Barr et al v. EQT Production Company

Filing 52

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER AFFIRMING AND ADOPTING 36 ORDER OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE, LIFTING STAY AND SCHEDULING HEARING. The magistrate judge's order is AFFIRMED and the defendant's objections thereto are OVERRULED. The plaintiffs' ; motion to compel responses to Interrogatory Nos. 2(a), 2(g), 4(b), 4(c), 5(a), 5(b), and 5(c) and Request for Production Nos. 2, 4, and 5 is GRANTED. The defendant is DIRECTED to respond to the plaintiffs' discovery requests, in accordance wit h this order, within fourteen days of the date of this order. Within fourteen days of the date of this order, the plaintiffs shall submit a financial affidavit of reasonable expenses. A hearing on reasonable expenses will be held by Magistrate Judge James E. Seibert on June 5, 2015 at 1:30 p.m, in the Magistrate Judge Courtroom, Federal Building, Fourth Floor, Wheeling, West Virginia. Signed by Senior Judge Frederick P. Stamp, Jr. on 5/12/2015. (copy to counsel of record via CM/ECF) (nmm)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
LARRY BARR and ELVA BARR,
Plaintiffs,
v.

Civil Action No. 5:14CV57
(STAMP)

EQT PRODUCTION COMPANY,
a Pennsylvania Corporation,
Defendant.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
AFFIRMING AND ADOPTING ORDER OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE,
LIFTING STAY AND SCHEDULING HEARING
I.

Procedural History

The plaintiffs, Larry Barr and Elva Barr, initially filed this
action in the Circuit Court of Wetzel County, West Virginia.

The

Barrs allege that the defendant, EQT Production Company (“EQT”),
has been conducting activities on their property that constitute
trespass and a nuisance.
question.

The

complaint

EQT well pads are on the property in
consists

of

six

counts:

breach

of

contract, unjust enrichment, conversion, nuisance, negligence, and
punitive damages. The plaintiffs are seeking damages, both general
and punitive; abatement of the activities on the plaintiffs’
property by EQT; and a declaration by this Court that all the
monies improperly obtained by EQT through its failure to pay
royalties to the plaintiffs should be placed in a constructive
trust.

The action was removed to this Court and a subsequent motion
to remand was denied.

The plaintiffs then filed a motion to

compel. This Court referred the motion to United States Magistrate
Judge James E. Seibert.

The motion was then fully briefed and the

magistrate judge held an evidentiary hearing.

Thereafter, the

magistrate judge entered an order granting the motion to compel and
ordering

EQT

to

supplement

interrogatories and requests.

its

responses

to

the

plaintiffs’

Further, that order directed EQT to

produce the supplemental information within fourteen days or by
March 3, 2015.

That order also scheduled a hearing on reasonable

expenses for March 20, 2015.
magistrate

judge’s

order

EQT then filed a motion to stay the

pursuant

to

Federal

Rule

of

Civil

Procedure 72, along with objections to the magistrate judge’s
order.
This Court granted the motion to stay but made clear that it
was not considering EQT’s objections at that time.

The plaintiffs

then filed a response to the motion to stay and EQT’s objections.
EQT filed a reply thereto.

Thus, consideration of the magistrate

judge’s order and EQT’s objections is appropriate at this time.
II.

Applicable Law

As to nondispositive pretrial matters, a magistrate judge’s
ruling may be reversed only on a finding that the order is “clearly
erroneous or is contrary to law.”

Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a); 28 U.S.C.

§ 636(b)(1). “A finding is ‘clearly erroneous’ when although there

2

is evidence to support it, the reviewing court on the entire
evidence is left with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake
has been committed.”

United States v. United States Gypsum Co.,

333 U.S. 364, 395 (1948).

In light of the broad discretion given

to a magistrate judge in the resolution of nondispositive discovery
disputes, the court should only overrule a magistrate judge’s
determination if this discretion is abused.

Detection Sys., Inc.

v. Pittway Corp., 96 F.R.D. 152, 154 (W.D. N.Y. 1982).
III.

Discussion

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a) states, in relevant
part, “a party may move for an order compelling disclosure or
discovery. The motion must include a certification that the movant
has in good faith conferred or attempted to confer with the person
or party failing to make disclosure or discovery in an effort to
obtain it without court action.”

Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(1).

Further, the rule specifically states that “[f]or purposes of this
subdivision (a), an evasive or incomplete disclosure, answer, or
response must be treated as a failure to disclose, answer, or
respond.”

Id. at (a)(4).

Moreover, if a motion to compel is granted based on the above,
“or if the disclosure or requested discovery is provided after the
motion

was

filed[,]

.

.

.

the

court

must,

after

giving

an

opportunity to be heard, require the party or deponent whose
conduct necessitated the motion, the party or attorney advising

3

that conduct, or both to pay the movant’s reasonable expenses
incurred in making the motion, including attorney’s fees.”
(a)(5).

Id. at

However, such payment is not ordered if:

(i) the movant filed the motion before attempting in good
faith to obtain the disclosure or discovery without court
action;
(ii) the opposing party’s nondisclosure, response, or
objection was substantially justified; or
(iii) other circumstances make an award of expenses
unjust.
Id.
A.

General Arguments in the Motion to Compel
In its motion to compel, the plaintiffs generally seek more

sufficient answers to the interrogatories they served on EQT.

EQT

argues that the motion to compel should be dismissed as the
plaintiffs did not confer with EQT prior to filing the motion to
compel. In reply, the plaintiffs argue that they made a good faith
effort to confer with EQT before filing a motion, that EQT had
agreed to supplement its responses and did so, but that EQT’s
supplemental response remained deficient for the same reasons as
before EQT agreed to supplement its responses.
The magistrate judge first found, overall, that the plaintiffs
made a good faith effort to resolve the discovery dispute without
court involvement and the plaintiffs were not required to meet and
confer with EQT again after EQT filed its supplemental response.
The

magistrate

judge

based

this

4

finding

on

EQT’s

discovery

objections and previous communications between counsel for the
parties.
This Court finds that the magistrate judge’s finding as to the
general arguments regarding the motion to compel is not clearly
erroneous.

As

supplement

will

some

interrogatories.

be

of

discussed
its

Further,

below,

responses
as

the

EQT

to

still
the

magistrate

needs

to

plaintiffs’
judge

noted,

plaintiffs’ counsel had communicated with defense counsel regarding
the plaintiffs’ requests and EQT’s objections thereto before filing
the motion to compel.
letter

to

defense

Plaintiffs’ counsel had sent a seven page
counsel

regarding

its

request

and

also

communicated by telephone. The supplemental response received from
EQT is still unsatisfactory. Thus, the plaintiffs, after reviewing
the supplemental response, filed a motion to compel.

This Court

finds that the magistrate judge’s finding that the plaintiffs
attempted in good faith to resolve the discovery issue before
filing their motion to compel, based on the facts stated above, is
not clearly erroneous.
The magistrate judge then noted that the plaintiffs are now
satisfied with some of EQT’s responses and thus the plaintiffs now
only seek an order compelling EQT to supplement its responses to
Interrogatory Nos. 2(a), 2(g), 4(b), 4(c), 5(a), 5(b), and 5(c);
and Request for Production Nos. 2, 4, and 5.
review those requests in turn.

5

This Court will

B.

Interrogatories and Requests for Production
Absent

a

court

order

limiting

the

scope

of

discovery,

“[p]arties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter
that is relevant to any party’s claim or defense.”

Fed. R. Civ. P.

26(b)(1). But, “[f]or good cause, the court may order discovery of
any matter relevant to the subject matter involved in the action.”
Id.

In addition, relevant information “need not be admissible at

the trial if the discovery appears reasonably calculated to lead to
the discovery of admissible evidence.”

Id.

Thus, “the discovery

rules are given ‘a broad and liberal treatment.’” Nat’l Union Fire
Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, P.A. v. Murray Sheet Metal Co., 967 F.2d
980, 983 (4th Cir. 1992) (quoting Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495,
507 (1947)). “[T]he party asserting that the information requested
is not relevant . . . bears the burden of establishing that the
information is not relevant.”

Kidwiler v. Progressive Paloverde

Ins. Co., 192 F.R.D. 193, 199 (N.D. W. Va. 2000).
1.

Interrogatory
Payments
a.

No.

