Chieftain Royalty Co. v. BP Am. Prod. Co.
Chieftain Royalty Co. v. BP Am. Prod. Co.
2018 WL 3284709 (E.D. Okla. 2018)
April 18, 2018
West, Kimberly E., United States Magistrate Judge
Summary
The court rejected BP America's objections to the production of ESI requested by Plaintiff, and ordered BP America to produce the documents and answer the interrogatories by May 11, 2018. The court also granted a protective order against Plaintiff taking the deposition of its corporate representative, but required BP America to produce ESI relevant to the topics of the deposition. The court determined that ESI is important to the case, as it may provide evidence relevant to the claims and defenses at issue.
CHIEFTAIN ROYALTY COMPANY, Plaintiff,
v.
BP AMERICA PRODUCTION COMPANY, Defendant
v.
BP AMERICA PRODUCTION COMPANY, Defendant
Case No. CIV-16-444-JH
United States District Court, E.D. Oklahoma
Filed April 18, 2018
West, Kimberly E., United States Magistrate Judge
ORDER
*1 This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff's First Motion to Compel Discovery (Docket Entry #72) and Defendant's Rule 26(c) Motion for Protective Order Against Corporate Representative Deposition (Docket Entry #77). These Motions were referred to the undersigned for disposition by the United States District Judge presiding over this case.
Plaintiff seeks further production of information from its written discovery requests propounded to Defendant BP America Production Company (“BP America”) on April 10, 2017. Discovery was stayed in this case on April 17, 2017 pending a ruling on BP America's motion for dismissal of the case. The motion to dismiss was denied by minute order on September 29, 2017. An amended minute order and a formal, written Order was entered on November 2, 2017 which denied the Motion, in part, and granted it, in part. Specifically, Plaintiff's claim for tortious breach of contract was dismissed while the certification of the class action, unjust enrichment, fraud, accounting, and injunction claims were permitted to proceed. Plaintiff filed an Amended Class Action Complaint on November 16, 2017. While the parties have proposed competing scheduling orders to govern the deadlines in this case, no schedule has yet been established.
On November 17, 2017, BP America provided responses to Plaintiff's written discovery requests. On December 11, 2017, Plaintiff provided BP America with a letter, asserting that the responses to the requests were deficient. The parties met for discovery conferences in December of 2017. Thereafter, BP America filed a motion to stay and the parties did not meet further to discuss the remaining discovery disputes.
As an initial matter, BP America contends that a “fundamental issue” exists as to whether any discovery should take place in this case. BP America states that the case identified as Cecil v. BP America Production Co., Case No. CIV-16-410-RAW seeks certification of a putative class which encompasses the class sought in this case. As such, BP America asserts that the discovery in this case should be stayed while the first-filed Cecilcase is permitted to move forward, potentially obviating the need for this case to proceed. This contention is reflected in Defendant's Expedited Motion to Stay (Docket Entry No. 68) which remains pending in this case. Unless and until this case is stayed by the presiding judge, discovery will continue in this case and this Court will move forward with ruling upon the referred discovery Motions.
Generally, BP America states that (1) it has produced extensive data in response to Plaintiff's discovery requests; (2) Plaintiff's requests are not proportional to the needs of the case since they go beyond whether the putative class should be certified; (3) its offices were flooded by Hurricane Harvey, making accessing physical files “almost impossible” and electronic data “much more cumbersome, time consuming, and expensive”; and (4) the events in the Cecil case caused Plaintiff to move more aggressively in discovery in this case.
*2 The quantity of the documents is not the important issue in this dispute. Rather, the responsiveness to Plaintiff's requests is of paramount concern. Moreover, the proportionality argument lacks merit as discovery has not been bifurcated between certification of the class and the merits of the action. All matters relevant to this action are fodder for discovery unless the Court orders any limitation in the scope of discovery. On the availability of records, BP America will be required to specifically identify any records which were destroyed or damaged as a result of Hurricane Harvey and certify that the records are unavailable or unreadable due to this natural occurrence. As stated, the events in Cecil have no bearing upon this litigation pending further order of the Court. Individual requests will be addressed in turn.
