Venver, S.A. v. GEFCO, Inc.
Venver, S.A. v. GEFCO, Inc.
2023 WL 3269700 (W.D. Okla. 2023)
March 31, 2023

Palk, Scott L.,  United States District Judge

Failure to Preserve
Cooperation of counsel
Download PDF
To Cite List
Summary
The Court directed the parties to produce all documents responsive to the requests, including any ESI, and to provide a privilege log if any documents are being withheld on privilege grounds. The Court also noted that the parties were not proceeding in good faith in their meet and confer attempts.
Additional Decisions
VENVER, S.A. and AMERICAS COIL TUBING, LLC, Plaintiffs,
v.
GEFCO, INC. and ASTEC INDUSTRIES, INC., Defendants
Case No. CIV-18-790-SLP
United States District Court, W.D. Oklahoma
Signed March 31, 2023

Counsel

Bradley A. Gungoll, Vance T. Nye, Gungoll Jackson Box & Devoll, Oklahoma City, OK, Reagan Pratt, Paul D. Flack, Pratt & Flack LLP, Houston, TX, Byron Charles Keeling, Keeling & Downes PC, Houston, TX, for Plaintiffs.
Anthony A. Jackson, Nathan L. Kinard, Pro Hac Vice, William R. Dearing, Chambliss Bahner & Stophel PC, Chattanooga, TN, Joel W. Harmon, Paige A. Masters, Crowe & Dunlevy, Oklahoma City, OK, for Defendant GEFCO Inc.
Clint A. Claypole, Long Claypole & Blakley PLC, Enid, OK, for Defendant Astec Industries Inc.
Palk, Scott L., United States District Judge

ORDER

*1 On March 21, 2023, the Court conducted a hearing on Defendant GEFCO'S Motion to Compel and Brief in Support [Doc. No. 170]. Prior to setting the hearing, the Court directed the parties to meet and confer, see Order [Doc. No. 242], and prior to the commencement of the hearing, the Court again directed the parties to meet and confer, see Order [Doc. No. 251]. The parties were able to resolve some matters, but the majority of matters at issue remain unresolved.[1]
At the hearing, it became apparent to the Court that despite the opportunities provided to the parties to attempt to resolve the Motion, the parties do not appear to be proceeding in good faith, in the spirit of what is contemplated by the meet and confer requirements of this Court. The Court notes, for example, that Plaintiff has raised many objections to discovery on grounds of overbreadth but then produced documents. It is unclear whether additional documents exist and are being withheld on grounds of overbreadth, or whether Plaintiff has, in fact, produced all documents and no other documents exist. Straightforward communication about these matters – by both parties – would greatly reduce the need for Court intervention. And, in fact, as set forth below, the Court will require Plaintiff to affirmatively state whether, as to such requests, all documents have been produced.
Flipping to the other side, Defendant made many statements at the hearing to attempt to “clarify” what was being requested by it and repeatedly made argument to the Court about “what it really wanted” (as opposed to what was actually asked for) – which only served to support Plaintiff's overbreadth arguments. In this vein, many of the production requests by Defendant appear to lack any relevance to the claims and defenses at issue. One notable example is Defendant's Fourth Request for Production No. 23 which seeks, inter alia, “[d]ocuments from all ... fire drills, in connection with the VR-500.” Although Defendant purported to argue that this is an issue that speaks to damages, Defendant is advised that the Court found the argument to verge on frivolousness. Moreover, Defendant's requests are replete with the use of broad language (e.g., “relating in any way to”) and Defendant should attempt to narrow the language of those requests in an effort to reconcile any outstanding disputes related thereto.
*2 In light of the foregoing, the Court directs the parties to further meet and confer, candidly and in good faith, to resolve the matters that remain outstanding. The Court holds the Motion in abeyance until such time as the parties have done so.
The parties now have the benefit of the hearing which telegraphs the Court's questions, concerns and/or inclinations as to the scope and relevance of the outstanding discovery.[2] The Court anticipates the parties' ability to completely resolve these matters. However, if matters remain in dispute, the parties shall file a Joint Notice to the Court. The Notice must be accompanied by a thorough recitation (and, if appropriate, documentation) of what transpired at the meet and confer. Moreover, the Joint Notice must clearly delineate to the Court the following: (1) what additional production or responses, if any, have been made; (2) whether all documents responsive to a particular request have, in fact, been produced; (3) the relevance of any outstanding discovery tied to a specific claim, defense, or damages; (4) the precise reason for any withheld production or response;[3] (5), and citation to appropriate substantive authority to support the compelling or withholding of the discovery that remains at issue.[4]
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the parties shall meet and confer within 14 days of the date of this Order.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties shall file their Joint Notice within 21 days of the date of this Order. If the Joint Notice does not strictly comply with the terms of this Order, it will be summarily stricken by the Court and if appropriate, sanctions will be imposed.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 31st day of March, 2023.

Footnotes

At the hearing, the parties represented to the Court that the following matters remain unresolved:
(1) GEFCO'S First Request for Production to Venver, S.A. (Venver) Nos. 2, 7, 13, 14 and 15;
(2) GEFCO's First Request for Production to Americas Coil Tubing, LLC (ACT) Nos. 2, 7, 13, 14 and 15;
(3) GEFCO's Second Request for Production to Venver Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4;
(4) GEFCO's Third Request for Production to Venver No. 5;
(5) GEFCO's Second Request for Production to ACT Nos. 4 and 5;
cont'd ...
(6) GEFCO's First Interrogatories to Venver Nos. 2 and 7;
(7) GEFCO's Second Interrogatories to Venver Nos. 1, 2 and 3;
(8) GEFCO's Fourth Request for Production to Venver Nos. 1, 3, 4, 12, 13, 23, 24, 36, 39 and 41; and
(9) GEFCO'S Third Request for Production to Americas Coil Tubing (ACT) Nos. 24 and 40.
The Court emphasizes that it has provided only a few examples of deficiencies regarding the parties' meet and confer attempts. The Court's examples are for illustrative purposes only and certainly not comprehensive.
If discovery is being withheld on privilege grounds, the relevant privilege log shall be provided to the Court.
Referring the Court to argument made in motions currently pending before the Court will not be permitted. The parties must provide supporting substantive authority in support of their respective positions in the Joint Notice itself.