Blocker et al v. ConocoPhillips Company

Filing 71

ORDER granting 69 Motion to Consolidate Cases. The above-styled cases are consolidated for all purposes, including trial. The deadlines in the Courts Order dated April 23, 2018 will remain in effect as more fully set out. Plaintiffs actions shall p roceed as a single case under Case No. CIV-17-248-D and all future filings shall occur only in Case No. CIV-17-248-D, unless otherwise ordered. The Clerk shall administratively close Case No. CIV-18-316-D without prejudice to a future reopening. Signed by Honorable Timothy D. DeGiusti on 5/9/2018. (ml)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
JAMES BLOCKER and JAMI BLOCKER,
husband and wife, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
CONOCOPHILLIPS COMPANY,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. CIV-17-248-D

ORDER
Before the Court is Defendant’s Unopposed Motion to Consolidate [Doc. No. 69],
filed only in Case No. CIV-17-248-D (“Blocker”), but requesting consolidation pursuant
to FED. R. CIV. P. 42(a) with the related case of Lay v. ConocoPhillips Co., Case No. CIV18-316-D (“Lay”).
Rule 42(a) vests in the district court discretionary authority to consolidate actions
that involve a common question of law or fact. Gillette Motor Transp., Inc. v. N. Okla.
Butane Co., 179 F.2d 711, 712 (10th Cir. 1950) (recognizing “broad discretion vested in
the trial court in ordering consolidation of cases”). The commonality requirement is clearly
met under the circumstances presented here. In both cases, residents of the Clifford Farms
subdivision allege that their groundwater and soil have been affected by historic oil and
gas operations conducted by Defendant. Further, Plaintiff in Lay and Plaintiffs in Blocker
are represented by the same counsel. Accordingly, the Court finds that consolidation of
the two cases is appropriate.

In keeping with the Court’s customary practice, the consolidation of the cases will
result in a direction that the Clerk administratively close the higher-numbered case and that
the parties make all future filings only in the lower-numbered case. This practice is a matter
of administrative convenience, so there is no need for the Clerk to maintain two files and
the parties (or the Court) to make duplicate filings.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendant’s Unopposed Motion to
Consolidate [Doc. No. 69] is GRANTED. The above-styled cases are consolidated for all
purposes, including trial. The deadlines in the Court’s Order dated April 23, 2018 [Doc.
No. 63], will remain in effect. However, Defendant may conduct written discovery and
take the depositions of Plaintiff Lay and her ex-spouse Kelly Lay on or before July 1, 2018.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ actions shall proceed as a single case
under Case No. CIV-17-248-D and all future filings shall occur only in Case No. CIV-17248-D, unless otherwise ordered. The Clerk shall administratively close Case No. CIV18-316-D without prejudice to a future reopening, if appropriate.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 9th day of May 2018.

2