Request for Production No. 1 – Royalty Payment Data – “Produce all documents related to payment of royalties on the BP Oklahoma Wells during the Relevant Time Period, including without limitation: (a) all royalty payment history detail (sometimes called royalty “paydecks”); (b) royalty owner names and addresses; and (c) royalty checks and check counter-foils.”
In response, BP America produced paydeck and pay revenue history data for the period of 1994 to present on the relevant wells. The “Relevant Time Period” defined in the discovery requests was 1988 to present. If this information is available for the period of 1988 to 1994 for production, BP America shall produce it. If it is not capable of production, BP America shall provide a specific basis for the inability to produce the documents. Again, the proportionality argument is rejected because the discovery has not been limited in this case.
This Court accepts BP America's contention that its records do not tie ownership to specific wells but only properties. BP America will not be required to employ a third party to capture this information in the form Plaintiff desires.
BP America shall provide the information as to whether the Well Pay History begins with wellhead volume or net volume. Plaintiff also seeks a translation of certain Interest Type references in the records produced by BP America. These are matters that can be resolved if counsel and representatives of BP America will simply confer with one another.
BP America states that the royalty check and check counter-foil information is not maintained in its database. The data from these sources has been allegedly been produced. No further production will be required.
Request for Production No. 2 – Volumes and Prices - “Produce all documents related to the monthly volumes and sales prices received by You for production of gas and its constituents from the BP Oklahoma Wells during the Relevant Time Period, including, but not limited to, monthly gas payment statements provided to You by the gas gatherer and/or gas processor.”
Plaintiff contends BP America's response to this request is deficient because (1) the documents produced do not cover the entire Relevant Time Period; (2) the documents are not organized in chronological sequence; and (3) the production did not include monthly volumes and sales prices. BP America shall produce all of the relevant documents from 1988 to present. The sequential organization of the documents can be accomplished by Plaintiff in reviewing the production. Plaintiff will be required to be more specific as to the documents sought in relation to gas volumes and prices. Should inquiry need to be made as to the manner in which this information is kept by BP America, Plaintiff should so inquire.
Request for Production No. 3 – Volumes and Gas Analyses - “Produce all documents concerning or discussing the volume and constituencies of the gas produced from each BP Oklahoma Well that passed through the custody transfer meter into any gathering system during the Relevant Time Period, including any and all gas analyses and gas volume statements on a month-by-month and well-by-well basis.”
*3 Request for Production No. 9 – Gas Analysis and Volumes - “Produce all documents showing the BTU value, gas analysis and volume of raw wellhead gas from each of the BP Oklahoma Wells as measured at the lease or wellhead gas meter on a month-by-month and well-by-well basis.”
Plaintiff contends BP America's response to this Request is deficient because (1) the documents produced do not cover the entire Relevant Time Period; (2) oil and gas companies “typically” maintain the volume data Plaintiff seeks in the form it seeks the information and BP America should produce it. The request appears to be overly broad and unduly burdensome on its face. BP America states that the information is only available to it from 2008 to present, according to its accountant. BP America will be required to produce one monthly statement from each year that the records are available. Should the records not be available for a particular year, BP America shall certify in writing that the records are not available from any source to which it has access.
Request for Production No. 4 – Volumetric Deductions - “Produce all documents and communications related to or concerning any volumetric deductions or reductions from the amount of royalty You paid in relation to the BP Oklahoma Wells during the Relevant Time Period on a month-by-month well-by-well basis.”
BP America states that it “is not aware of any non-privileged analysis” of the volumetric data. To the extent any such analysis has been performed by BP America, it shall either produce the information for the Relevant Time Period or it shall produce a privilege log stating the specific documents being withheld.
