Climarex Energy v Calhoon

Filing 87

ORDER denying 65 Motion in Limine. Signed by Honorable Timothy D. DeGiusti on 10/30/2013. (mb)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
CIMAREX ENERGY CO.,
Plaintiff,
v.
SCOTT W. CALHOON, M.D.,
Defendant-Counterclaimant,
v.
QEP ENERGY COMPANY,
Additional Counterclaim Defendant.

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

Case No. CIV-11-525-D
(Consolidated with
Case No. CIV-11-725-D)

ORDER
Before the Court is Defendant Scott W. Calhoon’s Combined Motion in Limine [Doc.
No. 65]. Cimarex Energy Co. (“Cimarex”) and QEP Energy Company (“QEP”) have timely
opposed the Motion, which is fully briefed and at issue.
This declaratory judgment action concerns the validity of an oil and gas lease that,
according to the successor lessee, Scott W. Calhoon (“Calhoon”), expired due to lack of
production in paying quantities. He asks the Court to exclude from trial any argument and
evidence related to: 1) compromise offers and negotiations, as inadmissible under Fed. R.
Evid. 408; and 2) index pricing of natural gas, as irrelevant and confusing and, thus,
inadmissible under Fed. R. Evid. 401 and 402.
In response, Cimarex and QEP argue that they do not intend to use the documents that
Calhoon characterizes as compromise offers and negotiations for a purpose prohibited by

Rule 408; instead, the documents will be used to counter any “assertion by Calhoon that he
is an unwilling litigation participant who was wrongly dragged into this case by Cimarex.”
See Resp. Br. [Doc. No. 69] at 2. Index pricing is relevant, they argue, because actual pricing
information is unavailable and index pricing provides an appropriate reference tool.
Upon consideration of the issues, the Court finds that the correspondence to which
Calhoon objects may have a bearing on some trial issues, such as his credibility as a witness.
Cimarex and QEP should not, however, devote trial time to demonstrating that Calhoon has
aggressively pursued his lease cancellation claim for a strategic business purpose. This case
will be the subject of a bench trial, and the Court is fully capable of focusing on the legal
issues to be decided. Similarly, the Court finds that information regarding index prices may
be helpful to understanding the pricing testimony of the parties’ respective expert witnesses.
The Court can conceive no confusion of pricing issues that would be created by the
admission of such evidence.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Calhoon’s Combined Motion in Limine [Doc.
No. 65] is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 30th day of October, 2013.

2