Daugherty et al v. Encana Oil & Gas (USA), Inc.

Filing 163

MINUTE ENTRY for Discovery Hearing proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Kristen L. Mix on 2/28/2013. Granting in part and denying in part 150 Motion for Protective Order, with respect to subpoenas. The subpoenas shall be limited to the follo wing information: (1) earnings or other compensation of Plaintiffs; (2) Plaintiffs job descriptions, resumes, and representations regarding job duties at Mesa Field Services; and (3) work held by Plaintiffs prior and/or subsequent to their employment at Mesa Field Services. ORDERED: Defendants Oral Motion to Compel response to Request for Production of Documents No. 4 and Interrogatory No. 10 is GRANTED. Deadline for response is March 8, 2013, otherwise sanctions may be imposed. FTR: B. Abiakam. (babia)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Magistrate Judge Kristen L. Mix

Civil Action No.: 10-cv-02272-RBJ-KLM

Date: February 28, 2013

FTR - Reporter Deck - Courtroom C-204
Byron G. Rogers United States
Courthouse
Courtroom Deputy, Bernique Abiakam

DAVID GASTON, et al.,
Hollie Lynn Wieland
Plaintiffs,
v.
ENCANA OIL & GAS (USA), INC.,
a Delaware corporation,

Mary Hurley Stuart
Christopher J. Brady

Defendant.
COURTROOM MINUTES / MINUTE ORDER
HEARING: TELEPHONIC DISCOVERY HEARING
Court in session: 9:34 a.m.
Court calls case. Appearances of Plaintiffs counsel, via telephone, and Defendant’s
counsel in person.
This matter is before the Court regarding Plaintiffs’ Motion For Protective Order with
respect to subpoenas, Plaintiffs’ Oral Motions To Compel Responses To Written
Discovery, and Defendant’s Oral Motions To Compel Responses To Written
Discovery.
Counsel provide the background and basis of the discovery dispute. For the reasons
stated on the record,
It is ORDERED:

Plaintiffs’ Motion For Protective Order, with respect to
subpoenas, (Filed 2/11/13; Doc. No. 150) is GRANTED in
PART and DENIED in PART. The subpoenas shall be
limited to the following information: (1) earnings or other
compensation of Plaintiffs; (2) Plaintiffs’ job descriptions,
resumes, and representations regarding job duties at Mesa
Field Services; and (3) work held by Plaintiffs prior and/or
subsequent to their employment at Mesa Field Services.

10-cv-02272-RBJ-KLM
Discovery Hearing
February 28, 2013

Plaintiffs’ Oral Motion To Compel Responses To Written Discovery is RULED UPON AS
FOLLOWS and as specified on the record:
Plaintiffs’ objection to Defendant’s general objection No. 5 is SUSTAINED.
Defendant shall respond to Plaintiffs’ First Set of Interrogatories, Requests for
Admissions and Requests for Production of Documents for the time period from
January 1, 2004 forward unless otherwise specified in the discovery request.
Plaintiffs’ objection to Defendant’s general objection No. 7 is SUSTAINED.
Plaintiffs’ Oral Motion to Compel response to Interrogatories Nos. 1, 2, and 3 is
GRANTED in PART and DENIED in PART.
Plaintiffs’ Oral Motion To Compel response to Interrogatory No. 4 is GRANTED in
PART and DENIED in Part.
Plaintiffs’ Oral Motion to Compel response to Interrogatory No. 5 is GRANTED in
PART and DENIED in PART.
Plaintiffs’ Oral Motion to Compel response to Interrogatory No. 6 and Request for
Production No. 12 is GRANTED in PART and DENIED in PART.
Plaintiffs’ Oral Motion to compel a response to Interrogatory No. 7 is GRANTED
in PART and DENIED in PART.
Plaintiffs’ Oral Motion to Compel responses to Interrogatory No. 8 and Request
for Production of Documents No. 8 is GRANTED in PART and DENIED in PART.
Plaintiffs’ Oral Motion to Compel response to Interrogatory No. 13 is GRANTED
in PART and DENIED in PART.
Plaintiffs’ Oral Motion to Compel response to Request for Production of
Documents No. 14 is GRANTED.
Plaintiffs’ Oral Motion to compel response to Request for Production of
Documents No. 16 is GRANTED.
Defendant’s Oral Motion To Compel Responses To Written Discovery are RULED
UPON AS FOLLOWS and as specified on the record:
Defendant’s Oral Motion to Compel response to Request for Production of
Documents No. 2 and Interrogatory No. 7 is GRANTED in PART and DENIED in
Page 2 of 3

10-cv-02272-RBJ-KLM
Discovery Hearing
February 28, 2013

PART.
Defendant’s Oral Motion to Compel response to Request for Production of
Documents No. 4 and Interrogatory No. 10 is GRANTED. Deadline for response
is March 8, 2013, otherwise sanctions may be imposed.
Defendant’s Oral Motion to Compel response to Request for Production of
Documents No. 5 is GRANTED.
Defendant’s Oral Motion to Compel response to Request for Production No. 6 is
GRANTED.
Defendant’s Oral Motion to Compel response to Request for Production of
Documents No. 7 is GRANTED in PART and DENIED in PART.
Defendant’s Oral Motion to Compel response to Interrogatory No. 8 is
GRANTED.
Defendant’s Oral Motion to Compel response to Request for Production of
Documents No. 8 is GRANTED.
Defendant’s Oral Motion to Compel response to Request for Production of
Documents No. 9 is GRANTED.
Defendant’s Oral Motion to Compel response to Request for Production of
Documents No. 11 is GRANTED.
HEARING CONCLUDED.
Court in recess: 11:44
Total In-court time: 2 hours, 10 minutes
To order a transcript of this proceeding, contact Avery Woods Reporting at [phone].

Page 3 of 3