Request for Production No. 5 – Contracts – “Produce all contracts and agreements related to the gathering, processing and transportation of raw wellhead gas produced from the BP Oklahoma Wells in effect during the Relevant Time Period between You and any gas gatherer or gas processor, including all terminations, modifications, amendments and assignments thereof.”
Request for Production No. 6 – Contracts - “Produce all contracts and agreements for the sale of natural gas and/or natural gas liquids produced from the BP Oklahoma Wells in effect during the Relevant Time Period to which You or Your related entities or affiliates are or were parties, and all terminations, modifications, amendments and assignments thereof.”
BP America shall produce all such contracts to which it has access for the Relevant Time Period or certify in writing that the records are not available from any source to which it has access. Plaintiff states in its Reply that BP America “[a]lmost certainly” maintains a spreadsheet cross referencing its wells to gas contracts applying to each individual well. This broadens the actual written request made beyond the bounds of reasonable interpretation. If Plaintiff seeks this summary information from BP America, it must properly make the request. It has not through the current Request for Production No. 5 or No. 6.
Request for Production No. 7 – Royalty Payment Policies - “Produce all documents and communications, including, but not limited to, internal memoranda and electronic communications concerning or reflecting Your policies, practices, guidelines and/or standard operating procedures with respect to the payment of royalties on Off Lease Fuel Gas as it relates to the BP Oklahoma Wells during the Relevant Time Period.”
*4 Plaintiff seeks internal documentation from BP America concerning a 1990 and a 2009 or 2010 policy change reflected in discovery from other cases involving BP America concerning the payment of royalties on fuel gas. BP America states it has not identified any non-privileged documents which satisfy this request. BP America shall produce any internal communications or documentation regarding these policy changes. Should any documents responsive to this request entail privileged communications, BP America shall provide a privilege log detailing the particular documents which it contends protects the information from production.
Request for Production No. 8 - Royalty Owners' Communications - “Produce all documents and communications, including, but not limited, to electronic communications, call logs, and letters, related to, concerning or reflecting communications between You and royalty owners in the BP Oklahoma Wells regarding Your payment of royalty, deductions from royalty and/or non-payment of royalty on gas produced from the BP Oklahoma Wells and used as Off Lease Fuel Gas.”
Plaintiff seeks communications with royalty owners concerning payment of royalties on Oklahoma wells. Although not stated, the request should be limited to the Relevant Time Period. BP America states it has produced communications that it sent to royalty owners in Oklahoma. BP America self-limits the request. Should it maintain communications logs or recordations received from Oklahoma royalty owners, it should produce that information. Its objection to the relevancy of the information to the class certification stage of the proceedings is rejected as discovery has not been limited in this case. If BP America is asserting that the information is permanently not available due to the damage to its offices sustained in Hurricane Harvey, it shall so certify or provide a date by which production may be made if the information is not permanently unavailable.
Request for Production No. 10 - Support for Non-Payment of Royalty of Fuel Gas - “Produce all documents that You contend support Your non-payment of royalty on Off Lease Fuel Gas or Your deduction(s) of “in-kind” Off Lease Fuel Gas fees from royalty payments on oil and gas proceeds from the sale of gas produced from the BP Oklahoma Wells.”
BP America objected to this request based upon attorney/client privilege and work product doctrine, but apparently has not produced a log. BP America shall respond to this request as written. If a particular document is subject to the privilege or represents work product, it shall list the specific document on a privilege log and provide it to Plaintiff. BP America's objection based upon proportionality is, again, rejected.
Request for Production No. 13 – Release of Claims - “To the extent You claim that You have been released from any of the claims made in this lawsuit as the result of prior litigation, produce all pleadings and briefs, settlement agreements, releases of liability, discovery requests and responses, court orders, and lists of parties and/or class members, relating to any such litigation.”
BP America objected writing to this request, stating it would produce the responsive documents after meeting and conferring with Plaintiff. It has not been produced. BP America also objected based upon privilege, relevancy, and confidentiality. It adds the objection of proportionality in its Response. It also claims the information is not available due to the inaccessibility of its offices due to Hurricane Harvey.
