Roth v. Cabot Oil & Gas Corp.
287 F.R.D. 293
M.D. Penn.2012Background
- Plaintiffs Frederick J. Roth and Debra A. Roth sue Cabot Oil & Gas Corporation and GasSearch Drilling Services Corporation for property damage from oil and gas drilling in Springville and Dimock Townships, Susquehanna County, PA; action originally filed in Susquehanna County court (3/19/2012) and removed to federal court (5/14/2012).
- Amended complaint (8/6/2012) asserts nine causes of action, including Hazardous Sites Cleanup Act, negligence, negligence per se, private nuisance, strict liability, trespass, inconvenience and discomfort, breach of contract, and fraudulent misrepresentation/inducement.
- Plaintiffs allege methane and other chemicals contaminated groundwater and property due to Defendants’ hydraulic fracturing and related activities; claims include water contamination, loss of value, and ongoing water needs and treatment.
- Defendants moved for a Lone Pine case-management order to require prima facie evidence of exposure, injury, and causation before discovery; motion referred to magistrate judge for resolution.
- Court declines Lone Pine at this stage, opting for standard Rule 16 case management under the District Court’s existing order, citing the relatively straightforward property claims and the discretion to manage discovery.
- Court emphasizes that discovery will proceed under Federal Rules and that dispositive motions may be warranted if Plaintiffs fail to develop supporting evidence
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a Lone Pine order is appropriate at this stage | Plaintiffs argue Lone Pine is inappropriate and discovery should proceed under standard rules | Defendants urge Lone Pine to force prima facie evidence before discovery | Lone Pine denied; proceed under standard case management |
| Whether the case should be governed by standard Rule 16 management rather than Lone Pine | Plaintiffs contend claims are straightforward property claims not suited for Lone Pine | Defendants contend Lone Pine is warranted to limit burden and costs | Standard Rule 16 case management ordered; Lone Pine not imposed |
| Whether the court should address the Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal motion at this time | Rule 12(b)(6) motion not before the court in this order; not resolved here |
Key Cases Cited
- Acuna v. Brown & Root Inc., 200 F.3d 335 (5th Cir.2000) (Lone Pine-like relevance in complex litigation; no per se rule)
- Schelske v. Creative Nail Design, Inc., 933 P.2d 799 (Mont. 1997) (illustrative Lone Pine-type order in a discrete case)