Singer Oil Company LLC v. Newfield Exploration Mid-Continent Inc et al
Filing
175
ORDER granting 156 defendant Newfield Exploration Mid-Continent, Inc.'s Motion for Litigation Sanctions against Plaintiff, Singer Oil Company, LLC and ordering plaintiff to pay the attorneys' fees Newfield incurred in filing its motion for sanctions and its reply (as more fully set out). Signed by Honorable Vicki Miles-LaGrange on 6/5/2018. (ks)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
SINGER OIL COMPANY, LLC, an
Oklahoma limited liability company,
Plaintiff,
vs.
NEWFIELD EXPLORATION
MID-CONTINENT, INC., a foreign
corporation domesticated to do business
in Oklahoma; and
HALLIBURTON ENERGY SERVICES,
INC., a foreign corporation domesticated
to do business in Oklahoma,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. CIV-16-768-M
ORDER
Before the Court is defendant Newfield Exploration Mid-Continent, Inc.’s (“Newfield”)
Motion for Litigation Sanctions against Plaintiff, Singer Oil Company, LLC, filed December 18,
2017. On January 2, 2018, plaintiff filed its response, and on January 9, 2018, Newfield filed its
reply. Based on the parties’ submissions, the Court makes its determination.
On November 2, 2016, Newfield served its First Set of Discovery Requests in this case on
plaintiff. Interrogatory No. 10 provides:
Identify all persons whom you believe have knowledge of any and
all relevant facts pertaining to your claims and defenses in this case,
and Defendant’s claims and defenses in this case, and describe the
issues of which they have knowledge.
Defendant Newfield Exploration Mid-Continent Inc.’s First Set of Discovery Requests to Plaintiff,
attached as Exhibit 1 to Defendant, Newfield Exploration Mid-Continent Inc.’s Motion for
Litigation Sanctions Against Plaintiff, Singer Oil Company, LLC, and Brief in Support, at 9-10.
Further, Request for Production No. 4 provides:
Produce any and all documents that you have in your possession,
custody, or control, including but not limited to, all communications
of any kind, relating to, referring to, or in any way referencing
Newfield, the Smith Well, the Edgar Well, or the subject of this
lawsuit.
Id. at 11. Additionally, Request for Production No. 5 provides:
Produce any and all correspondence between you and Newfield, or
between you and any other person or entity, with respect to
Newfield, the Smith Well, the Edgar Well or the subject of this
lawsuit.
Id. at 12.
On November 15, 2016, plaintiff served its responses to Newfield’s discovery requests.
Plaintiff represented that it had fully and truthfully answered the interrogatories and had produced
or would produce all responsive documents to the requests for production. After receiving
plaintiff’s responses and its document production, counsel for Newfield followed up with
plaintiff’s counsel, who confirmed that all responsive documents had been produced, and plaintiff
did not claim privileged status for any unproduced documents, whether by producing a privilege
log or otherwise. Neither plaintiff’s response to Interrogatory No. 10 nor the documents produced
in response to Requests for Production Nos. 4 and 5 were supplemented during the course of this
case.
After this case was tried to a jury in November 2017, plaintiff filed its Amended Motion to
Recover Attorney’s Fees. Newfield asserts that upon reviewing the time records attached to
plaintiff’s motion for attorney’s fees, it became aware, for the first time, that throughout the course
of this litigation, plaintiff’s attorney frequently corresponded by e-mail with numerous third parties
regarding not only Newfield generally, but specifically regarding several of the issues that were
disputed in this litigation and the two wells at issue in this case. Newfield further asserts that at
least two of the communications took place before plaintiff served its discovery responses.
2
Newfield contends that under the discovery rules, plaintiff was under an obligation to
disclose the communications between its attorney and third parties that had already taken place at
the time of its original discovery responses and to supplement its responses when the additional
communications came into existence. Newfield, therefore, contends that the Court is obligated to
impose a sanction against plaintiff for its violation of the discovery rules pursuant to Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 26(g)(3) and has the discretion to impose a sanction for the failure to supplement
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(e)(1)(A). Newfield specifically requests the Court
to sanction plaintiff by denying plaintiff’s Bill of Costs, Motion to Recover Costs, and Amended
Motion to Recover Attorney’s Fees.
In its response, plaintiff asserts that it did not violate the Court’s orders, did not violate the
spirit of the Court’s orders, and did not violate the letter or spirit of the discovery code. Further,
in its response, plaintiff explains each time entry referenced in Newfield’s motion. Additionally,
plaintiff asserts that no new documents were produced as a result of its counsel’s communications
with the third parties. Finally, plaintiff contends that the majority of the communications would
fall under the work product doctrine.
