Chapman et al v. Hiland Partners, LLC

Filing 210

ORDER by Magistrate Judge Charles S. Miller, Jr. finding as moot 169 Motion to Amend/Correct; finding as moot 181 Motion to Compel; and finding as moot 205 Motion to Compel. (KT)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NORTH DAKOTA
SOUTHWESTERN DIVISION
Lenny M. Chapman and
Tracy M. Chapman,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
Hiland Operating, LLC, a Foreign
Company, Hiland Partners GP Holdings,
LLC, a Foreign Company, and Hiland
Partners LP, a Foreign Partnership,

Defendants and
Third-Party Plaintiff
(Hiland Operating, LLC),
vs.
Missouri Basin Well Service, Inc., and
B&B Heavy Haul, LLC,
Third-Party Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

ORDER FINDING AS MOOT
MOTION TO AMEND TO
SEEK PUNITIVE DAMAGES
AND MOTIONS TO COMPEL

Case No. 1:13-cv-052

On August 20, 2014, the court held a telephonic status conference in the above-captioned
case. Attorneys Robert P. Schuster, Bradley L. Booke, David S. Maring, and James R. Hoy
appeared on plaintiffs’ behalf. Attorneys Steven E. Oertle and Patrick W. Durick appeared on
defendants’ behalf. Attorney Joel A. Flom appeared on behalf of third-party defendant Missouri
Basin Well Service, Inc. Attorneys Gordon H. Hansmeier and Christopher A. Wills appeared on
behalf of third-party defendant B&B Heavy Haul, LLC.
All parties agreed that, as a result of the recent settlement between plaintiffs and the Hiland
defendants, plaintiffs’ motion for leave to amend to seek punitive damages and the pending
discovery motions are moot. Accordingly, the court DEEMS AS MOOT “Plaintiffs’ Motion for

Leave to Amend Complaint to Seek Punitive Damages” (Docket No. 169), “Plaintiffs’ Motion to
Compel: Social Media Issues” (Docket No. 181), and “Defendant Hiland Companies Motion to
Compel Production of Facebook Materials” (Docket No. 205).1 Further, the court will not rule on
whether plaintiffs can obtain the documents submitted by defendants for in camera inspection as
required by the court’s Order Granting Motion to Compel (Docket No. 140).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated this 20th day of August, 2014.
/s/ Charles S. Miller, Jr.
Charles S. Miller, Jr., Magistrate Judge
United States District Court

1

If for some reason the contemplated settlement of the claims between the plaintiffs and the Hiland defendants
is not consummated, the motions may be refiled.

2