Penman v. Hess Bakken Investments II, LLC
1:22-cv-00097
| D.N.D. | Dec 11, 2024Background
- Plaintiffs, a group of oil and gas royalty owners, brought a class action lawsuit against Hess Bakken Investments II, LLC, alleging improper calculation and payment of royalties.
- Plaintiffs claimed Defendant included impermissible costs in royalty calculations, applied negative gas royalties to oil royalties, and failed to pay statutory interest on untimely payments.
- Two separate cases, filed in 2022, were consolidated by court order in 2023.
- Discovery disputes arose regarding the production of electronically stored oil and gas royalty accounting data by Defendant.
- Plaintiffs filed a motion to compel production of this data, arguing Defendant had not fully complied with discovery requests.
- Defendant argued the motion was moot, claiming production was ongoing, certain data was irrelevant after a class was struck, and remaining data would be produced soon.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Compelling production of royalty accounting data | Data not fully produced; production was late | Data already produced or scheduled for production | Defendant’s ongoing production moots the motion |
| Relevance of classwide payment data | Still relevant to claims | Not relevant after court struck the statutory subclass | Data had already been or was being produced; no issue |
| Timeliness of discovery responses | Defendant delayed production, warrants sanctions | Delay was justified pending motions and logistics | Delay did not warrant sanctions in this context |
| Award of attorney’s fees and costs under Rule 37 | Entitled due to compelled production after motion | Production started before motion; expenses unjust | No fees or costs awarded to either party |
Key Cases Cited
- Gowan v. Mid Century Ins. Co., 309 F.R.D. 503 (D.S.D. 2015) (scope of discovery under Rule 26(b) is extremely broad)
- Jo Ann Howard & Assocs., P.C. v. Cassity, 303 F.R.D. 539 (E.D. Mo. 2014) (party opposing discovery must demonstrate marginal relevance or undue harm)
- Burke v. New York City Police Dep’t, 115 F.R.D. 220 (S.D.N.Y. 1987) (potential harm can outweigh presumption of broad disclosure)