A-W Land Co., LLC et al v. Anadarko E & P Company LP et al

Filing 363

MINUTE ORDER : DENYING AS MOOT 337 Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Production of a Document Against Third Party Noble Energy, Inc. ; GRANTING 338 Plaintiffs' F.R.C.P. 37(a)(3)(A) Motion to Compel Disclosures; GRANTING 339 Pla intiffs' F.R.C.P. 37(a)(3)(B)(ii) Motion to Compel Designation of a Witness ; GRANTING 340 Plaintiffs' F.R.C.P. 37(a)(3)(B)(iii) Motion to Compel Responses to Interrogatories; GRANTING 341 Plaintiffs' F.R.C.P. 37(a)(3 )(B)(iv) Motion to Compel Designation of a Witness ; DENYING AS MOOT 361 Plaintiffs' Motion for Forthwith Ruling on Plaintiffs' Motions to Compel [Doc. Nos. 337 Through 341]. By Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe on 3/17/2016. (emill)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 09-cv-02293-MSK-MJW
VERNON JESSER and MARY JESSER,
KENT J. MCDANIEL and DEANNA R. MCDANIEL, and
MARVIN BAY and MILDRED BAY,
Co-trustees of the Bay Family Trust,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs,
v.
ANADARKO E&P ONSHORE LLC and
ANADARKO LAND COMPANY,
Defendants.
MINUTE ORDER
Entered by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe
It is hereby ORDERED that:
•

The limitation on discovery reflected in Section I(d) of the operative
scheduling order (Docket No. 322) was contingent upon Chief Judge
Krieger granting the motion to partially reinstate her order (Docket No.
320). Because Chief Judge Krieger did not grant that order, the stipulated
limitation is no longer operative. Accordingly: The proper scope of
discovery now concerns all four of the class-wide legal questions that
have been certified for class resolution.

•

Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1) now provides: “Parties may obtain discovery
regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party's claim or
defense and proportional to the needs of the case, considering the
importance of the issues at stake in the action, the amount in controversy,
the parties’ relative access to relevant information, the parties’ resources,
the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues, and whether the
burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit.
Information within this scope of discovery need not be admissible in
evidence to be discoverable.”
Applying this standard, I do not believe that all evidence of Defendants’
current or recent interpretations of the contract language at issue is

categorically irrelevant. It is true that the contract terms were written long
ago, by different parties. But the parties have cited, and the Court has
found, no Colorado case that creates a bright-line rule or makes certain
types of course-of-dealing evidence categorically irrelevant. As a result,
the documents at issue here almost certainly have some relevance. In
light of the amount in controversy and the limited burden imposed by this
discovery – and considering especially that Chief Judge Krieger recently
vacated her own order because of the limited factual record in this case –
the Court finds that this discovery should be permitted.
•

To the extent Defendants believe any of the current discovery requests
are duplicative of previous requests, the best course of action for
Defendants to take is to (1) identify the specific responses already given
on the matter, (2) certify that a search for supplemental responsive
information has been performed, and (3) produce any supplemental
responsive information or certify that the supplemental search uncovered
no new information.

•

Docket No. 338 is GRANTED. Defendants may redact dollar figures and
numerical formulas involved in the “full development” valuation, but
otherwise shall produce the exchange agreement by 5:00 p.m. Mountain
Time on Friday, March 18, 2016.

•

Docket Nos. 339, 340, and 341 are GRANTED.

•

Docket Nos. 337 and 361 are DENIED AS MOOT.

Date: March 17, 2016