Gibbens v. Quality Rental Tools, Inc.
Filing
158
ORDER AND REASONS re 138 MOTION for APPEAL OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE DECISION to District Court. For the reasons stated herein, the magistrate judge's decision is affirmed in part and reversed in part. QRT's supplemental productions are due by June 15, 2015. To the extent any documents QRT has been ordered to produce are confidential, the parties may move for entry of an appropriate protective order. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan. (Reference: 14-288)(bwn)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
ROBERT GIBBENS,
Plaintiff
CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS
NO. 13-6401
QUALITY RENTAL TOOLS, INC., ET AL.,
Defendants
SECTION: "E" (3)
ORDER AND REASONS
This is a civil action originally filed in state court by Robert Gibbens against
Quality Rental Tools, Inc. ("QRT"). QRT removed the case and asserted a counterclaim
against Gibbens, Basin Holdings US, LLC ("Basin"), and Black Diamond Oilfield
Rentals, LLC ("Black Diamond").1
Basin and Black Diamond have appealed an Order from the magistrate judge
denying their motion to compel.2 The question presented is whether the ruling is clearly
erroneous or contrary to law. For the following reasons, the Order is AFFIRMED IN
PART and REVERSED IN PART.
BACKGROUND3
On August 25, 2014, Basin and Black Diamond propounded a supplemental
request for production on QRT. Basin and Black Diamond filed a motion to compel on
October 15, 2014.4 The next day, QRT responded to the supplemental request for
Gibbens added Basin and Black Diamond as counterclaim defendants under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 13(h).
2 R. Doc. 138.
3 The facts are summarized more fully in a previous order. See R. Doc. 154. Familiarity is assumed.
4 R. Doc. 109.
1
1
production. On November 17, 2014, the magistrate judge denied the motion to compel
in its entirety.5 Basin and Black Diamond appeal.
LEGAL STANDARD
With the consent of the presiding district judge, a magistrate judge may
adjudicate non-dispositive pre-trial motions.6 The magistrate judge is afforded broad
discretion in resolving such motions.7 The district judge may reverse only if the ruling is
"clearly erroneous or contrary to law."8 In order to meet this high standard, the district
judge must be "left with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been
committed."9
DISCUSSION
Basin and Black Diamond challenge the magistrate judge's ruling on several
grounds. First, they argue the magistrate judge erred in finding QRT's failure to timely
respond to the supplemental request for production did not amount to a waiver of QRT's
right to object to that production. Having reviewed the arguments of counsel and the
applicable, the Courts find the magistrate judge's ruling was neither clearly erroneous
nor contrary to law.
Second, Basin and Black Diamond contend the magistrate judge erred in ruling
that QRT need not produce documents dated after June 30, 2012 unless QRT believes
such document(s) are relevant to its counterclaim.
Relevance is not the pertinent
inquiry in discovery disputes. The discovery sought need only "appear[] reasonably
R. Doc. 130.
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A).
7 McCallon v. BP Am. Prod. Co., Nos. 05–0597, C/W 05–0700, 2006 WL 3246886, at *2 (E.D. La. Nov.8,
2006).
8 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a).
9 Yelton v. PHI, Inc., 284 F.R.D. 374, 376 (E.D. La. 2012) (internal quotation marks omitted).
5
6
2
calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence."10
The Court finds the
discovery sought by Basin and Black Diamond appears reasonably calculated to lead to
the discovery of evidence that may support (or controvert) QRT's counterclaim. In light
of the "broad and liberal treatment" of the discovery rules,11 the magistrate judge's
ruling was clearly erroneous. By June 15, 2015, QRT shall supplement its production
and responses to the extent it previously limited them to productions from the year
2011.12
Third, Basin and Black Diamond argue QRT should be compelled to produce
board resolution documents and minutes for meetings held from January 1, 2011 to the
present. These documents—even if inadmissible themselves—may lead to the discovery
of information that bears on QRT's counterclaim, specifically, whether Basin and Black
Diamond intentionally interfered with QRT's business relationships. The magistrate
judge's ruling to the contrary was clearly erroneous. By June 15, 2015, QRT shall
supplement its production with the requested documents.
Fourth, with respect to RFPs 45, 46, and 47, Basin and Black Diamond contend
QRT should be compelled to produce all documents evidencing the business ownership
interests of Frank Clements, Charles Boyne, and Jack Clements. The magistrate judge
ruled QRT could seek this production from the individuals themselves. This ruling was
not clearly erroneous or contrary to law.
Finally, Basin and Black Diamond contend QRT should be required to produce
the documents sought in RFPs 7-10, 21, 22, and 24.13 QRT responded to these RFPs
Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1).
Herbert v. Lando, 441 U.S. 153, 177 (1979).
12 This is the specific relief requested by Basin and Black Diamond. See R. Doc. 138-1, p. 4.
13 It does not appear the magistrate judge actually ruled on this objection in his written reasons. To the
extent he did not, the district court will do so in the first instance.
10
11
3
with general allegations that the documents sought have already been produced. While
QRT need not produce the same document twice, it must do more than provide vague
references to previous productions in globo. By June 15, 2015, QRT shall respond to
RFPs 7-10, 21, 22, and 24 by identifying the documents sought by Bates number.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons previously stated, the magistrate judge's decision is affirmed in
part and reversed in part. QRT's supplemental productions are due by June 15, 2015.
To the extent any documents QRT has been ordered to produce are confidential, the
parties may move for entry of an appropriate protective order.
New Orleans, Louisiana, this 15th day of May, 2015.
_______ ______ _________________
SUSIE MORGAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
4
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?