Glover v. EQT Corp.
Glover v. EQT Corp.
2023 WL 5321809 (N.D. W. Va. 2023)
July 27, 2023

Bailey, John P.,  United States District Judge

Failure to Produce
Exclusion of Evidence
Sanctions
Download PDF
To Cite List
Summary
The Court refused to sanction EQT and ordered them to produce the documents they were ordered to create and produce in the April 25, 2023 Discovery Order by August 24, 2023. However, the Court did not order EQT to supplement Interrogatory 2(l) with respect to ESI.
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, Wheeling
Signed July 27, 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 Plaintiff.
Chelsea Rebecca Heinz, Mark K. Dausch, Babst Calland, Pittsburgh, PA, David Dehoney, Pro Hac Vice, Lauren W. Varnado, 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, for Defendants.
Bailey, John P., United States District Judge

ORDER

*1 Pending before this Court is Plaintiffs' Motion for Sanctions Against the EQT Defendants for Their Continuous Failure to Obey This Court's Discovery Order [Doc. 366] and accompanying Memorandum in Support [Doc. 366-1], filed July 11, 2023. Defendants[1] filed a Response in Opposition [Doc. 386] on July 24, 2023.
I. Background and Standard of Review
Seeing as this case has been pending since July 19, 2019, the undersigned and the parties are intimately familiar with facts involved in the above-styled case so this Court will not belabor on the “background” of the case.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(b)(2)(A) vests courts with a variety of sanctions when a party fails to obey an order to provide or permit discovery. These sanctions may include:
(i) directing that the matters embraced in the order or other designated facts be taken as established for purposes of the action, as the prevailing party claims;
(ii) prohibiting the disobedient party from supporting or opposing designated claims or defenses, or from introducing designated matters in evidence;
(iii) striking pleadings in whole or in part;
(iv) staying further proceedings until the order is obeyed;
(v) dismissing the action or proceeding in whole or in part;
(vi) rendering a default judgment against the disobedient party; or
(vii) treating as contempt of court the failure to obey any order except an order to submit to a physical or mental examination.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(A)(i)–(vii). The Fourth Circuit has instructed district courts to apply a four-part test when determining appropriate sanctions under Rule 37(b): (1) whether the non-complying party acted in bad faith, (2) the amount of prejudice that noncompliance caused the adversary, (3) the need for deterrence of the particular sort of non-compliance, and (4) whether less drastic sanctions would have been effective. Young Again Prods., Inc. v. Acord, 459 F.App'x 294, 301 (4th Cir. 2011); Belk v. Charlotte–Mecklenburg Bd. of Educ., 269 F.3d 305, 348 (4th Cir. 2001).
II. Analysis
In the Motion for Sanctions, plaintiffs move this Court for an Order sanctioning EQT for its continuous failure to obey this Court's April 25, 2023 Discovery Order. The April 25, 2023 Discovery Order compelled EOT to respond more fully to plaintiffs' discovery requests. See [Doc. 331]. Plaintiffs argue that EOT failed to obey the April 25, 2023 Discovery Order by not filing supplemental answers to interrogatories as directed in the Order or otherwise providing the information sought by the interrogatories which EOT was compelled to more fully answer. Specifically, plaintiffs state “without the lease accounting information EOT was required to provide in the Discovery Order, Plaintiffs and this Court cannot reasonably and reliably determine whether each royalty owner was paid pursuant to a Class Lease and is, therefore, entitled to recover damages.”
In response, EOT argues that plaintiffs intentionally omitted material facts from their motion to mislead the Court. EOT states plaintiffs materially changed the proposed class three (3) weeks before the end of discovery and after the Court's discovery order. Plaintiffs filed their Amended Complaint, June 9, 2023, excluding eleven (11) purported categories of leases from the alleged class. See [Doc. 351].
*2 EQT further states that counsel is still working to identify the lease subjects to each of the 11 new exclusions from the class in the Amended Complaint, and when the process is complete, EQT will be able to produce the documents that the Court ordered it to create and produce.
It appears to this Court that EQT is participating in this litigation and working on complying with the Order of this Court.[2] Plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint on June 9, 2023, which materially changed the proposed class definition, for the first time, excluding eleven (11) purported categories of leases from the alleged class. These changes to the proposed class created a substantial amount of work for EQT to narrow the putative class and datasets.
This Court is aware that close of discovery was June 29, 2023. However, plaintiffs changes to the proposed class four (4) years into this litigation and less than three (3) weeks before the close of discovery made additional, albeit necessary, work for EQT to perform. This Court refuses to sanction EQT when plaintiffs' excluded eleven (11) purported categories in their Amended Complaint and EQT is currently working to complete the process and datasets.
III. Conclusion
Plaintiffs' Motion for Sanctions Against the EQT Defendants for Their Continuous Failure to Obey This Court's Discovery Order [Doc. 366] is DENIED. EQT has until on or before August 24, 2023[3] in which to produce the documents this Court ordered it to create and produce in the April 25, 2023 Discovery Order.
It is so ORDERED.

Footnotes

Defendants are EQT Corproation; EQT Production Company; EQT Energy, LLC; and EQT Energy II, LLC (hereinafter “EQT”).
With respect to plaintiffs' argument that defendants have not complied with the Court's order to provide complete answers to lnterrogatory 2(l), this Court agrees with EQT that the Court did not order defendants to supplement Interrogatory 2(l). Plaintiffs' own Motion to Compel does not even mention Interrogatory 2(l) or the subject matter of subpart (I). Moreover, the April 25, 2023 Discovery Order makes no reference to Interrogatory 2(l).
Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Partial Summary Judgment Regarding Alter Ego [Doc. 365] on July 10, 2023. It appears to the Court that plaintiffs had the information they needed with respect to alter ego to file the motion one (1) day before the instant Motion was filed.
This is one (1) week prior to the Class Certification Hearing.