Glover v. EQT Corp.
Glover v. EQT Corp.
2023 WL 3922650 (N.D. W. Va. 2023)
May 10, 2023

Bailey, John P.,  United States District Judge

Failure to Produce
Attorney Work-Product
Waiver
Form of Production
Download PDF
To Cite List
Summary
The Court paid special attention to the Electronically Stored Information, noting that the documents and information were complicated and difficult to understand. The Court found that the delay in filing the Motion to Compel was not unreasonable and that Magistrate Judge Mazzone did not abuse his discretion in directing defendants to supplement the discovery response.
Additional Decisions
WILLIAM D. GLOVER, LINDA K. GLOVER, his wife, RICHARD A. GLOVER, CHRISTY L. GLOVER, his wife, Individually, and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated; and GOSHORN RIDGE, LLC, Plaintiffs,
v.
EQT CORPORATION, a Pennsylvania corporation, EQT PRODUCTION COMPANY, a Pennsylvania corporation, EQT ENERGY, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, TRANS ENERGY, INC., a Nevada Corporation, REPUBLIC ENERGY VENTURES, LLC, a Texas limited liability company, REPUBLIC ENERGY OPERATING, LLC, a Texas limited liability company, EQT GATHERING, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, Defendants
CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:19-CV-223
United States District Court, N.D. West Virginia
Signed May 10, 2023

Counsel

Andrew R. Cutright, Roger L. Cutright, Cutright Law PLLC, Morgantown, WV, Clayton J. Fitzsimmons, Mark A. Colantonio, Robert J. Fitzsimmons, Robert P. Fitzsimmons, Donald M. Kresen, Fitzsimmons Law Firm, PLLC, Wheeling, WV, Eric M. Gordon, Berry, Kessler, Crutchfield, Taylor & Gordon, Moundsville, WV, Marvin W. Masters, The Masters Law Firm, LC, Charleston, WV, for Plaintiffs.
Chelsea Rebecca Heinz, Mark K. Dausch, Babst Calland Clements & Zomnir, P.C., Pittsburgh, PA, David Dehoney, Pro Hac Vice, Jonathan H. Koppell, Pro Hac Vice, Michelman & Robinson LLP, New York, NY, Jennifer Jo Hicks, Timothy M. Miller, Tiffany Marie Arbaugh, Babst, Calland, Clements & Zomnir, P.C., Charleston, WV, Lauren W. Varnado, Pro Hac Vice, Michelman & Robinson LLP, Houston, TX, for Defendants.
Bailey, John P., United States District Judge