Relevancy is broadly construed, and a request for discovery should be considered relevant if there is ‘any possibility’ that the information sought may be relevant to the claim or defense of any party. When the discovery sought appears relevant on its face, the party resisting the discovery has the burden to establish the lack of relevance by demonstrating that the requested discovery (1) does not come within the broad scope of relevance as defined under Rule 26(b)(1), or (2) is of such marginal relevance that the potential harm the discovery may cause would outweigh the presumption in favor of broad disclosure. Conversely, when relevancy is not apparent on the face of the request, the party seeking the discovery has the burden to show the relevancy of the request. McCoy v. Whirlpool Corp., 214 F.R.D. 642, 643-44 (D. Kan. 2003).
*5 In this case, it is apparent that the information will potentially limit the relief Plaintiff may seek in the action and make available information which may be pertinent to the claims in this case. The confidentiality of such information will be protected by a protective order in this case. Proportionality, as it is asserted by BP America, does not require a limitation upon discovery. Should information be destroyed due to hurricane damages, BP America will again certify that the discovery sought is no longer available. Consequently, BP America shall comply with the request.
Request for Production No. 14 - Documents Relied Upon to Respond to Discovery - “Produce all documents, communications or correspondence identified in, used to prepare, or otherwise relied upon in preparing, Your responses to Plaintiff's First Interrogatories and Requests for Admissions.”
BP America resists production under this request because the information sought is privileged or represents work product. Unless the document relied upon to respond to Plaintiff's discovery was created after the commencement of the case, BP America shall provide a privilege log which identifies the documents which it contends are subject to the attorney/client privilege or work product doctrine. See EDOK LCvR 26.2.
Request for Production No. 15 - Lease Files - “Produce separately Your entire lease file for each BP Oklahoma Lease grouped by the associated BP Oklahoma Well, which includes, but is not limited to, the following: (a) actual oil and gas lease; (b) lease data sheet; (c) title documents evidencing net mineral acres covered by the lease and ownership of the lease; (d) assignments of working interest; (e) ownership of the underlying oil and mineral interest and title transfers of the same; and (f) any other document contained in Your lease file for each such BP Oklahoma Lease.”
Plaintiff states that BP America has provided approximately 25,000 leases in response to this request but has not produced the items identified as (b) through (f) above. Plaintiff seeks to require BP America to create an electronic spreadsheet which links the leases to individual wells. This Court will not require the creation of this document. BP America undoubtedly has the information which sets out which lease is associated with each well, in whatever form it maintains this information. BP America shall provide the information to permit Plaintiff to make these connections.
Request for Production No. 16 - Division Order Files - “Produce the entire division order department well file for each BP Oklahoma Well which includes, but is not limited to, the following: (a) Division of interest, showing all owners and their corresponding decimal interest, type of interest and address; (b) Division order title opinion; (c) Ownership of working interest and royalty interests tied to individual oil and gas leases and force pooled royalty interests; (d) Listing of oil and gas leases and force pooled royalty interests which shows lease terms, the mineral interest covered, the royalty owners (with their respective quantum of interest) and the working interest owners for each; (e) Title curative documents; (f) Evidence of the Oklahoma Corporation Commission (“OCC”) designated Drilling and Spacing Unit or Secondary Recovery Unit that applies to the BP Oklahoma Well; and (g) Other documents in BP's division order file for each BP Oklahoma Well.”
BP America states that it does not maintain division order files. Plaintiff further limits its request to the production of Division Order Title Opinions. The information sought is relevant and proportional to the needs of the litigation and shall be produced in the form in which it is maintained by BP America.
