McGehee et al v. Southwest Electronic Energy Corporation et al

Filing 88

ORDER granting in part and denying in part 82 Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel. Signed by Honorable Robin J. Cauthron on 3/28/17. (lg)

bvIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
JACOB MCGEHEE and
STEVEN RAY HEATH,
Plaintiffs,
v.
SOUTHWEST ELECTRONIC
ENERGY CORPORATION,
FOREST OIL CORPORATION, and
LANTERN DRILLING COMPANY,
Defendants,
and
SOUTHWEST ELECTRONIC
ENERGY CORPORATION,
Third Party Plaintiff,
v.
ENGINEERED POWER LP,
TELEDRIFT, INC.,
Third Party Defendants.

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

Case No. CIV-15-145-C

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel (Dkt. No. 82).

Defendant

Southwest Electronic Energy Corporation (“SWE”) has responded and the Motion is now
at issue. Plaintiffs seek to compel the production of two sets of information: (1) current
and historical brochure and website information, and (2) e-mails to and from the domain
@engineeredpower.com. SWE represents it has produced the brochure and website

information and it is no longer at issue. Therefore, the Court will only address the e-mails
requested in Request for Production No. 31.
The dispute revolves around 8,173 e-mails sent and received within a specified time
period. Plaintiffs argue all of the e-mails should be produced and SWE wishes to produce
only the e-mails containing certain negotiable search terms. SWE argues that without the
search terms, it would be overly burdensome to review each e-mail for relevancy and the
Court agrees.
The scope of discovery is not all encompassing, but is limited by Fed. R. Civ. P.
26(b)(1) to information relevant to a party’s claim or defense and the proportional needs of
the case. Here, SWE has offered to identify relevant information and allow Plaintiffs to
name the search terms. Plaintiffs are ordered to produce a list of search terms to SWE
within five (5) days of the date of this order. The parties may negotiate on the terms for an
additional ten (10) days, and then SWE must produce the e-mails to Plaintiffs within ten
(10) days of the agreement. If negotiations do not progress smoothly, the parties are
encouraged to meet and confer before filing another motion to compel.
Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel (Dkt. No. 82) is GRANTED in part and
DENIED in part.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 28th day of March, 2017.

2