TRC Environmental Corporation v. Quoddy Bay LNG LLC et al

Filing 93

ORDER granting 65 Sealed Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Defendants to make Disclosures Required by Rule 26 and to Properly Respond to Interrogatories and Requests for Production with Brief in Support. Signed by Honorable Robin J. Cauthron on 6/21/11. (lg, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
TRC ENVIRONMENTAL
CORPORATION, A Connecticut Corp.,

)
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
QUODDY BAY LNG, LLC an Oklahoma )
Limited Liability Company; DONALD
)
M. SMITH, an individual; and BRIAN
)
W. SMITH, an individual,
)
)
Defendants.
)

Case No. CIV-10-62-C

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
After a failed business relationship, Plaintiff filed the present action alleging breach
of contract and quantum meruit against Defendants. Arguing that Defendants Donald and
Brian Smith should be held personally liable, Plaintiff seeks to pierce the corporate veil that
would normally shield the individuals from liability. In an attempt to gain evidence to
support its arguments, Plaintiff served discovery on Defendants. Defendants objected to
certain of the requests arguing the information sought was not discoverable. After the parties
were unable to resolve their differences, Plaintiff filed the present Motion seeking an Order
from the Court compelling responses. Objecting to Plaintiff’s Motion, Defendants argue that
Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate a basis for piercing the corporate veil and therefore the
discovery targeting the Smith Defendants is improper.
Defendants’ arguments misapprehend the nature of discovery. It is not necessary that
information sought be admissible. Rather, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure limit

discovery to relevant information which, if not admissible, is at least reasonably calculated
to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). In its brief,
Plaintiff has demonstrated that the discovery it seeks is relevant and at a minimum reasonably
calculated to lead to admissible evidence. Consequently, Defendant is obligated to produce
appropriate responses to that discovery.
For the reasons set forth herein, Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Defendants to Make
Disclosures Required by Rule 26* and to Properly Respond to Interrogatories and Requests
for Production (Dkt. No. 65) is GRANTED. Defendants shall provide full and complete
response within 20 days of the date of this Order.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 21st day of June, 2011.

*

To the extent Plaintiff seeks material it claims should have been disclosed pursuant
to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a), from review of the exhibits, it appears Plaintiff has subsequently
tendered a formal discovery request seeking the same information. Accordingly, the Court
has addressed only the discovery requests.
2