ORDER

*1 Pending before this Court is Defendants' Motion to Stay Discovery Pending Ruling on Objections to Magistrate Judge's Order (Doc. No 331) [Doc. 336], filed May 8, 2023, and Defendants' Rule 72 Objections to Order Granting Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel [Doc. 337], filed May 9, 2023. For the following reasons, this Court will deny the Motion to Stay Discovery and overrule defendants' objections.
I. Applicable Law
Review of Magistrate Judge Order
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a), a district court may refer to a magistrate judge “a pretrial matter not dispositive of a party's claim or defense.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a). The parties may file objections to the magistrate judge's order, and the magistrate judge's ruling may be reversed only on a finding that the order is “clearly erroneous or is contrary to law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). “A finding is ‘clearly erroneous’ when although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.” United States v. United States Gypsum Co., 333 U.S. 354 (1948). In light of the broad discretion given to a magistrate judge in the resolution of nondispositive discovery disputes, the court should only overrule a magistrate judge's determination if this discretion is abused. Detection Sys., Inc. v. Pittway Corp., 96 F.R.D. 152, 154 (W.D. N.Y. 1982); Shoop v. Hott, 2010 WL 5067567, at *2 (N.D. W.Va. Dec. 6, 2010) (Stamp, J.).
Review of Motion to Stay
This Court possesses the inherent authority to stay a matter in furtherance of judicial economy. See Landis v. North American Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254–55 (1936) (“The power to stay proceedings is incidental to the power inherent in every court to control the disposition of the causes on its docket with economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants. How this can best be done calls for the exercise of judgment, which must weigh competing interests and maintain an even balance.”). In the exercise of its judgment, the court must ensure that the stay is not “immoderate” and limit the scope of the stay within a reasonable time frame. Id. at 257. In assessing a motion to stay, district courts in this state have utilized three factors based on Landis:
(1) the interests of judicial economy,
(2) hardship and equity to the moving party if the action is not stayed, and
(3) potential prejudice to the non-moving party.
Kamara v. Polk, 2014 WL 5810456, *3 (N.D. W.Va. 2014) (Groh, J.); White v. Ally Fin. Inc., 969 F.Supp.2d 451, 462 (S.D. W.Va. 2013).
II. Discussion
On April 25, 2023, Magistrate Judge Mazzone entered an Order Granting Plaintiffs' Renewed Motion to Compel Defendants to Fully Answer Certain Interrogatories and Produce Documents Pursuant to F.R.C.P. 33 and 34 [Doc. 331].
Defendants lodge three (3) objections to the subject Order. First, defendants argue plaintiffs' failure to timely move to compel was not excused. See [Doc. 337 at 8–9]. Second, defendants argue the Court cannot require EQT to create and supply work product. See [id. at 10–12]. Third, defendants state they properly relied on Rule 33(d) in responding to the Interrogatories. See [id. at 12–14].
*2 Magistrate Judge Mazzone granted Plaintiffs' Renewed Motion to Compel Defendants to Fully Answer Certain Interrogatories and Produce Documents. See [Doc. 331]. Having conducted an extensive review of the same, this Court finds that defendants have failed to demonstrate that the magistrate judge abused his discretion in ruling on the Motion to Compel.
This Court would first like to point out that this case has been pending since July 19, 2019. Seeing as this case has been pending for over three and a half years, there are over 330 docket entries, and over eighteen (18) attorneys of record, this Court agrees with Magistrate Judge Mazzone in saying “this case is not a typical case. The documents and information at issue are complicated and difficult to understand.” This case is complex.
Defendants first argue plaintiffs' failure to timely move to compel was not excused. See [Doc. 337 at 8–9]. According to LR Civ. P. 37.08, “[a] motion to compel ... is deemed waived if it is not filed within thirty (30) days after the discovery response or disclosure requirement sought was due, which date is determined in accordance with a rule or by mutual agreement among the parties, unless such failure to file the motion was caused by excusable neglect or by some action of the non-moving party.” Likewise, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provide thirty (30) days for responses to interrogatories and requests for production to be provided. Fed. R. Civ. P. 33 and 34.
The Court has “discretion to examine the circumstances surrounding an untimely motion to compel in order to avoid what may constitute overly technical applications of the Rule.” Patrick v. Teays Valley Trustees, LLC, 297 F.R.D. 248, 254 (N.D. W.Va. Dec. 12, 2013) (Seibert, M.J.). This Court finds that Magistrate Judge Mazzone did not abuse his discretion in finding the delay was not unreasonable. See [Doc. 331 at 3]. This Court agrees with Magistrate Judge Mazzone that “[g]iven the ongoing meet and confer[s], the rolling document production, [ ] Defendants' reliance upon documents to answer the discovery requests at issue, and given the voluminous number of documents involved,” the delay was not unreasonable.
Defendants second and third objections are (1) that the Court cannot require EQT to create and supply work product and (2) defendants properly relied on Rule 33(d) in responding to interrogatories. See [Doc. 337 at 10–14]. Defendants assert that “the ruling requiring EQT to create new documents that do not already exist is clearly erroneous and contrary to law, unsupported by any legal precedent or authority.” See [id. at 11]. This Court does not find that Magistrate Judge Mazzone abused his discretion in directing defendants to supplement the discovery response by providing the information sought in the format requested and by providing the documents sought in the discovery request.
III. Conclusion
In sum, this Court finds that the magistrate judge did not abuse his discretion when considering the subject discovery dispute, and Defendants' Rule 72 Objections to Order Granting Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel [Doc. 337] are OVERRULED.
The Motion to Stay [Doc. 336] is DENIED because the objections have been ruled on and discovery can continue.
It is so ORDERED.