KAREN M. HUMPHREYS, Magistrate Judge.
This matter is before the court on defendant's motion to compel interrogatory answers (Doc. 140) and plaintiff's motion to quash a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition (Doc. 150). For the reasons set forth below, defendant's motion to compel shall be DENIED and plaintiff's motion to quash shall be GRANTED.
Defendant moves to compel, arguing that plaintiff failed to provide "substantive" answers to Interrogatory Nos. 3-11 and 16. Plaintiff opposes the motion, arguing that it fully answered Interrogatory Nos. 3-10 and properly objected to Interrogatory Nos. 11 and 16. The interrogatories are discussed in greater detail below.
Interrogatory Nos. 3-10 ask plaintiff to identify individual wells of class members and the witnesses that will testify about each well. For example, Interrogatory Nos. 3 and 4 ask plaintiff to:
4. For your response to Interrogatory #3, please identify the witness(es) that will testify to your answer.
Plaintiff contends that the detailed answers which defendant seeks to compel are located in
With respect to Interrogatory No. 4, plaintiff answered:
The court is satisfied that plaintiff has answered Interrogatory Nos. 3-10; therefore, the motion to compel more complete answers shall be denied. The more important case management issue is the establishment of an appropriate schedule for plaintiff to supplement its interrogatory answers as discovery progresses. The parties shall confer in good faith concerning the status of discovery and submit their suggestions for a schedule for supplementation of discovery responses.
This interrogatory asks:
Plaintiff objected to the interrogatory, arguing that "no one has contended in this case that there is a market at the wellhead." Defendant moves to compel, arguing that it "has consistently maintained that because it sells gas at the wellhead, a market for that gas exists." (Doc. 140, p. 3). Plaintiff opposes the motion to compel, arguing that a sales transaction is different from a "market" and defendant is seeking to compel something different than what is requested by the interrogatory. Defendant did not address Interrogatory No. 11 and plaintiff's arguments in its reply brief.
The parties' arguments and explanations concerning this discovery dispute are extremely limited and it is unclear whether defendant has simply abandoned this issue or is satisfied with plaintiff's explanation concerning a "wellhead market." Because the record and arguments are inadequate to resolve this issue, the request to compel a more complete answer to Interrogatory No. 11 shall be denied without prejudice.
Interrogatory No. 16 asks plaintiff to
contend should be implied into each oil and gas lease. Plaintiff opposes the motion to compel, arguing the discovery request is compound and irrelevant. Again, defendant did not address plaintiff's arguments or mention Interrogatory No. 16 in its reply brief; therefore, the motion to compel Interrogatory No. 16 shall be denied without prejudice.
Defendant served Arkalon Grazing Association with a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition containing a list of 24 topics. Plaintiff moves to quash and for a protective order, arguing that the topics: (1) have been the subject of an earlier deposition of an Arkalon representative, (2) request information that is irrelevant or privileged, and (3) prematurely seek expert opinions concerning damages. Plaintiff also argues that a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition is an inefficient and unproductive exercise at this time because most of the underlying information will come from defendant's records and employees and that
Defendant argues that a protective order is not appropriate because Rule 26(c) "does not permit the court to issue such an order to protect a party from having to provide discovery on topics merely because it's argued those topics are overly broad or irrelevant, or because it's argued and requested discovery is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence."
Having considered the parties' arguments and the topics listed in defendant's Rule 30(b)(6) deposition notice, the motion to quash shall be GRANTED and the deposition will not proceed at this time. Arkalon Grazing Association is a corporation whose stock is owned by two ranchers and the business of the corporation is ranching.
Although aware of the practical makeup of Arkalon's corporation and the lack of direct knowledge of complex oil and gas matters, defendant still seeks to utilize Rule 30(b)(6) to secure discovery concerning plaintiff's contentions and legal theories. However, the court concludes that the problems associated with addressing the 24 topics in a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition outweigh the benefits of conducting such a deposition at this time. As mentioned above, much of the "factual" information is currently in defendant's possession and plaintiff would be continually supplementing its answers as discovery progresses. For example, Topic 3 asks for plaintiff's "knowledge or contention of what happens to the gas produced from Hatfield No. 1 well, from the time it leaves the wellbore until it is consumed." In general, a royalty owner, such as plaintiff, will have little information concerning the disposition of the natural gas until defendant and other non-parties respond to plaintiff's discovery requests. Conducting a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition
In addition to being premature, a number of topics seek plaintiff's legal contentions. For example, Topic 10 asks plaintiff to provide a representative to testify about Arkalon's "contention about where title and custody transfer from Chesapeake to a third party." Topic 16 seeks testimony about "any contention by Arkalon about the meaning of the word `proceeds' as used in the oil and gas lease applicable to the Hatfield No. 1 well." These topics seek legal contentions and it would be both annoying and unduly burdensome to require a two-stockholder corporation in the business of grazing cattle to prepare and provide a representative capable of testifying about the legal intricacies of certain oil and gas claims.
Because the proposed Rule 30(b)(6) topics are burdensome and annoying, a protective order quashing the deposition shall be granted under Rule 26(c). Additionally, the burden of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit and there exist more convenient methods, such as interrogatories, for securing the information. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2).
In summary, the problem with defendant's list of Rule 30(b)(6) topics is not the subject matter but rather the timing and method of discovery. With respect to timing, the parties shall confer concerning a sequence of discovery that is efficient and minimizes the need for continuous and voluminous supplementation. The parties shall also confer concerning defendant's use of additional interrogatories to more effectively and efficiently secure discovery concerning plaintiff's legal contentions.