Helmerich & Payne International Drilling Co. v. Schlumberger Technology Corporation

Filing 87

OPINION AND ORDER by Magistrate Judge Frank H McCarthy ; denying #82 Motion to Compel (tjc, Dpty Clk)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
HELMERICH & PAYNE
INTERNATIONAL DRILLING CO.,
Plaintiff,
vs.

Case No. 17-C V-358-GKF-FHM

SCHLUMBERGER TECHNOLOGY
CORPORATION,
Defendant.
OPINION AND ORDER
Defendant Schlumberger Technology Corporation’s (STC) Motion to Compel, [Dkt.
82], is before the undersigned United States Magistrate Judge for decision. The matter has
been fully briefed, [Dkt. 82, 84, 85], and is ripe for decision.
Omron Oilfield and Marine, Inc., a predecessor to STC, and Helmerich & Payne
International Drilling Co. (H&P) entered into a licensing agreement whereby H&P was
granted a perpetual license to use and modify the software that was the subject of the
licensing agreement. The agreement contained the following non-solicitation provision:
[H&P] and its Affiliates will not actively solicit any former (i.e.,
within two (2) years of their departure from [Omron] or its
Affiliates) or current employee or individual contractor of
[Omron] or its Affiliates or their predecessors for purposes of
assisting [H&P] or its Affiliates in any manner in connection
with developing hardware or software that competes with the
Software or Licensor Hardware.
Notwithstanding the
foregoing, [H&P] and its Affiliates shall not be precluded from
(i) hiring an employee who independently approaches them, or
(ii) conducting general recruiting activities, such as participation
in job fairs or publishing advertisements in publications or on
Web sites for general circulation.
[Dkt. 84, pp. 1-2]. H&P hired two former employees of STC, Hopwood and Martin. STC
notified H&P that it was partially revoking H&P’s rights to modify and make derivative works

of the software because STC believed H&P was in violation of the non-solicitation provision
of the licensing agreement. In this lawsuit H&P asserts that STC’s revocation was a breach
of contract and seeks a declaration that it is not in violation of the non-solicitation clause.

STC seeks broad discovery of “all documents and correspondence” regarding the
following areas: Request for Production No. 11, Schlumberger’s acquisition of Omron (the
original party to the licensing agreement); Request for Production No. 14, the value of
Omron and/or its relationship to H&P; Request for Production No. 21, plans by H&P to
interface any motive technology with the Omron rig control system on its rigs. H&P
objected to the foregoing as being overbroad, seeking documents not relevant to any claim
or defense, and not being proportional to the needs of the case because the information
is of low importance in resolving the issues, citing Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(1). STC argues in
the most general terms that the information sought is relevant. The court fails to see how
the information requested in the foregoing requests is relevant to the matters at issue.
Request for Production No. 15 sought all documents and correspondence and
communications regarding attracting, hiring, or contacting any Omron or Schlumberger
employees from January 1, 2016 to the present. H&P produced responsive documents
that refer to Hopwood and Martin. Request for Production No. 18 requested documents
reflecting all performance objectives assigned to Sr. Vice President and Chief Engineer
Robert Stauder from January 1, 2016 to the present. H&P responded that Robert Stauder
did not have performance objectives related to the hiring of Hopwood, Martin, or any other
Omron or STC employee. Request for Production No. 31 sought all documents and
correspondence between H&P and current or former employees of Schlumberger not in
2

furtherance of the provision of a service or product. H&P represents it has produced
responsive documents for Hopwood and Martin regarding their employment or potential
employment with H&P. H&P represents it has produced everything involving Hopwood and
Martin and has nothing more responsive to the requests to produce. The court finds that
H&P’s production is responsive to relevant matters sought in STC’s requests and no further
response is necessary.
In its reply STC argues that H&P did not identify what request the documents
produced were responsive to and therefore it is difficult for STC to determine whether
H&P’s production is complete as to any particular request. [Dkt. 85, p. 1]. Fed.R.Civ.P.
34(b)(2)(E)(i) requires that production be organized and labeled to correspond to the
categories in the request. However, the request that the court order that produced
documents be labeled or organized is not made in the motion to compel, but made for the
first time in the reply brief. Therefore the request is not properly presented. Any problems
with matching the documents produced to particular requests should be addressed
between counsel.
STC also states that the items produced from Executive Leadership Team (ELT)
Tactical Meetings are so heavily redacted that the production is of little or no use. STC
requests an order compelling H&P to produce unredacted copies of the documents
produced.

This request is denied.

H&P represents that Robert Stauder had all

communications with Hopwood and Martin concerning their employment, made the
decision to hire them, and all such communications have been produced. The needs of the
case do not obviously require the production of ELT Tactical Meeting Notes and STC has

3

not explained how such information relates to the case under the terms of Fed.R.Civ.P.
26(b)(1). Therefore, nothing more is required of H&P.
The issue in this case is whether STC properly partially revoked the licensing
agreement based upon H&P hiring STC former employees Hopwood and Martin.
Discovery concerning the hiring of these former employees and their work for H&P is
relevant and STC is entitled to full discovery in these areas. However, as set forth above,
the discovery requests at issue in this motion are not relevant to the issues in the case.
Defendant Schlumberger Technology Corporation’s (STC) Motion to Compel, [Dkt.
82], is DENIED.
SO ORDERED this 7th day of February, 2018.

4