*6 Interrogatory No. 1 - Well List - “For each of the BP Oklahoma Wells, identify the following in electronic database form on a monthly basis: (a) well name; (b) legal location; (c) BP Well number; (d) API number; (e) gas Btu and gas analysis at wellhead or lease meter; (f) wellhead gas volume at the wellhead or lease meter; (g) gas gatherer and/or processer; and (h) contract terms relating to the use of Off Lease Fuel Gas or in-kind Off Lease Fuel Gas fees.”
BP America objects to this production based upon proportionality and undue burden. The proportionality argument continues to be rejected. If the information is readily available for preparation by BP America from its database, it shall be produced in the form requested. Otherwise, BP America will produce information responsive to the subparts of this Interrogatory individually either through documents responsive to but not yet produced for the relevant Requests for Production.
Interrogatory No. 3 - Additional Fuel Gas Royalty - “State the amount of additional royalty on gas and gas products that would be owed to the Putative Class Members in the BP Oklahoma Wells during the Relevant Time Period if You were required to pay royalty owners on all volumes of gas produced and used as Off Lease Fuel Gas.”
The request appears to be premised upon Plaintiff's theory of the case which it now seeks to have BP America confirm. This Court agrees with BP America that such a hypothetical exceeds fact finding in discovery and requires speculation and assumption of facts in order to respond. BP America need not respond further to this request as formulated.
Interrogatory No. 4 - BP's Methodology to Calculate Royalty Paid on Off Lease Fuel Gas - “Explain Your methodology utilized to calculate the amount of royalty paid to Putative Class Members on Off Lease Fuel Gas, when such methodologies were implemented and whether and how such methodologies changed, if at all, over the Relevant Time Period.”
BP America objected to this request based upon proportionality, which is once again rejected, and that the information sought is likely not to be in BP America's possession because of the extended time period. The methodology employed by BP America for calculating these royalty payments should be available even if the entirety of the records where it was employed is not available. Moreover, a reference to documents produced to Plaintiff is not an appropriate response in discovery when a methodology is requested. BP America shall be required to provide a substantive, time-relevant answer to this request.
Interrogatory No. 5 - Leases Not Requiring Payment on Off Lease Fuel Gas - “For each BP Oklahoma Lease that You contend allows or permits You to not pay royalty on gas produced from the BP Oklahoma Wells and used as Off Lease Fuel Gas or allows or permits You to deduct in-kind Off Lease Fuel Gas fees from royalty paid on gas produced from the BP Oklahoma Wells, identify: (a) the lessor by name, address and email address; (b) the specific BP Oklahoma Lease; and (c) the specific language in the BP Oklahoma Lease You contend supports Your contention as to Your royalty obligations concerning the payment of royalty on Off Lease Fuel Gas; and (d) the factual and legal basis for Your position.”
Plaintiff contends it is seeking for BP America's position on which leases do not require payment of royalty on fuel gas. The Interrogatory goes beyond this more limited request in subparagraph (d). BP America should, however, be required to answer subparagraphs (a)-(c). The Interrogatory does not identify the time period for which it is making the request. Plaintiff shall clarify the inquiry in this regard.
*7 Interrogatory No. 6 - BP's Payment of Off Lease Fuel Gas - “For any time during the Relevant Time Period that You contend You paid any amount of royalty on Off Lease Fuel Gas to any royalty interest owner in a BP Oklahoma Well, identify the: (a) the production month of such royalty payment(s); (b) amount(s) of such royalty payment(s); (c) manner(s) or method(s) You used to calculate the appropriate amount(s) of such royalty payment(s); (d) reason(s) You made such royalty payment(s); (e) specific terms of any lease or royalty clause that You determined required You to make such payment(s); and (f) whether that royalty payment applied to Off Lease Fuel Gas consumed in the gathering system, gas plant and/or the gas plant tailgate.”
BP America contends the request is overly broad, unduly burdensome and not proportional to the needs of the case - even at the merits stage. Requesting monthly royalty information over a thirty year period is unduly burdensome. Plaintiff shall formulate a more narrowly tailored request and shall explore whether sampling would provide the information required, such as identifying the representative lease terms which BP America relied upon in making the payments.
