Texokan Operating, Inc. v. Hess Corp., 89 F. Supp. 3d 903

Texokan and K & T own Talbutt Wells (Talbutt 1 and Talbutt 2) with Talbutt 2 still producing while Talbutt 1 has ceased.
Hess (defendant) predecessor drilled A-1H in Eagle Ford below the Austin Chalk in March 2011 and B-5H in 2012, forming the basis of plaintiffs’ contamination claims.
Plaintiffs allege drilling fluids from A-1H and B-5H contaminated the Talbutt Wells, pursuing negligence, negligence per se, trespass, and exemplary damages.
Plaintiffs initially asserted damages for both Talbutt wells; they later limited claims to Talbutt 2 after Talbutt 1 ceased producing.
Plaintiffs sought to amend the complaint nearly nine months after the deadline; Hess moved to exclude expert Rothrock and for summary judgment; plaintiffs failed to timely respond and then filed amended materials.
The court denied the motion to amend, excluded Rothrock’s testimony under Daubert/Kumho Tire, granted Hess’s no-evidence motion, and dismissed all claims with prejudice.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether plaintiffs may amend the pleading late in the case	Plaintiffs claim new discovery supports amendment; seeks to remove Talbutt 1 and trespass claims.	Late amendment would cause prejudice; discovery has closed; no good cause.	Motion to amend denied; amendment stricken; live pleading remains.
Whether Rothrock's expert testimony on damages is admissible	Rothrock offers value-based damages derived from wells’ forecasts.	Rothrock’s methodology is unreliable and not supported by objective validation.	Expert excluded; damages evidence insufficient.
Whether Hess’s No-Evidence Motion for partial summary judgment should be granted	Damages evidence exists; liability remains viable without Rothrock.	No damages evidence; plaintiffs cannot survive on negligence claims without damages.	No-Evidence Motion granted; all claims for damages dismissed.
Whether the case should be dismissed on limitations/standing grounds	Plaintiffs retain standing and damages claims against Talbutt wells.	Standing/limitations arguments moot after other rulings; claims precluded.	Denied as moot.

Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharms., Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (U.S. 1993) (gatekeeping reliability of expert testimony)
Johnson v. Arkema, Inc., 685 F.3d 452 (5th Cir. 2012) (Daubert gatekeeping and validity of expert methodology)
Curtis v. M & S Petroleum, Inc., 174 F.3d 661 (5th Cir. 1999) (standards for reliability and admissibility of expert testimony)
Moore v. Ashland Chem. Inc., 151 F.3d 269 (5th Cir. 1998) (objective validation required for methodologies)
Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (U.S. 1999) (broad applicability of Daubert to all expert testimony)
Jelinek v. Casas, 328 S.W.3d 526 (Tex. 2010) (Texas standard for expert testimony reliability)
Ellis v. U.S., 673 F.3d 367 (5th Cir. 2012) (caution against ipse dixit reliance)
Huss v. Gayden, 571 F.3d 442 (5th Cir. 2009) (Daubert considerations in expert reliability)
Brown v. Ill. Cent. R.R. Co., 705 F.3d 531 (7th Cir. 2013) (objective validation of methodology required)