2:

Information

Regarding

Royalty

Subpart 2(a)

The plaintiffs argue that EQT should be compelled to produce
evidence regarding the date it first realized it owed royalties to
the plaintiffs.

EQT asserts that it has fully and completely

responded to these requests as it has gone so far as to provide
title

opinion

information

in

its

possession

as

confidential settlement negotiations and agreement.
6

part

of

the

In response,

the plaintiffs argue that EQT has still failed to answer subpart
(a) and has offered no reason for not doing so.
As EQT reasonably believes that the plaintiffs are entitled to
royalties and all that EQT must provide is the day that EQT first
came

to

this

belief,

the

magistrate

judge

found

that

this

information should be provided. The magistrate judge further found
that this information is relevant to the underlying contentions in
this case.
In

its

objections,

EQT

asserts

that

it

has

responded

truthfully and completely to this request as the plaintiffs’
ownership

interest

in

the

oil

and

gas

estate

has

not

been

definitively determined and EQT has paid royalties that are owed,
based on EQT’s belief.

Thus, EQT argues that it cannot give a

specific date as demanded by the plaintiffs because the ownership
issue has not yet been determined and thus it cannot provide a date
for such knowledge.
The plaintiffs respond that EQT knew by at least September 13,
2013, based on emails between counsel for the parties, that the
plaintiffs were entitled to royalties and that EQT has failed to
investigate the actual date of knowledge in good faith.
Despite EQT’s objections, EQT has stated in its responses that
it reasonably believes the plaintiffs are entitled to royalties.
The request to supply a date is not overly burdensome to EQT as the
plaintiffs themselves have provided at least a date, September 13,

7

2013, that EQT can use as a starting point to determine when EQT
knew royalties were due to the plaintiffs. Further, the plaintiffs
note that EQT states that the parties discussed whether the
plaintiffs were entitled to royalties in February 2013.

As such,

EQT is in a position to produce such information.
The information requested is also relevant under the broad
discovery standards.

Therefore, the magistrate judge’s finding of

the same is not clearly erroneous.

EQT is to provide a complete

and detailed response to the question asked in Interrogatory No.
2(a) within fourteen days from the date of this Order.
b.

Subpart 2(g)

The plaintiffs contend that EQT should be compelled to produce
itemized

evidence

regarding

EQT’s

admission

to

plaintiffs’

interrogatory as to whether EQT had deducted post-production costs.
EQT argues that it has fully and completely responded to subpart
(g) as it provided information for the two wells in question and
also provided in its response the method it uses for making
deductions.

The plaintiffs argue that EQT has still failed to

fully respond to subpart (g) in that EQT has not provided an
itemization and amount, by specific category, of any deductions.
The magistrate judge found that this information should be
provided as EQT has not contended that a break down of the
deduction information would be unduly burdensome.

Further, the

magistrate judge found the information to be relevant.

8

EQT

asserts

in

its

objections

that

such

information,

categorizing and itemizing the costs above, is not maintained by
EQT but instead by EQT Energy, LLC (“EQT Energy”).
argues

that

its

substantially

objection

justified

as

to

providing

the

parties

this
have

Thus, EQT

information
a

genuine

was
and

reasonable dispute over the production of the same.
The plaintiffs argue that it is irrelevant whether EQT has
actual control of the documents. What is important, the plaintiffs
assert, is EQT’s legal right, authority, or practical ability to
obtain the information sought. The plaintiffs contend that because
EQT

and

EQT

Energy

are

separate

only

in

form,

as

there

is

significant overlap between the two as EQT has the practical
ability to obtain the information as it exercises “control” over
EQT

Energy

and

cannot

claim

that

it

is

unable

to

provide

itemization.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 34(a) allows any party to
serve on any other party a request for documents which are “in the
responding party’s possession, custody, or control.”
P. 34(a).

Fed. R. Civ.

“In the context of Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(a), so long as the

party has the legal right or ability to obtain the documents from
another source upon demand, that party is deemed to have control.”
Knisely v. Nat’l Better Living Ass’n, Inc., No. 3:14-CV-15, 2015 WL
574703, at *12 (N.D. W. Va. Feb. 11, 2015), rev’d in part for
unrelated reasons, No. 3:14-CV-15, 2015 WL 1097390 (N.D. W. Va.

