Scott Hutchison Enterprises, Inc. v. Cranberry Pipeline Corporation et al

Filing 85

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER DENYING MOTION TO COMPEL denying 57 MOTION by Scott Hutchison Enterprises, Inc. to Compel Responses to Requests for Production of Document Number 7. Signed by Magistrate Judge Cheryl A. Eifert on 6/6/2016. (cc: attys; any unrepresented party) (mkw)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
HUNTINGTON DIVISION
SCOTT HUTCHINSON ENTERPRISES, INC.,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No.: 3:15-cv-13415

CRANBERRY PIPELINE CORPORATION
and CABOT OIL & GAS CORPORATION,
Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION and ORDER
DENYING MOTION TO COMPEL
Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel. (ECF No. 57). Defendants
have filed a response in opposition to the Motion, (ECF No. 70), and the time for filing a
reply has expired. The issue in dispute is clear; accordingly, oral argument is unnecessary.
For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel is DENIED.
Plaintiff filed suit against Defendants over a gas pipeline owned by Defendants,
which is located on property purchased by Plaintiff. In relevant part, Plaintiff claims that
Defendants’ pipeline constitutes a trespass on the property and, despite being asked to
remove the pipeline, Defendants continue to trespass, enriching themselves and
interfering with Plaintiff’s construction and development of the property. Plaintiff
contends that Defendants’ actions are “willful, wanton, intentional, malicious, and so
reckless as to evince a conscious disregard for the rights of Plaintiffs [sic], entitling
Plaintiff to an award of Punitive Damages.” (ECF No. 1-2 at 11).

In the course of discovery, Plaintiff requested that Defendants produce federal and
state income tax returns with K-1 forms for the years 2012 through the present.
Defendants failed to provide the requested information even after the parties met and
conferred. Consequently, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion to Compel, asserting that it is
entitled to the requested documents as they are relevant to its claim for punitive damages.
(ECF No. 58 at 3). In response, Defendants argue that Plaintiff’s motion should be denied
for two reasons. First, Plaintiff has not established a prima facie basis for punitive
damages. Accordingly, the request for financial information is premature. Second, the
information sought by Plaintiff is publicly available through the SEC’s “Edgar” website.
Given that the information can be easily obtained through the website, Defendants should
not have to collect and produce the documents.
The undersigned agrees with Defendants’ first argument. This Court has previously
examined the very issue raised by Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel. See Robinson v. Quicken
Loans Inc., No. CIV.A. 3:12-0981, 2013 WL 1704839 (S.D.W. Va. Apr. 19, 2013). Noting
that “[d]istrict courts within the Fourth Circuit do not agree as to what—if any—showing
must be made before a plaintiff is entitled to pretrial discovery of financial statements
relevant to a punitive damages claim,” the Court nonetheless “agreed with those
authorities requiring plaintiffs to make a prima facie claim for punitive damages before
being entitled to discovery of a defendant's financial records.” Id. at *4. The Court added
that “[t]o make a prima facie claim for punitive damages in order to be entitled to
discovery of a defendant's financial worth, ... a plaintiff must produce some factual
evidence in support of [its] claim.” Id.
Plaintiff has not made produced any factual evidence in support of its claim for
punitive damages. Accordingly, its request for Defendants’ financial records are

premature. Defendant shall not be compelled to produce such documentation until a
prima facie claim has been established.
The Clerk is instructed to provide a copy of this Order to all counsel of record and
any unrepresented party.
ENTERED: June 6, 2016