WOOD GROUP PRESSURE CONTROL, L.P v. B&B OILFIELD SERVICES, INC., ET AL CIVIL ACTION NO: 06-3002 United States District Court, E.D. Louisiana Filed January 08, 2007 Counsel Sam Zurik, III, Robert P. Lombardi, Kullman Firm, Benjamin H. Banta, Entergy Services Inc. Legal Services- Employment/Benefits/Labor, New Orleans, LA, for Wood Group Pressure Control, L.P. Louis M. Phillips, Gordon, Arata, McCollam, Duplantis & Eagan, Baton Rouge, LA, Brent Bennett Barriere, Fishman Haygood, Donna Phillips Currault, Gordon, Arata, McCollam, Duplantis & Eagan, New Orleans, LA, for B&B Oilfield Services, Inc. Stephen H. Kupperman, John W. Joyce, Barrasso, Usdin, Kupperman, Freeman & Sarver, LLC, New Orleans, LA, for Ricky Poche. Joelle Flannigan Evans, Andrea V. Timpa, Kyle D. Schonekas, William P. Gibbens, Schonekas, Evans, McGoey & McEachin, LLC, New Orleans, LA, for Bryant Broussard. Robert W. Grant, Brad James Gegenheimer, Grant & Barrow, APLC, Gretna, LA, for Hi-Tech Quality, Inc., Ha Tran Quach. Roby, Karen W., United States Magistrate Judge ORDER *1 Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Discovery Responses (doc. # 82) filed by the plaintiff, Wood Group Pressure Control, L.P., seeking an order from this Court compelling a defendant, B&B Oil Field Services, Inc., to provide more complete discovery responses to outstanding discovery. Wood Group also seeks the recovery of costs incurred in the filing of this motion. B&B filed an opposition memorandum. I. Factual and Procedural Background According to Wood Group’s complaint, Ricky Poche and Bryant Broussard are former employees of Wood Group. Poche resigned on March 18, 2004 to work for B&B Oilfield Services, Inc., and Broussard resigned on May 2, 2005 to work for B&B. Wood Group contends that Poche was enticed to leave Wood Group and join B&B because the owners, Bobby Ryan (later identified as Bobby Ryne), and Brent Trout (later identified as Brent Trauth), agreed to give Poche an equity share in B&B if he would supply B&B with confidential and proprietary information from Wood Group, including software, mechanical prints and drawings, intellectual property and trade secrets. Wood Group further contends that while still employed by Wood Group, Broussard supplied Poche, Taylor, and Trout with confidential information. Wood Group also contends that B&B reprinted the confidential information and provided the information to a third party, Hi-Tech. Wood Group contends that Hi-Tech knew the information was unauthorized and the confidential property of Wood Group. Wood Group then brought this suit against B&B, Ryan, Trout, Poche, Broussard, Taylor, a former independent contractor for Wood Group and now equity owner of B&B, Hi-Tech, and Ha Tran Quach, the president and equity owner of Hi-Tech. Wood Group seeks, among other things, a temporary restraining order, preliminary injunction, a permanent injunction prohibiting the defendants from using any of Wood Group’s confidential or proprietary information, and compensatory and other damages. Wood Group propounded its First Request for Production on Documents on June 29, 2006, and its First Set of Interrogatories and a Second Request for Production of Documents on July 7, 2006. It then propounded a Third Request for Production of Documents and Second Set of Interrogatories on July 27, 2006. It further propounded a Fourth Request for Production of Documents and Third Set of Interrogatories on August 25, 2006. Finally, it propounded its Fifth Request for Production of Documents and a Fourth Set of Interrogatories on September 8, 2006. B&B timely responded to the discovery, however, Wood Group, unsatisfied with the discovery filed the subject motion to compel. II. Standard of Review Rule 26(b)(1) provides that “[p]arties may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged that is relevant of the claim or defense of any party.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). The discovery rules are accorded a broad and liberal treatment to effect their purpose of adequately informing litigants in civil trials. Hebert v Lando, 441 U.S. 153, 176 (1979). Nevertheless, discovery does have “ultimate and necessary boundaries.” Oppenheimer Fund, Inc. v. Sanders, 437 U.S. 340, 351 (1978) (quoting Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495, 507 (1947)). Further, “it is well established that the scope of discovery is within the sound discretion of the trial court.” Coleman v. American Red Cross, 23 F.3d 1091, 1096 (6th Cir.1994). III. Analysis *2 During the hearing on this matter, the Court noted that the discovery in this case was spiraling out of control. Wood Group had propounded some 40 interrogatories on B&B without first seeking leave to propound more than the 25 allowed under the rules as well as upwards of 170 requests for production. Many times, Wood Group sought the information in multiple interrogatories or requests. The Court further noted that most