9

Mar. 11, 2015) (citing Mercy Catholic Med. Ctr. v. Thompson, 380
F.3d 142, 160 (3d Cir. 2004).

Moreover, “it is well established

that ‘control’ under [Rule 34] is to be broadly construed so that
a party may be obligated to produce documents requested even though
it may not actually possess the documents.”

Id.; (citing Uniden

Am. Corp. v. Ericsson Inc., 181 F.R.D. 302, 308 (M.D.N.C. 1998)
(granting motion to compel and requiring the defendant to seek
records from its sister company) (other citation omitted)).
Given the authority cited above, this Court finds that it
would not be unduly burdensome for EQT to produce the information
sought in Interrogatory No. 2(g).

The documents from EQT Energy

may not be under the “control” of EQT in the traditional sense, but
are

under

the

“control”

of

EQT

under

the

liberal

discovery

standards. EQT and EQT Energy are under the same broad umbrella of
EQT

Corporation

overlapping

(the

parent

corporation)

characteristics.

Additionally,

and

have

the

several

information

requested is relevant under the broad discovery standards.

Thus,

this Court finds that the magistrate judge’s finding requiring the
production of documents requested under subpart 2(g) is not clearly
erroneous.

EQT is thus required to provide a complete, and

categorical response to the question asked in Interrogatory No.
2(g) within fourteen days from the date of this order.

10

2.

Interrogatory No. 4, subparts b and c

The plaintiffs contend that EQT should be compelled to produce
evidence regarding the date oil or gas was first produced in paying
quantities, any delay in royalties from that production, and why
such a delay occurred.

The plaintiffs argue that the request was

not vague as it specifically referred to the plaintiffs’ 61.83
acres.

The plaintiffs further assert that the request is directly

related to the plaintiffs’ underlying claims.
EQT argues that it has provided the plaintiffs with dates of
production and dates that it has paid royalties to the plaintiffs.
EQT states that it has provided information based on production
from the two wells on plaintiffs’ property and that, otherwise,
“paying quantities” is ambiguous and it should be found to have
fully and completely responded.

The plaintiffs contend that

“paying quantities” is a widely-used term in the oil and gas
industry

that

production.

EQT

should

know

as

that

term

is

applied

to

Thus, the plaintiffs assert that EQT must provide the

information requested.
In his order, the magistrate judge noted that the duplication
of data is not enough to sustain an objection to an interrogatory.
Thus, the magistrate judge found that because this information is
relevant, EQT should provide such information.

11

a.

Subpart 4(b)

EQT reviews in its objections what it has provided the
plaintiffs and states that it has provided the plaintiffs with a
clear

answer

along

with

records

to

support

the

same.

The

plaintiffs argue that EQT has not previously provided the specific
response of “46 months and 14 days” or ever stated that it was
unable to determine an exact date based on a review of their
records.

Thus, the plaintiffs assert that EQT’s objection was not

substantially justified.
This Court finds that EQT’s objection is not substantially
justified for the reasons outlined by the plaintiff. EQT failed to
answer Interrogatory No. 4(b) specifically until its objections.
The purpose of discovery is “for parties to obtain the fullest
possible knowledge of issues and facts before trial.”

Mitchell v.

Roma, 265 F.2d 633, 636 (3d Cir. 1959) (citing Hickman v. Taylor,
329

U.S.

495,

501

(1947)).

Further,

the

purpose

of

interrogatories, specifically, is to not only elicit information
which is reasonably calculated to lead to discovery of admissible
evidence, but also to encourage efficiency during pretrial and
trial proceedings by narrowing the issues to only those that are
meritorious.

See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26; Woods v. Kornfeld, 9 F.R.D.

196, 198 (M.D. Pa. 1949).

EQT’s delay in answering Interrogatory

No. 4(b) is not in line with these purposes.

12

Thus, the magistrate

judge’s finding that EQT is required to produce a date is not
clearly erroneous.
b.

Subpart 4(c)

EQT asserts that it has explained any delay in royalty
payments which was based on the unsubstantiated ownership interest
in the property, which is the burden of the person asserting
ownership (not EQT).
to this request.