Rule 26(g) provides, in pertinent part:
(1) Signature Required; Effect of Signature. Every disclosure under
Rule 26(a)(1) or (a)(3) and every discovery request, response, or
objection must be signed by at least one attorney of record in the
attorney’s own name – or by the party personally, if unrepresented
– and must state the signer’s address, e-mail address, and telephone
number. By signing, an attorney or party certifies that to the best of
the person’s knowledge, information, and belief formed after a
reasonable inquiry:
(A) with respect to a disclosure, it is complete and correct
as of the time it is made; and
(B) with respect to a discovery request, response, or
objection, it is:
(i) consistent with these rules and warranted by
existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for
3
extending, modifying, or reversing existing law, or
for establishing new law;
(ii) not interposed for any improper purpose, such as
to harass, cause unnecessary delay, or needlessly
increase the cost of litigation; and
(iii) neither unreasonable nor unduly burdensome or
expensive, considering the needs of the case, prior
discovery in the case, the amount in controversy, and
the importance of the issues at stake in the action.
*
*
*
(3) Sanction for Improper Certification. If a certification violates
this rule without substantial justification, the court, on motion or on
its own, must impose an appropriate sanction on the signer, the party
on whose behalf the signer was acting, or both. The sanction may
include an order to pay the reasonable expenses, including
attorney’s fees, caused by the violation.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(g)(1),(3). Additionally, Rule 26(e)(1)(A) provides:
A party who has made a disclosure under Rule 26(a) – or who has
responded to an interrogatory, request for production, or request for
admission – must supplement or correct its disclosure or response:
(A) in a timely manner if the party learns that in some
material respect the disclosure or response is incomplete or
incorrect, and if the additional or corrective information has
not otherwise been made known to the other parties during
the discovery process or in writing; . . . .
Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(e)(1)(A). Further, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(c)(1) provides:
(1) Failure to Disclose or Supplement. If a party fails to provide
information or identify a witness as required by Rule 26(a) or (e),
the party is not allowed to use that information or witness to supply
evidence on a motion, at a hearing, or at a trial, unless the failure
was substantially justified or is harmless. In addition to or instead
of this sanction, the court, on motion and after giving an opportunity
to be heard:
(A) may order payment of the reasonable expenses,
including attorney’s fees, caused by the failure;
(B) may inform the jury of the party’s failure; and
(C) may impose other appropriate sanctions, including any
of the orders listed in Rule 37(b)(2)(A)(i)-(vi).
4
Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(c)(1).1
Having carefully reviewed the parties’ submissions, the Court finds that while plaintiff may
not have intentionally violated the above-referenced discovery rules, plaintiff did violate those
rules by not disclosing the communications its counsel had with the third parties referenced in
plaintiff’s counsel’s time records. Request for Production No. 5 specifically requests any and all
correspondence between plaintiff (including plaintiff’s counsel) and any other person or entity
with respect to Newfield, the Smith Well, the Edgar Well, or the subject of this lawsuit;2 the Court
finds the communications at issue would fall within this request for production. Additionally,
while these communications likely would be protected by the work product doctrine, plaintiff did
not assert such and did not provide Newfield with a privilege log such that Newfield could contest
any claim of privilege. However, the Court finds that based upon plaintiff’s description of the
communications at issue, any lack of production only had a very minimal, if any, impact on this
case.
Because this Court is obligated to impose a sanction against plaintiff for its violation of the
discovery rules pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(g)(3), the Court must determine
what an appropriate sanction would be. In light of the amount of attorneys’ fees requested by
Rule 37(b)(2)(A)(i)-(vi) sets forth the following sanctions:
(i) directing that the matters embraced in the order or other
designated facts be taken as established for purposes of the action,
as the prevailing party claims;
(ii) prohibiting the disobedient party from supporting or opposing
designated claims or defenses, or from introducing designated
matters in evidence;
(iii) striking pleadings in whole or in part;
(iv) staying further proceedings until the order is obeyed;
(v) dismissing the action or proceeding in whole or in part;
(vi) rendering a default judgment against the disobedient party; . . .
2
While this request for production appears somewhat broad on its face, plaintiff did not object to
it.
1
5
plaintiff and the amount of costs taxed, the Court finds Newfield’s proposed sanction is an
extremely harsh sanction not warranted by the circumstances involved. Having reviewed the
parties’ submissions, the Court finds an appropriate sanction would be to require plaintiff to pay
the attorneys’ fees Newfield incurred in filing its motion for sanctions and its reply.
Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Newfield’s Motion for Litigation Sanctions against
Plaintiff, Singer Oil Company, LLC [docket no. 156] and ORDERS plaintiff to pay the attorneys’
fees Newfield incurred in filing its motion for sanctions and its reply.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 5th day of June, 2018.
6
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?