In Re: Western States Wholesale Natural Gas Antitrust Litigation (MDL 1566)

Filing 2523

ORDER granting ECF No. 2492 Motion for Leave to File Surreply to Clarify the Record; granting in part and denying in part ECF No. 2439 Motion to Compel Responses to Contention Interrogatories (see order for details). Signed by Magistrate Judge Peggy A. Leen on 8/15/2016. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - KR)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

6

***

7
8

IN RE WESTERN STATES WHOLESALE
NATURAL GAS ANTITRUST
LITIGATION,

9

THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO:

10

MDL Docket No. 1566
Base Case No. 2:03-cv-01431-RCJ-PAL
ORDER
(Mot Compel – ECF No. 2439)
(Mot for Leave to Clarify – ECF No. 2492)

ALL ACTIONS

11
12

This matter is before the court on Defendants E Prime Energy Marketing, Inc. and Xcel

13

Energy Inc.’s Motion to Compel Responses to Contention Interrogatories (ECF No. 2439). This

14

motion is referred to the undersigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) and LR IB 1-3 and 1-

15

7 of the Local Rules of Practice. On June 30, 2016, the court held a hearing on this motion. The

16

court has considered the Motion, Plaintiff’s Response (ECF No. 2459), E Prime Energy

17

Marketing, Inc. and Xcel Energy Inc’s Reply (ECF No. 2481), Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to

18

File Surreply to Clarify the Record (ECF No. 2492), Defendants’ Response to Plaintiffs’

19

Surreply (ECF No. 2504) and the arguments of counsel at the hearing and has carefully reviewed

20

the voluminous discovery requests and responses at issue in the motion.

21
22

IT IS ORDERED Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to File Surreply to Clarify the Record
(ECF No. 2492) is GRANTED.

23

IT IS ORDERED that Defendants E Prime Energy Marketing, Inc. and Xcel Energy

24

Inc.’s Motion to Compel Responses to Contention Interrogatories (ECF No. 2439)  is

25

GRANTED in part and DENIED in part as follows:

26

1.

Defendants’ request to compel Plaintiffs to provide page and line citations to

27

specific portions of the 84 deposition transcripts upon which they rely for their

28

responses to Interrogatory Nos. 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41,
1

1

42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, and 60 is

2

DENIED.

3

2. Plaintiffs shall have until August 29, 2016 to supplement their answers to

4

interrogatories concerning their wash trading and false reporting contentions as

5

clarified in the surreply so that defendants have a discovery response signed under

6

penalty of Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(g) for use in discovery, motion practice and trial, i.e.,

7

answers to interrogatories 29-33, 48-50 & 59.

8

3. Plaintiffs shall have until August 29, 2016 to provide full and completes answers to

9

Interrogatory Nos. 61, 62, 63, and 64. Plaintiffs’ objections, including the objections

10

that the interrogatories seek information protected by the attorney client privilege are

11

overruled.

12

DATED this 15th day of August, 2016.

13
14
PEGGY A. LEEN
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2