Thus, EQT argues that it has fully responded

The plaintiffs contend that EQT may not use the

argument above as EQT began drilling and production before having
such

information

information.

and

eventually

paid

royalties

without

that

Thus, the plaintiffs argue that EQT’s objection was

not substantially justified.
This Court finds that EQT did not fully answer Interrogatory
No. 4(c) until its objections. EQT’s response that it began to pay
royalties based on a business decision because it reasonably
believed the plaintiffs were owed such royalties, despite its
questions regarding ownership, answered the interrogatory fully.
However, this answer was given during objections and thus its
objection was not substantially justified.

Again, interrogatories

are used to promote more efficient litigation procedures. As such,
this Court finds that the magistrate judge’s finding regarding this
interrogatory is not clearly erroneous.

13

3.

Interrogatory No. 5, subparts (a)-(c)

The plaintiffs argue that EQT should be compelled to produce
evidence regarding any marketing of the oil and gas obtained from
the plaintiffs’ property and the total amount marketed, revenues
from the sale, and royalties based on those sales.
assert

that

underlying

this
claims.

information
EQT

is

directed

contends

that

it

to

The plaintiffs

the

has

plaintiffs’

provided

the

plaintiffs with information regarding the two wells relevant to the
plaintiffs and that information regarding any other non-party
lessors is irrelevant to this action.
The plaintiffs respond that as to subparts 5(a) and 5(b), EQT
has not provided the evidence requested and should be directed to
provide

more

specific

responses.

As

to

subpart

5(c),

the

plaintiffs argue that the information regarding other leaseholders
is relevant to determining the amount of royalties owed to the
plaintiffs as such a comparison will allow the plaintiffs to
understand EQT’s accounting practices.
In his order, the magistrate judge found, as to subparts 5(a)
and 5(b), that EQT should be required to provide this information
reasoning that if this information had already been provided by
EQT, the plaintiffs would not have had to request it again.
Further, the magistrate judge found that the information sought is
relevant.

As to 5(c), the magistrate judge found that EQT’s

response that this request is “overly broad, burdensome, oppressive

14

and irrelevant” was insufficient and that the information is
relevant.
a.

Subparts 5(a) and (b)

EQT contends that it has provided all of the information
requested by the plaintiffs (citing Exhibit D of its objections).
The plaintiffs assert that a concrete number for each subpart of
the interrogatory is needed as the spreadsheets provided by EQT are
difficult

to

understand

specific to EQT.
reported

to

the

as

they

use

codes

and

abbreviations

Further, the plaintiffs argue that it was
West

Virginia

Department

of

Environmental

Protection (“WVDEP”) that production had occurred at one of the
wells

in

2011

and

that

information

is

not

contained

in

the

spreadsheets provided by EQT.
Given the WVDEP report, it appears that there may be some
information missing from Exhibit D.

However, it is hard for this

Court to make such a finding as the information provided in EQT’s
Exhibit D is difficult to understand.

Given this Court’s own

difficulty, this Court must find that EQT’s response does not meet
the specificity requirement for a response to an interrogatory.
Haynes v. Navy Fed. Credit Union, 286 F.R.D. 33, 37 (D.D.C. 2012)
(requiring more specificity when documents were provided in lieu of
an answer to an interrogatory).
to the plaintiffs’ claims.

The information is also relevant

As such, this Court finds that the

magistrate judge’s finding is not clearly erroneous.

15

EQT is to

provide a complete and detailed response to the questions asked in
Interrogatory Nos. 5(a) and 5(b) within fourteen days of the date
of this order.
b.
EQT

Subpart 5(c)

reiterates

its

objections

that

this

information

is

irrelevant as it pertains to leaseholders who are not parties to
this suit and argues that this position is substantially justified.
The

plaintiffs

reiterate

that

they

are

seeking

information

regarding other lessors so that they can verify the accuracy of the
royalty payments paid to them which would lead to the discovery of
whether

or

not

plaintiffs.

EQT

has

properly

paid

out

royalties

to

the

Otherwise, the plaintiffs reiterate their earlier

arguments for this information.
Despite

EQT’s

objections,

the

information

sought

by

the

plaintiffs is relevant given the broad discovery standards that are
applicable and the concept that discoverable evidence does not
necessarily have to be admissible evidence.

Fed. R. Civ. P.

26(b)(1) (“relevant information need not be admissible at the trial
if the discovery appears reasonably calculated to lead to the
discovery

of

admissible

evidence.”).

