prudent operator would have drilled? • Damages sustained in the past: $____________ • Damages that, in reasonable probability, will be sustained in the future: $____________ ___________________ ___________________ Foreperson Date and Time Court’s Draft Verdict Forms 31 March 2016 2 May et al. v. BHP 4:13-cv-494-DPM Verdict No. 2—Mays’ Section 26 Lease 1. Did BHP fail to drill additional wells on the Mays’ Section 26 lease that a reasonably prudent operator would have drilled? Yes_____ No_____ Instruction: If you answered Question 1 “No,” then your deliberations are done on this lease. If you answered Question 1 “Yes,” then go to Question 2. Court’s Draft Verdict Forms 31 March 2016 3 May et al. v. BHP 4:13-cv-494-DPM 2. What sum of money, if paid now in cash, would fairly and reasonably compensate the Mays for the lost royalties that resulted from BHP’s failure to drill additional wells on the Section 23 lease that a reasonably prudent operator would have drilled? • Damages sustained in the past: $____________ • Damages that, in reasonable probability, will be sustained in the future: $____________ ___________________ ___________________ Foreperson Date and Time Court’s Draft Verdict Forms 31 March 2016 4 May et al. v. BHP 4:13-cv-494-DPM Verdict No. 3—Snowdens’ Section 14 Lease 1. Did BHP fail to drill additional wells on the Snowdens’ Section 14 lease that a reasonably prudent operator would have drilled? Yes_____ No_____ Instruction: If you answered Question 1 “No,” then your deliberations are done on this lease. If you answered Question 1 “Yes,” then go to Question 2. Court’s Draft Verdict Forms 31 March 2016 5 May et al. v. BHP 4:13-cv-494-DPM 2. What sum of money, if paid now in cash, would fairly and reasonably compensate the Snowdens for the lost royalties that resulted from BHP’s failure to drill additional wells on the Section 14 lease that a reasonably prudent operator would have drilled? • Damages sustained in the past: $____________ • Damages that, in reasonable probability, will be sustained in the future: $____________ ___________________ ___________________ Foreperson Date and Time Court’s Draft Verdict Forms 31 March 2016 6 May et al. v. BHP 4:13-cv-494-DPM

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?