Interrogatory No. 7 - Well List Data - “Describe the relationship between You and each of the BP Oklahoma Wells, including: (a) the date and from whom You acquired Your interest in the Well; (b) Your percentage working interest in the Well and the percentage of the gas marketed on behalf of BP and other working interest owners; (c) whether You are the operator or separately marketing non-operator; and (d) if You have sold Your interest in the Well, when and to whom You sold it.”
While the term “relationship” is somewhat ambiguous, the scope and extent of the information sought is clarified in the subsequent enumerated items. Plaintiff seeks this information in order to verify the accuracy of the well data provided and to insure that all wells are included. BP America shall respond to this request.
Interrogatory No. 8 – Off Lease Fuel Gas Disclosures - “Identify the amount of the deductions in value or volume of gas produced from the BP Oklahoma Wells and used as Off Lease Fuel Gas that You disclosed to any Putative Class Member in any monthly royalty check, counter-foil or check stub, including (a) the details of any such disclosure; (b) the identity of each Putative Class Member to whom You made such disclosure; and (c) the date on which You made each such disclosure.”
BP America objected to this request based upon proportionality, that the request is vague and ambiguous because it does not know the members of the Putative Class, and that the information sought is not likely in its possession, custody, and control. The “vague and ambiguous” objection is somewhat disingenuous since it is based upon the exclusion of persons who Plaintiff's counsel cannot represent under the ethical rules. Discovery is broad based and, as such, BP America can respond to the request and the exclusion may be made from the information provided. If the information is not available to BP America due to destruction or some other means beyond its control, it may certify that fact in response to the request. To the extent a response can be made, BP America will be required to do so.
Interrogatory No. 9 - BP's Policies, Practices, Guidelines and/or Standard Operating Procedures - “Explain any and all of BP's policies, practices, guidelines and/or standard operating procedures regarding the payment of royalty on gas produced from the BP Oklahoma Wells and used as Off Lease Fuel Gas during the Relevant Time Period.”
This request is similar to Request for Production No. 7 except a request is made to “explain” the policies. In its reply, Plaintiff states that the information sought concerns policy changes. The Interrogatory is ambiguous in its request for BP America to “explain” and shall be clarified.
*8 Interrogatory No. 12 - Volume of Fuel Gas and Royalty Treatment - “Identify in electronic database form an accounting for any gas produced from the BP Oklahoma Wells and used as Off Lease Fuel Gas during the Relevant Time Period on a month-by-month basis, and an accounting as to whether or not royalty was paid on such gas volumes. If payment was made, explain how it was calculated. If royalty payment was not made, explain why not. In Your answer, for each well by month, state the amount of Off Lease Fuel Gas used both on a mcf and mmbtu basis.”
BP America states that the information is not available in “electronic database form” and that creating such a database is unduly burdensome. Plaintiff cannot require BP America to create a database for its use in this litigation. Plaintiff shall reformulate its request. If some measure of the historical information has been destroyed or made unavailable to BP America, it shall certify that fact in response to this request for the period in which it is not available.
Interrogatory No. 13 - Lease Data - “For each BP Oklahoma Lease please provide the following: (a) BP lease number; (b) date, lessor, lessee, book/page of recording; (c) the net mineral acres covered by the lease in each BP Oklahoma Well and the applicable spacing unit size.”
BP America has not offered a valid basis to decline production of this information. It shall provide a response.
Interrogatory No. 14 - BP Affiliates - “Provide the names of all current and past affiliates of BP America Production Company that have marketed gas and paid royalty on BP Oklahoma Wells during the Relevant Time Period.”
Interrogatory No. 15 - “Catch-all” - “Provide the entire factual and legal basis for any response to a Request For Admission that is anything less than a clear and unequivocal Admission.”