Information

from

other

lessors may lead to the discovery of evidence regarding the
accuracy of EQT’s royalty payments to the plaintiffs.

If EQT

believes that some of the information that may be disclosed would
require a protective order, then it may file a request for a

16

protective order.

However, in its objections, EQT makes the same

“recitation of the familiar litany that an interrogatory . . .
request is overly broad, burdensome, oppressive, and irrelevant,”
which is insufficient.

PLX, Inc. v. Prosystems, Inc., 220 F.R.D.

291, 293 (N.D. W. Va. 2004).

Thus, the magistrate judge’s finding

is not clearly erroneous.

EQT is to provide a complete and

detailed response to the question asked in Interrogatory No. 5(c)
within fourteen days from the date of this order.
4.

Request No. 2

The plaintiffs assert that EQT should be compelled to produce
paper or electronic evidence regarding the acquisition of the
assignment and/or lease.

The plaintiffs contend that the request

is not overly broad as it pertains to the acquisition of the
assignment and/or the lease.

Further, the plaintiffs assert that

a simple review of the file should reveal any such information and
thus is not burdensome.

Finally, the plaintiffs assert that the

information is relevant to their claims and it is irrelevant
whether the request seeks information regarding other tracts.
EQT asserts that its acquisition of the lease is not in
dispute as the parties have agreed that EQT rightfully acquired the
assignment of the lease.

Further, EQT argues that it again

contends the plaintiffs’ assertion that it is entitled to the lease
and royalty information of other leaseholders as those leases are
not in controversy in this action and that information is mostly

17

confidential.

Finally, EQT contends that the information it has

provided is sufficient for the purposes the plaintiffs have cited.
In response, the plaintiffs reiterate their argument as to why this
information is relevant.
The

magistrate

judge

found

that

EQT’s

response

was

insufficient (for the same reason as 5(c)) and that the duplication
of data is an insufficient reason to not respond.

Further, the

magistrate judge found that if EQT was worried about confidential
shareholder information, it could have and still can seek a
protective order.
In

its

objections,

EQT

reasserts

that

there

is

no

“Barr-specific” lease file and that there are numerous wells that
produce gas from the tract but only two of those are involved in
this case.

EQT asserts that it has provided the plaintiffs with

information that is relevant to them.

However, EQT then argues

that it is not required to provide information that is covered by
the

attorney-client

privilege

or

pertains

to

confidential

leaseholder information regarding persons that are not parties to
this action.
In response, the plaintiffs first reiterate their earlier
arguments.

The plaintiffs next argue that EQT served a privilege

log that was entirely without any detail and thus has waived its
claim of privilege.

18

The Court adopts its previous finding that the information
regarding other leaseholders is relevant pursuant to the broad
discovery standards.

Further, “the burden is on the proponent of

the attorney-client privilege to demonstrate its applicability[,]”
which EQT has failed to do here.
1069, 1072 (4th Cir. 1982).

United States v. Jones, 696 F.2d

EQT, other than stating that the

information sought is confidential and that it has served a
privilege log, which this Court has not been privy to, has provided
no other argument regarding an attorney-client privilege claim.
See, infra, pg. 16 (regarding this Court’s ruling on EQT’s argument
regarding the confidentiality of this evidence).
Finally, this Court finds that the other information requested
is relevant and targeted toward discoverable relevant evidence.
The information regarding the acquisition of the lease will allow
the plaintiffs to establish the origin of the assigned lease, who
is responsible, and what the plaintiffs may be entitled to at this
time.

Thus, this Court finds that the magistrate judge’s finding

is not clearly erroneous.

EQT is to produce all documents,

writings, files, electronic files, electronic mail, logs, diaries,
telephone logs, memos, etc. maintained by anyone contained within
any file created or maintained with respect to the acquisition of
the assignment and/or lease within fourteen days from the date of
this order.

19

5.

Request No. 4

The plaintiffs assert that EQT should be compelled to produce
paper or electronic evidence regarding its method of calculating
royalties owed to leaseholders surrounding the Big 57 well site.
The plaintiffs argue that the request is not overly broad because
it specifically refers to the Big 57 well site.

Further, the

plaintiffs contend that it is relevant that the request covers
leaseholders not a party to this action as those documents may be
relevant to the plaintiffs’ action.

