Moore et al v. Stone Energy Corp et al

Filing 59

MEMORANDUM RULING re 48 Motion to Compel, Motion for Attorney Fees. The Motion to Compel [Rec. Doc. 48] is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. The mover's request for attorney's fees is DENIED. Thus, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that no later th an 1/30/2015, Defendant Baker Petrolite Corp shall supplement its discovery responses as described, which responses shall be verified in writing by the appropriate company representative(s). Any requests for protective orders or in camera inspections shall be made by the referenced deadline date. Signed by Magistrate Judge Patrick J Hanna on 12/22/2014. (crt,Alexander, E)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
LAFAYETTE DIVISION
ROBERT W. MOORE, ET AL

CIVIL ACTION NO. 14-CV-412

VERSUS

JUDGE HAIK

STONE ENERGY CORP., ET AL

MAGISTRATE JUDGE HANNA

Memorandum Ruling
(Rec. Doc. 48)
Before the court is the Motion to Compel Discovery by Defendant Stone
Energy [Rec. Doc. 48] which is opposed by Defendant Baker Petrolite Corporation
[Rec. Doc. 52]. Oral argument was heard on December 16, 2014. For the reasons
recited in open court and discussed further below, the motion is granted in part and
denied in part.
Factual and Procedural Background:
Plaintiffs filed suit to recover sums they allege are owed to them from the
named defendants as a result of alleged injury and damage to Robert W. Moore on
March 20, 2012 as he worked on an oil/gas platform owned and operated by Stone
Energy [SS-114-LBJ] in the Gulf of Mexico. Moore was a construction
superintendant on the platform. He has alleged he was injured when a 3/8"
polyflow line ruptured and spewed hazardous chemicals into his face, eyes, nose,
and mouth. Plaintiffs have alleged the polyflow line and chemical injection pump

were unfit for use, with a pressure capacity less than the maximum allowable
output pressure of the chosen chemical injection pump. They allege the hazardous
chemical should not have been transported through the polyflow line, and the
failure to install a pressure safety valve on the injection pump to ensure protection.
Both Stone and Baker1 are named defendants in the action. Baker is alleged to
have manufactured and/or supplied the hazardous chemical involved in the
incident.
On August 7, 2014, Stone propounded Interrogatories and Requests for
Production to Baker. [Rec. Doc. 48-2]. On October 9, 2014, Baker responded to
the discovery, with objections to some interrogatories and requests on the bases
that they are overbroad, not calculated to lead to relevant evidence and amount to a
fishing expedition. [Rec. Doc. 48-3]. On November 20, 2014, Stone filed the
instant Motion to Compel Discovery Responses. [Rec. Doc., 48]. The parties have
agreed and stipulated that the outstanding discovery requests made the subject of
the motion will be limited in scope to Baker Petrolite Corporation and the
information, documents, and things in its custody.
Specific Categories of Discovery at Issue:

1

Baker Petrolite Corporation was added as a defendant in an amending complaint filed
February 19, 2014.[Rec. Doc. 1-9, p. 61].
-2-

Stone challenges the adequacy of Baker Petrolite’s response and production
in the following categories:
1. Records pertaining to Baker employee Albert Armand (Interrogatory No. 6,
Request for Production Nos. 6, 13).
The parties have represented that Albert Armand is an employee of Baker
Petrolite. He has worked at Stone facilities for the past 7-8 years–not always in the
employ of Baker. He is alleged by Stone to have made the recommendation for the
use of polyflow for the injection system at issue. Baker denies this and asserts that
Armand was not present on the platform at the time of the incident. Baker objects
that the referenced interrogatory and requests for production are overbroad,
burdensome and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible
evidence, and invade the privacy of the non-party Armand. In reply, Stone argues
that Armand’s training, certifications and experience is relevant to the question of
what was known/should have been known by Baker about the chemical delivery
systems at issue.
In considering issues related to the discovery of personnel files of non-party
individual employees and the privacy concerns presented, the court must balance
the interests of the parties in obtaining relevant discovery against the privacy
interests of the non-party, exercising its discretion to determine whether discovery
-3-

