Sundance Energy Oklahoma LLC v. Dan D Drilling Corporation, 5:13-cv-00991

Plaintiff Sundance sued Defendant Dan D. Drilling for negligence and breach of contract arising from drilling the Rother Well in Logan County, Oklahoma, December 2012.
An employee of Defendant was killed in a drilling rig accident on December 9, 2012.
Defendant counterclaims for breach of a supposed multiple-well contract including the Rother Well; Sundance denies such contract's existence.
Discovery sought by Sundance included insurance policies and communications related to insurance, claims investigations, and coverage (Requests 19–21).
Defendant objected that Requests 19–20 were irrelevant and that Requests 12–21 sought work product.
The court reviewed the relevance and work-product issues and granted the motion to compel production of certain documents.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Are Requests 19 and 20 relevant to a potential contract?	Sundance: policies and insurance docs may reveal the multiple-well contract.	Drilling: evidence is irrelevant to claims/defenses.	Requests 19 and 20 are reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence.
Are Requests 12 and 21 protected by the work product doctrine?	Sundance: communications and documents are protected as trial preparation.	Drilling: need for those communications is discovery-relevant.	Not protected; materials were not prepared in anticipation of litigation.
Is the in-camera review of provided policies necessary to determine relevancy?	Not essential; court can assess relevancy from the request itself.	In-camera inspection may be helpful to determine protection.	In-camera review not required to determine relevancy; analysis based on the requests stands.
Should the motion to compel be granted in light of the above rulings?	Production should be compelled for 19–21.	Partial protection or irrelevance for certain items.	Motion to compel granted; 19–20 production ordered; 12–21 not protected work product.

In re Grand Jury Subpoenas, 906 F.2d 1485 (10th Cir. 1990) (in-camera relevancy analysis; discretion of court)
In re Grand Jury Proceedings, 616 F.3d 1186 (10th Cir. 2010) (limits on in-camera review for relevancy)
Frontier Real., Inc. v. Gorman-Rupp Co., 136 F.3d 695 (10th Cir. 1998) (work product doctrine scope; documents prepared in anticipation of litigation)