Additionally, the plaintiffs

assert that EQT has provided no explanation why the evidence is
covered by the attorney-client privilege or work product doctrine.
Finally, the plaintiffs assert that even though they have check
stubs that may reveal some of the information, they are still
entitled to discovery of the documents.
EQT argues that it has fully and completely responded to the
plaintiffs’

request.

Further,

EQT

reiterates

regarding information about other leaseholders.

its

assertions

In reply, the

plaintiffs reiterate their arguments as to the relevance of this
information in response.
The magistrate judge found that EQT has merely made blanket
assertions as to attorney-client privilege which is not enough to
support its objection.

Further, the magistrate judge found that

the information is relevant and that EQT may seek a protective
order for the information if needed.

20

In its objections, EQT reiterates its argument regarding
information about other leaseholders and their royalty payments.
Further, EQT contends that it has provided all other information
requested by the plaintiffs.

On the other hand, the plaintiffs

argue that even given the information that has been provided by
EQT, EQT has still failed to provide figures that are used when it
calculates the plaintiffs’ decimal interests or what index it uses
for

calculations.

Thus,

the

plaintiffs

assert

that

EQT’s

objections were not substantially justified.
As to information regarding other leaseholders, this Court
adopts its previous holding.

Further, this Court finds that EQT

should be required to provide figures that are used to calculate
the plaintiffs’ decimal interests or the index that is used for
such calculations, as that information is relevant given the broad
discovery standards.

As such, the magistrate judge’s finding is

not clearly erroneous.

Thus, EQT is to produce a copy of figures

that are used to calculate the plaintiffs’ decimal interest or any
index that is used for such calculations relating to the Big 57
well site within fourteen days from the date of this order.
6.
This

Request No. 5
request

is

the

same

as

Request

No.

4

except

the

plaintiffs specifically request any method used for payments for
which EQT admits the plaintiffs are entitled.

EQT asserts that it

has fully and completely responded to this request and it is

21

unclear what else the plaintiffs are seeking.

The plaintiffs

reiterate their arguments as to the relevance of this information.
The magistrate judge found that EQT’s general objection was
insufficient, that the information is relevant as to how the
plaintiffs’ royalty payments are generated, and it is unlikely the
plaintiffs

would

request

information

that

has

already

been

produced.
EQT asserts in its objections that it has fully and completely
responded to this request.

The plaintiffs make the same arguments

as they made for Request No. 4, above.
For the same reasons as cited for Request No. 4, this Court
finds that EQT should also be compelled to provide the information
sought in Request No. 5.

As such, the magistrate judge’s finding

is not clearly erroneous.

EQT is to produce a copy of any

worksheet, spreadsheet, papers, writings, or documents reflecting
the method by which it is that EQT calculated any royalty payment
to which EQT admits the plaintiffs are entitled within fourteen
days from the date of this order.
IV.

Conclusion

Based on the analysis above, the magistrate judge’s order is
AFFIRMED and the defendant’s objections thereto are OVERRULED. The
plaintiffs’ motion to compel responses to Interrogatory Nos. 2(a),
2(g), 4(b), 4(c), 5(a), 5(b), and 5(c) and Request for Production
Nos. 2, 4, and 5 is GRANTED.

The defendant is DIRECTED to respond

22

to the plaintiffs’ discovery requests, in accordance with this
order, within fourteen days of the date of this order.

Within

fourteen days of the date of this order, the plaintiffs shall
submit a financial affidavit of reasonable expenses.

A hearing on

reasonable expenses will be held by Magistrate Judge James E.
Seibert on June 5, 2015 at 1:30 p.m, in the Magistrate Judge
Courtroom,

Federal

Building,

Fourth

Floor,

Wheeling,

West

Virginia.1
IT IS SO ORDERED.
The Clerk is DIRECTED to transmit a copy of this memorandum
opinion and order to counsel of record herein.
DATED:

May 12, 2015

/s/ Frederick P. Stamp, Jr.
FREDERICK P. STAMP, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

1

This Court notes that EQT has submitted a Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 68 notice of offer of judgment. ECF No. 51. The
hearing on reasonable expenses has thus been scheduled to occur
after the offer of judgment expires.
23