DCP Midstream, LP v. Anadarko Petroleum Corp.
2013 CO 36
Colo.2013Background
- DCP Midstream, LP sued Anadarko Petroleum Corp. for breach of contract and related claims; eleven contracts identified, with anticipated additional claims after discovery.
- DCP served 58 production requests for papers, electronic documents, and title opinions—attorney-authored opinions about land/mineral title.
- Anadarko refused many requests as outside the scope of Rule 26(b)(1) and challenged privilege of title opinions; no privilege log provided.
- Trial court granted the motion to compel without a hearing or 26(b) analysis, later stating discovery could cover issues that may become relevant.
- Anadarko sought relief under C.A.R. 21; Colorado Supreme Court granted rule to show cause and then made the rule absolute, reversing the trial court.
- Court reviews under original jurisdiction, applying abuse of discretion standard for discovery rulings and de novo interpretation of the discovery rules.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Scope of discovery under Rule 26(b)(1) after 2002 amendments | DCP should obtain discovery broad enough to cover all relevant contracts and wells beyond pleaded claims | Discovery limited to claims/defenses; broader discovery requires good cause | Court held trial court must actively tailor scope using cost-benefit/proportionality factors and may require good cause |
| Attorneys' title opinions and attorney-client privilege | Title opinions are not privileged if based on public information and are not confidential | Title opinions may be privileged as attorney communications; require privilege logs | Title opinions may be privileged as to specific communications; require document-by-document privilege determinations and logs; in camera review if needed |
| Role of trial court in discovery management | Court should allow broad discovery to lead to admissible information | Court must manage discovery and confine to claims/defenses unless good cause exists | Trial court abused discretion by not tailoring discovery to reasonable needs; remanded with instructions to conduct proper scope analysis |
Key Cases Cited
- Congoleum Indus., Inc. v. GAF Corp., 49 F.R.D. 82 (E.D. Pa. 1969) (privilege not extended to attorney opinions based on public information; confidential legal advice governs privilege)
- In re Cooper Tire & Rubber Co., 568 F.3d 1180 (10th Cir. 2009) (discovery scope framed by claims/defenses vs. subject matter; good cause inquiry available)
- Wesp v. Everson, 33 P.3d 191 ( Colo. 2001) (attorney-client privilege governs confidential communications; burden on proponent to log and justify)
- People v. Madera, 112 P.3d 688 (Colo. 2005) (privilege considerations; confidential communications required for privilege)
- Todd v. Bear Valley Village Apartments, 980 P.2d 973 (Colo. 1999) (judicial management and caseflow considerations in discovery)
- Burchett v. South Denver Windustrial Co., 42 P.3d 19 (Colo. 2002) (necessity of active judicial management of discovery)