Scott Hutchison Enterprises, Inc. v. Cranberry Pipeline Corp.
318 F.R.D. 44
S.D.W. Va2016Background
- Plaintiff owns Ridgewood Subdivision and alleges Defendants’ C-1004 gas pipeline crossing the property has rendered it undevelopable; Plaintiff seeks damages for future lost profits.
- Defendants claimed a prescriptive easement, produced a 4,447-page “pipeline file,” and defended continuous, open use of the pipeline for decades.
- Earlier discovery order limited Defendants to financial documents tied to residential subdivision development; Defendants renewed a motion to compel Plaintiff’s broader corporate financials (2011–2015).
- Plaintiff produced Island Estates financials, deed showing purchase price, expert reports estimating development costs and lot sale prices, and a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition was noticed to probe Defendants’ pipeline file.
- Defendants supplemented interrogatory answers by producing the entire pipeline file without identifying which documents answered specific interrogatories and then designated Robert Barrett as their Rule 30(b)(6) witness.
- Court denied Defendants’ renewed motion to compel Plaintiff’s additional financials and granted Plaintiff’s motions for sanctions for (1) improper Rule 26(g) certification of the mass production and (2) producing an inadequately prepared Rule 30(b)(6) witness; awarded $10,648.10 in fees and costs.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Defendants may compel Plaintiff to produce broad corporate financials (2011–2015) | Hutchinson: only subdivision-specific development records and Island Estates financials are relevant; tax returns and unrelated business records not shown necessary | Cabot: corporate overhead, depreciation, and allocation methods affect lost-future-profits calculation and require full corporate financials | Denied — court found Defendants already had subdivision-specific financials, deed, expert estimates, and no factual showing that remaining corporate records would yield relevant, non-speculative evidence |
| Whether Defendants’ production of a 4,447‑page pipeline file complied with interrogatory rules (Rule 33/34) | Plaintiff: the mass production without indexing forced an onerous, aimless review and misled that responsive documents existed | Defendants: production was reasonable; absence of permission in the file is circumstantial evidence; similar land files elsewhere lacked permission documents | Court: deficient — production amounted to a “document dump”; failure to identify responsive items violated discovery norms and warranted sanction under Rule 26(g) |
| Whether Defendants’ counsel violated Rule 26(g) by certifying the supplemental responses | Plaintiff: counsel certified that the production was reasonable and responsive though it contained no direct evidence of (lack of) permission, causing unnecessary expense | Defendants: certification was reasonable; they were still searching and production was not done for improper purpose | Court: Certification violated Rule 26(g); counsel lacked substantial justification for representing the production as responsive without specifying relevant documents |
| Whether Defendants violated the Court’s protective order/obligation by producing an unprepared Rule 30(b)(6) witness (Rule 30(b)(6)/37) | Plaintiff: Barrett was not prepared to explain how documents supported Defendants’ claims/defenses; producing an unprepared designee is tantamount to failing to appear and caused fees | Defendants: Barrett was knowledgeable about pipeline operation and had reasonable document review time; Plaintiff should not dictate corporate designee | Court: Defendant failed to prepare a witness to testify to relevancy/application; sanctionable under Rule 37; award of some attorney fees was appropriate |
Key Cases Cited
- Robinson v. Equifax Information Servs., LLC, 560 F.3d 235 (4th Cir. 2009) (lodestar method for fee awards)
- Grissom v. The Mills Corp., 549 F.3d 313 (4th Cir. 2008) (factors for fee determinations)
- Johnson v. Ga. Highway Express, Inc., 488 F.2d 714 (5th Cir. 1974) (factors for calculating attorney fees)
- Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424 (1983) (exclude hours that are excessive, redundant, or unnecessary when awarding fees)
- Daly v. Hill, 790 F.2d 1071 (4th Cir. 1986) (billing judgment requires exclusion of noncompensable hours)