Giacometto Ranch Inc. et al v. Denbury Onshore LLC. et al

Filing 160

ORDER to memorialize the deadlines and other matters discussed with the parties during the status conference held on 9/12/22. Signed by Magistrate Judge Kathleen L. DeSoto on 9/14/2022. (APP)

Case 1:16-cv-00145-SPW-KLD Document 160 Filed 09/14/22 Page 1 of 4

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA
BILLINGS DIVISION
GIACOMETTO RANCH INC. a
Montana Corporation, TOM
GIACOMETTO, a resident of
Montana, and ROBERT
GIACOMETTO, a resident of South
Dakota,

CV 16-145-BLG-SPW-KLD
ORDER

Plaintiffs,
vs.
DENBURY ONSHORE LLC, a
Delaware Corporation, and
DENBURY OPERATING
COMPANY, a Delaware Corporation,
Defendants.
On September 12, 2022, Plaintiffs Giacometto Ranch Inc., Tom Giacometto,
and Robert Giacometto (collectively “Giacometto”) and Defendants Denbury
Onshore LLC and Denbury Operating Company (collectively “Denbury”), by and
through counsel of record, appeared before the Court via Zoom for a discovery
status conference. The purpose of this Order is to memorialize the deadlines and
other matters discussed with the parties during the status conference:
//

1

Case 1:16-cv-00145-SPW-KLD Document 160 Filed 09/14/22 Page 2 of 4

1.

As to verification of discovery responses, the parties advised no
agreement had been reached, but they believed resolution would not
require further Court involvement. Accordingly, the Court considers
this issue resolved.

2.

As to the ArcGIS map, the parties had previously agreed they could
resolve this issue without further Court involvement, but Giacometto
requested a Court order compelling production of the ArcGIS map.
This issue will be addressed by separate order.

3.

As to redactions other than attorney/client privilege and attorney work
product, Giacometto filed the Declaration of Derrick Braaten, attorney
for Giacometto, with an attachment listing a number of documents,
listed by beginning Bates number, which have not yet been produced
unredacted. See Doc. 158. Denbury identified two documents,
BEGDOC DO14666 and DO14674, that it believes contain updates on
this litigation and are protected by attorney/client privilege.
Giacometto responded that the privilege is arguably waived if the
update was in a report disseminated to the entire corporation. The
parties agreed to confer on this issue.
The parties also identified a number of documents (BEGDOC
DO94409, DO94417, DO94425, DO94432, DO94439, and DO94446)
which contain personal health information of Denbury employees.
The parties agreed that Denbury would remove all personally
identifiable information through redaction and produce the
documents.
As to all remaining documents listed in Doc. 158-1, Denbury has
agreed to produce unredacted to Giacometto. The Court has
established September 16, 2022 as the deadline for this production.

4.

As to attachments to emails, Giacometto advised that it believes there
are additional attachments that have not been produced, but conceded
that it was not certain the attachments had not been produced in other
productions. Denbury advised it believes there are 6 or 7 attachments
that have been missed, and advised it will produce them in native
format.
2

Case 1:16-cv-00145-SPW-KLD Document 160 Filed 09/14/22 Page 3 of 4

5.

As to text messages, Denbury had previously agreed to produce text
messages from the custodians and on the topics identified in Doc.
141-12, excluding topics and custodians related to the CO2 claims,
which have been dismissed. At the conference, Denbury advised that
some of the custodians used personal, rather than company-issued,
phones for work related communications and stated it could not
compel employees to turn over their phones. Denbury also advised
that some of the employees had left employment and it was unsure if
their phone contents had been preserved.
There was also discussion about whether the phone contents had been
“mirrored” by Denbury’s IT department and, if so, when. Denbury
agreed to further investigate and communicate with Giacomettos
about the status of text messages responsive to the topics and
custodians identified in Doc. 141-12, by September 16, 2022.

6.

As to attorney/client privilege and attorney work product redactions,
the Court reviewed Doc. 157, Denbury’s in camera submission, for
exceptions to redactions and withholdings based on attorney/client
privilege and attorney work product. Based on the Court’s review,
Denbury is required to produce the specific excerpts from the
following documents by September 16, 2022:
1. DO16967 (April 14, 2016 email from Ben Jones, MT Board
of Oil and Gas to Tommy Yates);
2. DO83626-DO83627 (April 8, 2020 email from JJ England
to Jon Dyre, et al);
3. DO92854-DO92856 (April 27, 2020 email from Jon Dyre to
Derrick Braaten, et al, and April 27, 2020 response from JJ
England);
4. DO94405 (Outlook meeting information March 18, 2020).

//
3

Case 1:16-cv-00145-SPW-KLD Document 160 Filed 09/14/22 Page 4 of 4

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this 14th day of September, 2022.

______________________________
Kathleen L. DeSoto
United States Magistrate Judge

4