BHL Boresight, Inc. v. Geo-Steering Solutions, Inc. et al

Filing 235

OPINION AND ORDER granting 214 EMERGENCY MOTION, denying 210 Sealed Event and 212 EMERGENCY MOTION.(Signed by Judge Melinda Harmon) Parties notified.(rhawkins)

United States District Court
Southern District of Texas

ENTERED
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
BHL BORESIGHT, INC., et al,
Plaintiffs,
VS.
GEO-STEERING SOLUTIONS, INC., et al,
Defendants.

§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

September 21, 2016
David J. Bradley, Clerk

CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:15-CV-00627

OPINION AND ORDER
Pending before the Court in the above-referenced cause is Plaintiff BHL Boresight, Inc.’s
(“Boresight”) Ex Parte Motion for Protection (“Ex Parte Motion”). (Doc. 210.) In response, GeoSteering Solutions, Inc. and Geo-Steering Solutions USA, Inc. (“Geo-Steering”) and Statoil Gulf
Services LLC (“Statoil”) (collectively, “Defendants”) each filed emergency motions requesting
service or notice of the ex parte communication. (Docs. 212, 214.) In their motions, Defendants
request that the Court provide them with a copy of Plaintiff’s Ex Parte Motion. (Docs. 212 at 2,
214 at 2.) In the alternative, Defendants ask the Court to generally describe the motion, identify
the statue, law, or order that Boresight relies on as authority to file its motion, and explain the
full basis for which Boresight believes it is authorized to file its ex parte communication so that
Defendants may seek appropriate relief. (Docs. 212 at 2, 214 at 2.) Geo-Steering also requests
that they be afforded an opportunity to appear and be heard on any relief sought by Boresight
before such relief is granted. (Doc. 212 at 2.) Having considered the motions, the Court is of the
opinion that Boresights’s Ex Parte Motion should be granted and Defendants motions—to the
extent they request disclosure of anything further than what is discussed below—should be
denied.

1/3

On August 2, 2016, the Geo-Steering Defendants served their Fourth Set of
Interrogatories to Boresight. Interrogatory 20 requests the following information:
INTERROGATORY NO. 20:
Please identify all details concerning any of Boresight’s efforts to encourage the
pursuit of criminal charges in any jurisdiction against Geo-Steering Solutions,
Inc., Geo-Steering Solutions USA, Inc., Pleasant Solutions, Inc., Darrell Joy, Neil
Tice, Byron Molloy, and/or Alfonso Zaza.
(Doc. 210.) Boresight requests that the Court relieve it from answering the above interrogatory
on the grounds that it is not proportional to the needs of the case, and would require the
disclosure of information subject to an investigation privilege. (Id.)
Rule 26 provides that “unless otherwise limited by a court order . . . [p]arties 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.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). Because this is a civil case, the
Court agrees with Plaintiff that Geo-Steering’s request is not proportional to the needs of the
case. For the same reason, the Court is of the opinion that Geo-Steering’s request has no
relevance to the case. Finally, were information to exist regarding ongoing criminal
investigations of the Defendants, it would be subject to the investigation privilege. As a result,
the Court is required to limit the extent of discovery into such matters. See Fed. R. Civ. P.
26(b)(2)(c)(iii) (“[T]he court must limit the . . . extent of discovery otherwise allowed . . . if it
determines that . . . the proposed discovery is outside the scope permitted by Rule 26(b)(1).”).
For the foregoing reasons, the Court hereby

2/3

ORDERS that Plaintiff’s Ex Parte Motion (Doc. 210) is GRANTED; Plaintiff is not
required to answer Interrogatory No. 20 and Defendants’ emergency motions (Docs. 212, 214)
are DENIED.
SIGNED at Houston, Texas, this 21st day of September, 2016.
___________________________________
MELINDA HARMON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3/3