Strudley v. Antero Resources Corp.
350 P.3d 874
Colo. Ct. App.2013Background
- Strudleys sue four oil-and-gas operators for negligence, nuisance, strict liability, trespass, and related claims near their home, and seek a medical monitoring trust.
- Complaint alleges multiple pollutants were released but does not identify which pollutant caused which injury.
- After initial disclosures, defendants move for a modified case management order resembling Lone Pine, demanding prima facie evidence before full discovery.
- Trial court grants the Lone Pine-like order, requiring extensive pre-discovery evidence and data within 105 days, including expert affidavits and exposure details.
- Strudleys submit some materials (water test letter; physician affidavit) but no causation expert linking injuries to specific contaminants; court later dismisses all claims with prejudice.
- Court holds Lone Pine order improper under Colorado law and remands, reinstating Strudleys’ claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Lone Pine order was proper under Colorado law | Lone Pine orders are disfavored and contrary to discovery rules. | Lone Pine is necessary to manage complexity and prevent costly discovery. | Improper; reversed and remanded. |
| Whether amendments to CRCP overruled Curtis/Direct Sales Tire Co. | Rule 16 amendments justify early case management and discovery limits. | Amendments effectively overrule Curtis/Direct Sales Tire Co. allowing Lone Pine. | Amendments do not overrule; Lone Pine still improper here. |
Key Cases Cited
- Curtis, Inc. v. Dist. Court, 186 Colo. 226, 526 P.2d 1335 (Colo. 1974) (discovery should not be blocked by prima facie showing; protect discovery)
- Direct Sales Tire Co. v. Dist. Court, 686 P.2d 1316 (Colo. 1984) (prima facie requirement before discovery disfavored; discovery policy prioritized)
- Leidholt v. District Court, 619 P.2d 768 (Colo.1980) (punitive damages discovery limits; supports broader discovery role)
- Simeone v. State, 872 N.E.2d 347 (Ohio 2007) (Lone Pine like orders evaluated; inconsistent application cautioned)
- Roth v. Cabot Oil & Gas Corp., 287 F.R.D. 293 (M.D. Pa. 2012) (Lone Pine orders contested; cautions against early use)
- United States v. Procter & Gamble Co., 356 U.S. 677 (U.S. 1958) (discovery promotes full truth-seeking; courts should not hamper discovery)