of the objections asserted by B&B were baseless and simply rote objections. However, the Court will not order the same information to be produced in multiple ways in response to multiple requests. The Court requested that Wood Group indicate what areas of discovery it still seeks from B&B. Wood Group then limited its request to those items it would like to receive and in light of the Court’s observation, Wood Group narrowed most of its overlapping discovery. Moreover, it conceded during the hearing that it had propounded overlapping discovery. Thus, to the extent that Wood Group did not address a specific interrogatory or request at the hearing, it is denied as duplicative because it was addressed by another request or interrogatory. A. Mechanical Drawings Mechanical drawings are a case in point. Wood Group asked for copies of mechanical drawings in Third Request for Production Number 3 and Fourth Request for Production Number 6. However, Wood Group only addressed Fourth Request Number 6 at the hearing which is addressed below. Accordingly, its motion to compel a response to Third Request for Production Number 3 is denied as duplicative. 1. Fourth Request for Production Number 6 Request for Production Number 6 seeks all prints or machine drawings and/or other similar documents in B&B’s possession. B&B objected on the basis of overbreadth and relevance and that the information was confidential. It did, however, agree to produce documents which may be responsive subject to a protective order. During the hearing, Wood Group indicated to the Court that B&B had produced some documents, but that it had indicated that it was withholding others. Wood Group requested that the Court order B&B to either produce the remaining documents or produce a redacted list of the drawings so that it could determine why it was withholding the documents. B&B indicated that the only responsive drawing it was withholding was a drawing of a tool that was wholly unrelated to this litigation and was in the process of being patented. Wood Group stated that the fact that it was a tool was not clear from B&B’s supplemental response, but indicated that if that were the only documents withheld by B&B then it was satisfied. Thus, the motion to compel a response to Fourth Set of Requests for Production Number 6 is denied as moot. 2. Third Set of Interrogatories Number 7 Third Set of Interrogatory Number 7 seeks the identity of the individual that created the machine drawings or prints produced in response to a previous interrogatory. B&B objected, indicating that because of the volume of information sought, any response would be more appropriately addressed through deposition. During the hearing, the Court noted that one attorney cannot tell another attorney how discovery should be conducted. As the Federal Rules make clear, “methods of discovery can be used in any sequence.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(d). The objection is overruled, and the motion to compel is granted as to Third Set of Interrogatories Number 7. B. Financials *3 During the hearing, the Court noted that Wood Group sought financial information about B&B in several different places throughout its discovery. Specifically, it sought financial information in its Third Request for Production Numbers 2, 3, 5, its Second Set of Interrogatories Number 4, its Fourth Set of Request for Production number 1, 2, 45, 52, its Third Set of Interrogatories Number 1, 2, 5, its September Request for Production Number 1-5, and its Fourth Set of Interrogatories number 3, and 4. The Court noted that while many of the objections interposed by B&B could be baseless, it would not order the production of documents in multiple ways. The Court ordered that Wood Group comb through its requests and pick one instead of forcing B&B to answer multiple versions of the same question. 1. Fourth Request for Production Number 1 The parties conferred, and Wood Group indicated that it sought a response to Fourth Request for Production number 1 which required the production of B&B’s annual reports since 2002. It then agreed to waive its remaining requests for financial information, except for the request detailed below, but reserved its right to re-urge its requests on this issue if the annual reports do not contain the information required. Accordingly, the objection to this request is overruled and the motion to compel is granted for Fourth Request for Production Number 1. 