The sole basis for not responding to these Interrogatories is that BP America asserts Plaintiff has exceeded the allowable number of Interrogatories when subparts are included. A party is limited to 25 written interrogatories, “including all discrete subparts.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(a)(1). The Advisory Notes to this Rule provides some clarification in stating
Each party is allowed to serve 25 interrogatories upon any other party, but must secure leave of court (or stipulation from the opposing party) to serve a larger number. Parties cannot evade this presumptive limitation through the device of joining as “subparts” questions that seek information about discrete separate subjects. However, a question asking about communications of a particular type should be treated as a single interrogatory even though it requests that the time, place, persons present, and contents be stated separately for each such communication.
Advisory Committee Note, 146 F.R.D. 401, 675-76 (Fed. 1993).
Interrogatories which contain subparts directed at eliciting details concerning a “common theme” should generally be considered a single question. Williams v. Board of County Comm., 192 F.R.D. 698, 701 (D.Kan. 2000) quoting 8A Wright, Miller & Marcus, Federal Practice and Procedure, § 2168.1 at 261 (2d Ed. 1994). At the same time, an interrogatory which contains subparts that inquire into discrete areas should, in most cases, be counted as more than one interrogatory. Id.
This Court calculates Plaintiff's requests as follows: Interrogatory Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 (6 discrete parts), 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, for a total of 20. BP America will be required to answer Interrogatory Nos. 14 and 15.
*9 Defendant's Rule 26(c) Motion for Protective Order Against Corporate Representative Deposition (Docket Entry #77) –
BP America requested a protective order against Plaintiff taking the deposition of its corporate representative under Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6)based upon (1) insufficient time to prepare the witness based upon the date of the noticing and the date of the scheduled deposition; (2) the case, including discovery, should be stayed pending a determination of the effect of the Cecil case upon the viability of this case; and (3) objections to the proposed questioning of the representative. The first objection has been resolved by the passage of time. The second objection is of no moment to this Court since no stay of this case has been entered and the argument that the putative class in this case is merely a subset of the putative class in Cecil has not been resolved. The Court will, therefore, only address the propriety of the topics of inquiry proposed by Plaintiff.
BP America asserts that Topics 1-4 exceed the scope of Plaintiff's claims in this case and Topics 1 and 4 are prohibitively broad. Topic 1 requires the representative to testify regarding “all aspects of BP's royalty payment policy and practices from January 1, 1988 to present.” This topic is unreasonably broad. A protective order may issue to protect a person from undue burden. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)(1). Plaintiff's stated purpose for this area of inquiry surrounds the noted royalty payment policy changes in 1990 and 2009-10. These areas are addressed in Topics 2 and 3. Should further need for inquiry into BP America's royalty payment policies outside of Topics 2 and 3 become apparent during the course of the deposition, Plaintiff may petition this Court for expanding the scope of the deposition.
Additionally, Topic 5 does not advance the discovery into the potential claims and defenses at issue in this case. The representative need not be prepared on this topic.
The remainder of the topics attached to the deposition notice and appended to Defendant's Motion for Protective Order at Exhibit 2 are appropriate areas of inquiry. BP America's corporate representative should be prepared to answer inquiries into these topics.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff's First Motion to Compel Discovery (Docket Entry #72) is hereby GRANTED, in part, and DENIED, in part, as more fully set out herein. BP America shall produce the documents and answer the interrogatories as directed in this Order by MAY 11, 2018.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that and Defendant's Rule 26(c) Motion for Protective Order Against Corporate Representative Deposition (Docket Entry #77) is hereby GRANTED, as to Topics 1 and 5 as set forth in the exhibit to the deposition notice. The parties shall confer and agree upon one or more dates for BP America to produce its Rule 30(b)(6) corporate representative in compliance with Plaintiff's notices. However, the deposition shall occur within thirty (30) days of the entry of this Order. Should the parties be unable to agree upon a date, they shall immediately notify this Court and a date and place will be ordered.
*10 IT IS SO ORDERED this 18th day of April, 2018.