Cactus Drilling Company LLC v. National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh Pa et al

Filing 209

ORDER denying 185 Plaintiff's Motion to Reconsider Certain of its Motions to Compel Discovery (as more fully set out in order). Signed by Honorable Vicki Miles-LaGrange on 10/3/2013. (ks)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
CACTUS DRILLING COMPANY, LLC,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
NATIONAL UNION FIRE INSURANCE, )
and CHARTIS CLAIM, INC.,
)
)
Defendants.
)

Case No. CIV-12-00191-M

ORDER
Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion to Reconsider Certain of its Motions to Compel
Discovery, filed August 19, 2013. On September 10, 2013, defendants filed their Response.
In its February 08, 2013 Order, the Court denied Cactus’ Amended Motion to Compel
Against Defendants and Cactus’ Motion to Compel Production of Witnesses for Depositions and
Dates (collectively, “Motion to Compel”) as premature for failure to comply with Local Civil Rule
37.1.
In its motion to reconsider, plaintiff asserts that “although the disputes set forth in the
Motions to Compel and related briefings are still squarely before the Court in the form of the
Defendants’ pending motions for protective orders . . ., motions to quash . . ., and the Parties’ related
briefing thereon, Cactus hereby re-urges [sic] the Motion to Compel out of an abundance of caution
to ensure that each and every existing discovery dispute between Cactus and Defendants is ripe for
adjudication.”
Having reviewed this matter, the Court finds the Motion to Reconsider should be denied.
Specifically, the Court finds that plaintiffs motions to compel, filed over seven months ago, were
denied by this Court as premature and that plaintiff may not simply reargue said motions through

a motion to reconsider but must file a new motion to compel. In addition, in a separate Order issued
on the same date, the Court has disposed of defendants’ motions for protective order and motions
to quash pertaining to the majority of discovery issues raised by plaintiff in its initial motion to
compel, thus, likely rending plaintiff’s initial motion moot. Accordingly, the Court DENIES
Plaintiff’s Motion to Reconsider Certain of its Motions to Compel Discovery [docket no. 185].
IT IS SO ORDERED this

3rd

day of October, 2013.