308 F.R.D. 410
D.N.M.2015Background
- Plaintiffs are landowners asserting long‑term oil-and-gas lease royalty underpayment claims (notably mispricing natural-gas liquids) and sought class certification for royalty-owner classes; named plaintiffs hold inherited interests and receive only check stubs and checks.
- Court bifurcated discovery into a class-certification phase (closed Dec. 5, 2013 after extension) and a merits phase; the Court held a multi-day class-certification hearing in 2014 and issued a 283‑page denial of class certification in March 2015.
- Plaintiffs moved (Mar. 31, 2015) for a scheduling conference and asked the Court to reopen discovery on class-certification issues (primarily to obtain assignments and parol evidence).
- Defendants opposed reopening class-certification discovery, invoked the Tenth Circuit Smith reopening factors and Rule 16(b) good‑cause standard, and noted they had previously offered assignments for inspection.
- At a May 12, 2015 hearing the Court invited briefing but indicated it would deny reopening class-certification discovery, allow merits discovery for the named plaintiffs, and set a June 2, 2015 scheduling conference (vacated if plaintiffs filed a timely motion to reconsider).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether to reopen discovery for class‑certification issues | Plaintiffs seek additional discovery (assignments, parol evidence) to support a renewed certification effort and say some materials can be obtained from public sources; they proposed 120 days | Defendants oppose reopening; cite Smith factors, prejudice, lack of diligence, and that much of the discovery was available or offered earlier | Denied: Court will not reopen class‑certification discovery; merits discovery limited to named plaintiffs’ leases only |
| Standard and procedure for reconsidering denial of class certification | Plaintiffs indicated they would move to reconsider but did not articulate standard | Defendants argued Rule 59(e)/Servants of the Paraclete standards apply and that plaintiffs had two prior dismissals of analogous claims | Court: denial of certification is an interlocutory order; Rule 54(b) permits reconsideration but plaintiff faces a high burden (new law, new evidence, or clear error); Court will apply a strict, circumstances‑sensitive law‑of‑the‑case approach |
| Scope of upcoming discovery period | Plaintiffs asked courts to allow discovery relevant to absent class members (assignments, lease language) | Defendants asked discovery be limited to named‑plaintiffs’ merits issues and requested scheduling for merits discovery and settlement conference | Court: discovery limited to merits/named plaintiffs; plaintiffs may obtain public records independently; parol evidence allowed only as to named plaintiffs’ leases |
| Whether to set scheduling conference and its timing | Plaintiffs requested scheduling conference to plan discovery and potential renewed certification | Defendants did not oppose scheduling conference for merits but opposed reopening class discovery | Court set June 2, 2015 status conference for merits planning but will vacate it if plaintiffs file a motion to reconsider before that date |
Key Cases Cited
- Smith v. United States, 834 F.2d 166 (10th Cir. 1987) (six-factor test for reopening discovery)
- Servants of the Paraclete v. Does, 204 F.3d 1005 (10th Cir. 2000) (standards for reconsideration of interlocutory and post‑judgment orders)
- Roderick v. XTO Energy, Inc., 725 F.3d 1213 (10th Cir. 2013) (material intra‑class lease variations preclude monolithic treatment of oil-and-gas royalty classes)
- In re Cooper Tire & Rubber Co., 568 F.3d 1180 (10th Cir. 2009) (effect of 2000 amendments to Rule 26; two‑tiered discovery and court-managed broader discovery for good cause)
- Wal‑Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 131 S. Ct. 2541 (U.S. 2011) (Rule 23 requires rigorous analysis; actual conformity with Rule 23 prerequisites)