Chesapeake Louisiana L P et al v. Innovative Wellsite Systems Inc et al

Filing 75

MEMORANDUM ORDER granting in part and denying in part 64 Motion to Compel; denying 64 Motion for Attorney Fees. Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark L Hornsby on 2/19/2014. (crt,Dauterive, C)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
SHREVEPORT DIVISION

CHESAPEAKE LOUISIANA, LP, ET AL

CIVIL ACTION NO. 12-cv-2963

VERSUS

JUDGE HICKS

INNOVATIVE WELLSITE SYSTEMS,
INC., ET AL

MAGISTRATE JUDGE HORNSBY

MEMORANDUM ORDER
Before the court is Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Production of Documents. Doc. 64.
After a careful review of the parties’ briefs, the motion is granted in part and denied in part
as follows.
Rule 34(b)(2)
Rule 34(b)(2) generally requires that a party produce documents (a) as they are kept
in the usual course of business or (2) organized and labeled to correspond to categories in the
requests. WDI’s production does not comply with that rule. WDI produced more than 2,000
pages of documents. Plaintiffs state that the first 1,000 or so pages are replete with
documents that appear to have questionable relevance to the tubing head at issue. WDI
explains that it included in its production documents related to all products sold to
Innovative, including all tubing spools and lock screw assemblies.
WDI is directed to reorganize its production by specifying the documents or files
responsive to each of Plaintiffs’ requests. If WDI produced documents that do not fall neatly

into one of Plaintiffs’ requests but were produced out of an abundance of caution, WDI
should say so and identify those documents by Bates number range or category.
Other Documents Related to Alleged Defects and/or Product Failures
WDI is directed to produce any other documents in its possession, custody, or control
related to the investigation and testing of leaking lock screws on the Sunbelt tubing spool.
The court finds that this information is relevant to Plaintiffs’ claims and falls within the scope
of Plaintiffs’ request. The court recognizes that WDI has now produced the PPI report, but
WDI is directed to ensure that all relevant documents regarding PPI’s investigation and
testing have also been produced.
Insurance Policy
Plaintiffs have not satisfied the court that they are entitled to obtain a copy of the
insurance policy issued by Catlain Specialty providing coverage for WDI Manufacturing,
LLC. That WDI entity is not a party to this lawsuit, and it is involved in a separate line of
business. Absent an allegation of fault or liability against WDI Manufacturing, LLC, the
court will not order production of the Catlain Specialty policy.
Sworn Statement of Charlie Jewett
The court has conducted an in-camera review of Mr. Jewett’s sworn statement, and
the court finds that it is protected by the work product immunity. Plaintiffs, who will have
an opportunity to depose Mr. Jewett, have not made a showing of substantial need for the
sworn statement.
Deadline
Page 2 of 3

Unless otherwise agreed by the parties, WDI’s supplemental production shall be made
no later than March 7, 2014.
Attorney Fees and Costs
All requests for attorney fees and costs in connection with the Motion to Compel are
denied.
THUS DONE AND SIGNED in Shreveport, Louisiana, this 19th day of February,
2014.

Page 3 of 3