Hoskins Oil Company, LLC v. Equilon Enterprises LLC et al (JRG1)

Filing 151

ORDER denying 127 the Motion to Compel Discovery Responses. Signed by Magistrate Judge Debra C Poplin on October 22, 2018. (AYB)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
AT KNOXVILLE
HOSKINS OIL COMPANY, LLC,
Plaintiff,
v.
EQUILON ENTERPRISES, LLC d/b/a
SHELL OIL PRODUCTS US, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 3:16-CV-417-JRG-DCP

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This case is before the undersigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the Rules of this Court,
and Standing Order 13-02.
Now before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Discovery Responses [Doc. 127].
Defendants Equilon Enterprises, LLC d/b/a Shell Oil Products US and Motiva Enterprises, LLC
(collectively, “Defendants”) filed a Response [Doc. 128],1 objecting to the Motion, and Plaintiff
filed a Reply [Doc. 134]. The Motion is ripe for adjudication. Accordingly, for the reasons more
fully explained below, the Court finds Plaintiff’s Motion [Doc. 127] not well taken, and it is
DENIED.
I.

POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES
Plaintiff moves pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37 and Local Rule 37.2 for an

order compelling Defendants to provide full and meaningful answers to its discovery requests.
Specifically, Plaintiff seeks the identities of other jobbers in Tennessee and Kentucky whose
wholesale market agreements (“WMAs”) were terminated in 2013 through 2015. In addition,
1

Defendants filed another Response [Doc. 129], but this appears to be a duplicate of the
earlier filed Response [Doc. 128].

Plaintiff requests the total annual minimum gallon requirement for each jobber identified. Plaintiff
contends that such discovery seeks to establish Defendants’ motives in terminating jobber
contracts, which has a tendency to prove that Defendants were seeking to eliminate smaller jobbers
in bad faith. Plaintiff states that such evidence goes to the heart of Defendants’ motives for
terminating Plaintiff’s agreement.
Defendants object to Plaintiff’s discovery requests, asserting that the information requested
is not relevant to any party’s claim or defense. Defendants state that on June 26, 2018, they offered
to amend their responses to state that no wholesaler had a base minimum volume requirement
below 6.75 million in 2014. Defendants argue that Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint does not allege
that they were eliminating smaller jobbers or that smaller jobbers were on different gallon
requirements. Defendants maintain that they have many jobbers in Tennessee and Kentucky and
that there are many reasons why WMAs may be terminated. Defendants state that the identities
of other jobbers in these states whose WMAs were terminated during a three-year period are
irrelevant to the underlying issues to be decided—that is, whether Plaintiff’s WMAs were
unlawfully terminated.

Defendants state that, similarly, the total annual minimum gallon

requirements for all other jobbers in Tennessee and Kentucky whose WMAs were terminated
during a three-year period are also irrelevant, but Defendants have provided this information for
the year that Plaintiff failed to meet its minimums.
Plaintiff filed a Reply [Doc. 134], stating that its WMA was terminated in bad faith and
that based on Defendants’ actions, a jury could infer bad faith related to small jobbers. Plaintiff
maintains that it is entitled to determine if Defendants were pushing smaller jobbers to either subjob or terminating their WMAs. Plaintiff states that Defendants have not shown that such
information is burdensome and that they have not established that the discovery is irrelevant.

2

II.

ANALYSIS
The Court has considered the filings in this case, and for the reasons further explained

below, the Court finds Plaintiff’s Motion [Doc. 127] not well taken.
In the present matter, the primary dispute is whether Plaintiff’s discovery requests are
relevant to the issues in this lawsuit. Federal Rule of Civil 26(b)(1) provides as follows:
Unless otherwise limited by court order, the scope of discovery is as
follows: Parties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged
matter that is relevant to any party's claim or defense and
proportional to the needs of the case, considering the importance of
the issues at stake in the action, the amount in controversy, the
parties' relative access to relevant information, the parties' resources,
the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues, and whether
the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely
benefit.
Courts have explained that the “scope of discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure is traditionally quite broad.” Meredith v. United Collection Bureau, Inc., 319 F.R.D.
240, 242 (N.D. Ohio 2017) (quoting Lewis v. ACB Bus. Serv., Inc., 135 F.3d 389, 402 (6th Cir.
1998)). Courts have cautioned, however, that “[d]iscovery requests are not limitless, and parties
must be prohibited from taking ‘fishing expeditions’ in hopes of developing meritorious claims.”
Bentley v. Paul B. Hall Reg'l Med. Ctr., No. 7:15-CV-97-ART-EBA, 2016 WL 7976040, at *1
(E.D. Ky. Apr. 14, 2016). “[T]he [C]ourt retains the final discretion to determine whether a
discovery requests is broad or oppressive.” Id. (citing Surles v. Greyhound Lines, Inc., 474 F.3d
288, 305 (6th Cir. 2007)).
As mentioned above, Plaintiff seeks the identities of other jobbers in Tennessee and
Kentucky whose WMAs were terminated in 2013 through 2015 and the annual minimum gallon
requirements for each jobber that is identified. Plaintiff asserts that such evidence will show that
Defendants eliminated smaller jobbers in bad faith, which will therefore show Defendants’ motives

3

for terminating Plaintiff’s agreement. The Court finds Plaintiff has not shown that the requested
discovery is relevant to the issues in this case. The Court has revisited the Amended Complaint,
and there are no allegations that Defendants terminated Plaintiff’s agreement in order to eliminate
smaller jobs and there are no allegations of bad faith. The Court agrees with Defendants’ statement
that the identities of all other jobbers in Tennessee and Kentucky whose WMSs were terminated
during a three-year period are irrelevant to the underlying issue to be decided in this case—that is,
whether Plaintiff’s WMAs were unlawfully terminated.
III.

CONCLUSION
Accordingly, for the reasons set forth above, the Court finds the Motion to Compel

Discovery Responses [Doc. 127] not well taken, and it is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
ENTER:
___________________________
Debra C. Poplin
United States Magistrate Judge

4