2. Second Set of Interrogatories Number 1 This interrogatory seeks B&B’s profits, revenues, and sales since 2002. B&B objected on the grounds of relevance and confidentiality. During the hearing, B&B indicated that it had provided the specific sales information for the twelve parts Wood Group identified as allegedly misappropriated, but redacted the price. The Court noted that punitive damages are at issue in this case, so the trier of fact would be required to determine how much money B&B made on the sales. B&B then contended that the measure of punitive damages would be based on the gross sales and thus individual sales is unnecessary. However, upon further questioning by the Court, B&B conceded that it had not provided those numbers either. The Court then overruled the objection as to the Second Set of Interrogatories Number 1 seeking gross sales and ordered B&B to produce these figures for those twelve parts Wood Group identified as allegedly being misappropriated.[1] C. Employee Lists and Organizational Charts Third Request for Production Number 10 seeks all rosters, lists, or other documents showing everyone employed by B&B since 2004. B&B objected on the grounds of relevance, confidentiality, and relevance. Fourth Request for Production Number 54 seeks organizational charts for the entire organization. B&B again objected on the grounds of relevance, confidentiality, and relevance. During the hearing, Wood Group contended that it seeks employee lists and organizational charts to identify potential witnesses and to ascertain those individuals who might have knowledge of the alleged theft of proprietary information. The Court concluded that there is no basis to conclude that an employee list or organizational chart is relevant. In this case, the alleged theft was done by a few individuals and not the entire organization. Unless an employee’s name comes up during deposition or through other discovery there would be no basis for the employee to be called as a witness. The objection is sustained and the motion to compel Third Request for Production Number 10 and Fourth Request for Production Number 54 is denied. D. Customer and Sales Information *4 Wood Group propounded several requests and interrogatories requiring B&B to provide customer and sales information. During the hearing, Wood Group indicated it sought responses to the requests detailed below. However, Wood Group has also propounded one duplicative interrogatory, Third Set of Interrogatories Number 1, and the Court will deny the request to compel this interrogatory as duplicative. As a side note Wood Group identifies in its motion other requests it contends seek customer and sales information. However, an actual review of the discovery reveals that the identified requests actually seek cell phones records, financial statements, and machine drawings and are wholly unrelated to this issue. 1. First Request for Production Number 3 First Request for Production Number 3 seeks sales information for wellheads, valves, and wellhead components sold by B&B. B&B objected on the basis of relevance, confidentiality, and overbreadth. B&B then produced some documents in response but redacted the financial information on the sales invoices and limited the information to those twelve parts that Wood group identified as being misappropriated. During the hearing, Wood Group indicated that it sought unredacted versions of all sales documents. The Court noted that in this case, Wood Group is entitled to determine the price that B&B sold the allegedly misappropriated parts for so that it could determine whether B&B had a copy of Wood Group’s price list and simply undersold it. It then ordered that B&B provide unredacted copies of the sales documents. The Court concluded, however, that the sales documents would be limited to those parts that B&B allegedly misappropriated. Therefore, the objection was overruled and the motion to compel a response to First Request for Production Number 3 is granted, but the production is limited to sales documents of those products B&B allegedly misappropriated. 2. First Set of Interrogatories Number 3 First Set of Interrogatories Number 3 seeks all of B&B’s customers since 2004. B&B objected on the basis of relevance, confidentiality, and overbreadth. However, it then provided a list of customers to whom it sold at least one of the twelve parts. During the hearing, Wood Group indicated that it sought the entire customer list. The Court, however, concluded that the identity of customers that B&B did not sell the misappropriated parts to was simply not relevant to this action. Accordingly, the objection to the First Set of Interrogatories Number 3 is sustained and the motion to compel this request is denied. E. Computer Information Wood Group also propounded several requests in an attempt to identify and obtain relevant computer and electronically stored records. Again, Wood Group propounded 21 requests seeking this information. During the hearing, Wood Group addressed those requests detailed below. The remaining requests are duplicative. Thus, the Court denies Fourth Request for Production Number 57-60, Third Set of Interrogatories Number 10-20, and 27-29 as duplicative. The Court addresses the remaining requests in turn. 1. Fourth Request for Production Number 55 Fourth Request for Production Number 5 seeks all backup tapes produced since 2004 which contain relevant