of such files is warranted. See Atkinson v. Denton Publ. Co., 84 F.3d 144, 148 (5th
Cir. 1996). The parties have agreed that Baker will review the personnel records
at issue to provide a supplemental response to the discovery to include production
of the training records and certifications of Mr. Armand, to which the Court finds
they are entitled. To that extent the motion is granted. If Baker is not in possession
of those records, or if Baker is aware that such records are possessed by former
employers of Armand, that information should be conveyed to Stone. To the
extent that Baker continues to maintain objections as to any such records, they
should either be presented for in camera inspection or made the subject(s) of a
privilege log.
2. Baker Petrolite job records(Interrogatory Nos. 1-2, Request for Production
Nos. 1-2).
Baker has represented that it has produced the entire job file for the Stone
job underway at the time of the incident. It maintains objections to the remainder
of these requests that they are overbroad, and the court agrees. As the parties
acknowledge, Baker has done/does many things in the oil/gas industry, and
requests for “any and all” documentation of “any and all” work/services is
overbroad in scope. Further, Interrogatory No. 1 has no time limitation.
Interrogatory No. 2 is somewhat narrower, including a time limitation from
-4-

January, 2011 to the present. The court will limit the scope of discovery in this
category to the work and services provided by Baker’s chemical division from
January, 2011 to the present. Baker’s discovery responses should be supplemented
accordingly. Additionally, Baker is directed that its discovery responses should be
verified.
3. Baker manuals, work rules, guidelines and recommendations (Request for
Production Nos. 14, 16).
Request for Production No. 14 calls for production of “any and all safety
manuals, operations manuals, employee manuals, safety alerts, work rules,
regulations, guidelines and recommendations for your employees in effect since
January of 2011 and up to the present time.” Request No. 16 makes a similar
request for writings regarding reporting unsafe conditions at work locations made
available by Baker to its employees. Baker has objected to the scope of these
inquiries, urging that production be limited to the chemical services being
performed by or for Stone on the platform at the time of the incident. Baker also
objects to the time period referenced. The Court is mindful that Baker’s various
safety manuals, operations manuals, rules, regulations and guidelines for its
employees are likely to be voluminous. Nevertheless, parts of those manuals are
likely to be relevant and responsive to the Stone requests that are directed toward
-5-

what Baker tells its employees to do when they see unsafe conditions. Therefore,
the Court will grant this aspect of the motion and order production of Baker’s table
of contents materials for the pertinent manuals and any sections obviously
responsive to the discovery requests. The production will be limited to the time
period from January, 2011 through January, 2013. On that production, the parties
can revisit the issues raised if necessary and the Court will sign an appropriate
Protective Order.
4. Reports of unsafe conditions (Request for Production Nos. 15).
Request for Production No. 15 calls for production of writings made
available by Baker to its employees or customers regarding chemicals, chemical
injection systems, or related equipment, or the pumping of chemicals and
addressing the risks or dangers of same since January, 2011 to the present. Having
found that what Baker gives to its employees regarding these subjects is relevant
and discoverable, the Court will grant this part of the motion and order the
requested production for the time period from January, 2011 through January,
2013. The motion to compel is denied as to the request for writings made to Baker
customers other than Stone, which the court finds to be overbroad. Baker will
make appropriate responses to the request relative to the customer Stone Energy

-6-

Corporation. Stone may re-urge its request, however, if an appropriate foundation
is shown.
Though not made the subject of the Motion to Compel, Interrogatory No. 7
was referenced and discussed by the parties at oral argument. The interrogatory
calls upon Baker to identify any/all dates and locations Baker employees have
installed, recommended, or observed ployflow tubing or piping on a chemical
injection system. Baker responded to the interrogatory relative to the Stone
platform at issue. Stone challenges the adequacy of the response. The motion is
denied as to this interrogatory. However, in the event Baker wishes move for a
protective order for modification of the interrogatory, the modification should
identify the circumstances under which Baker Petrolite employees, including, but
not limited to Albert Armand, have installed, recommended, or utilized polyflow
tubing or piping on a chemical inspection system during the time from January,
2011 through January, 2013.
Based on the foregoing, and for the reasons set out above, the Motion to
Compel [Rec. Doc. 48] is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. The
mover’s request for attorney’s fees is DENIED. Thus,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that no later than January 30, 2015, Defendant
Baker Petrolite Corporation shall supplement its discovery responses as described
-7-

herein, which responses shall be verified in writing by the appropriate company
representative(s). Any requests for protective orders or in camera inspections shall
be made by the referenced deadline date.
Signed at Lafayette, Louisiana this 22nd day of December ,2014.

_______________________________
Patrick J. Hanna
United States Magistrate Judge

-8-