data, including, among other things, communications between the defendants, and drawings. B&B objected on the grounds of relevance, broadness, and confidentiality. *5 During the hearing, the Court noted that Wood Group sought all back up tapes and inquired as to whether Wood Group knew exactly how many back up tapes there were, and whether Wood Group had any idea of the costs of the production. Wood Group indicated that it did not know the answer to either of the questions. The Court then noted that Wood Group sought all backup tapes from 2004 onward without any type of specific tailoring to specific information or specific computers such that the request is overbroad. The objection is sustained, and the motion to compel a response to Fourth Request for Production Number 5 is denied. 2. Fourth Request for Production Number 53 and 54 Request 53 seeks all written policies, guidelines and directives relating to data retention policies as well as other organizational policies regarding employees’ computer use and data handling. Request 54 seeks information about the department responsible for the maintenance and or functionality of any computer system. B&B objected to both requests on the grounds of relevance, broadness, and confidentiality. During the hearing, the Court noted that the information sought is relevant because information found on the hard drive could provide information about the allegedly stolen drawings. Accordingly, it overruled the objections. The motion to compel on these requests is granted. 3. Fourth Request for Production Number 56 Fourth Request for Production Number 56 seeks all computers or hard drives that have ever been used by any of the individually named defendants for inspection and/oR copying. B&B objected on the grounds of relevance, broadness, and confidentiality. During the hearing, the Court inquired from Wood Group as to how many computers it sought, and Wood Group indicated that it was not sure. The Court concluded because the request seeks all computers ever used by the defendants with no time limit, the request is overbroad and the objection is sustained. The motion to compel a response to Fourth Request for Production Number 56 is denied. F. Phone Records Wood Group propounded two requests and one interrogatory seeking information about phone records. During the hearing, Wood Group indicated that it sought a response to its Fourth Request for Production Number 4 and that it was not concerned with the other requests. Thus, Fourth Request for Production Number 5 and Third Set of Interrogatories number 3 are denied as moot. 1. Fourth Request for Production Number 4 Fourth Request for Production Number 4 seeks all cell phone records from September 1, 2003 through 2005 for Poche, Broussard, Trauth, and Rhyne. B&B objected on the grounds of relevance, broadness, confidentiality and harassment. During the hearing, Wood Group noted that it specifically sought a record of cell phone calls between the parties. B&B then noted that Trauth and Rhyne are not employees of B&B, they are the equity owners. The Court then inquired as to whether B&B paid their cell phone bills but B&B did not know the answer. The Court noted that if Poche and Broussard were involved with Trauth and Rhyne to misappropriate drawings from Wood Group cell phone records would show how often the individuals communicated and the time period of the communications. The Court then ordered B&B To produce cell phone records it possessed to the extent that B&B paid the cell phone bills for Trauth and Ryan from September 1, 2003 through September 30, 2005. The Court further concluded that B&B could redact calls between individuals other than between Poche, Broussard, Trauth, and Rhyne as these calls would be irrelevant. Accordingly the Court overruled the objection. The motion to compel Fourth Request for Production Number 4 is granted. G. Catalogues *6 During the hearing Wood Group indicated to the Court that its First Set of Interrogatories number 2 and Fourth Request for Production request number 69 seeking catalogues was satisfied. Accordingly, the motion to compel for these requests for production is denied as moot. The Court also notes that because of the amount of production propounded by Wood Group, much of which was duplicative, its request for costs is denied. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Discovery Responses (doc. # 82) is GRANTED in PART and DENIED in PART. It is granted to the extent that B&B must respond to First Request for Production Number 3, Second Set of Interrogatories Number 1, Third Set of Interrogatories Number 7, and Fourth Request for Production Number 1, 4, 53, and 54 as outlined in this Order. It is denied in all other respects. Footnotes [1] The Court notes that at the hearing it identified the relevant interrogatory as Second Set of Interrogatories number 2, but it was actually referring to Second Set of Interrogatories number 1.