Case Information
*1 +
United States District Court Southern District of Texas ENTERED IN THE U NITED STATES DISTRICT CO URT March 15, 2018 FO R THE SO UTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXA S David J. Bradley, Clerk HOU STON DIVISION
PETROBRA S A M ERICA S IN C.
Plaintiff
Civil A ction N o. 4:12-cv-0888 VICINAY CAD EN AS, S.A .,
Defendants
Before the Court is defendant Vicinay Cadenas, S.A .'S (tçvicinay'') motion to compel (Dkt. 329) seeking production of çûfinancial valuations'' or ûteconomic risk analyses'' from plaintiff Petrobras America lnc. (ûûpetrobras'').
Through its num erous requests for production 1 Vicinay requested production of business plans for the development of wells in the relevant fields, projections for the beginning date and am ount of production, inform ation about the actual start date and amount of production, and any sales contracts for the production. (See Dkt. 348-5, requests 106-110). On January 27, 2014, Petrobras agreed to produce business plans and information on actual production quantities. lt objected to request106 asking for projections of production quantity and start dates as vague, am biguous, and failing to sufficiently identify with reasonable particularity the docum ents sought.
ln D ecem ber 2017, Vicinay learned that in 2011, a Petrobras em ployee had given a presentation titled ûtltisk Analysis and Real Options in Upstream Projects using @ lkisk: The ' Vicinay has served at least 11l requests for production on Petrobras
Gulf of M exieo Case.'' From the m aterials that accom panied the presentation, defendant has concluded that Petrobras conducted an econom ic risk analysis based on itprobabilistic productions,'' ûtstart up dates'' and ltprice m odels'' for the Gulf of M exico. lt argues that this proves there are t:valuations in Petrobras A m erica's possessions custody or control that are responsive'' to the requests for production. It contends that these valuations are relevant to Petrobras' claim s for lost protits from deferred production, and its claim for the cost of the long term rental agreement for equipment that w as sidelined during the relevant period. Vicinay insists the trier of fact is entitled to consider the valuation docum ents Petrobras tkhad at its disposal w hen it m ade its investm ent and vessel chartering decisions.'' Vicinay argues that Petrobras did not object to the relevance of the request and has waived that objection.
Petrobras' first argues that the m otion is untim ely, but that argum ent is unpersuasive. V icinay filed this motion before the deadline to file m otions expired. It does not seek additional discovery, but rather m oves to compel additional responses to previously served discovery. The m otion is timely.
Petrobras argues that the m aterials Vicinay seeks to com pel, ûûinternal and external valuations of the Cascade and Chinook Project, including economic risk analysis and real tilnn e option analyses of the Project,'' are not responsive to 3ny of the requests for production. Rule 34 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that a request for production of docum ents ttm ust describe w ith reasonable particularity each item or category of items to be inspected.'' FED. R. CIV. P. 34(b)(l)(A). ûl-f'he particularity or preciseness of designation required by Rule 34 depends on the circum stances of each case.'' United States *3 @
v. Nat '1 Steel Corp., 26 F.R.D. 607, 610 (S.D . Tex.1960). ût-f'he goal is that the description be sufficient to apprise a m an of ordinary intelligence which docum ents are required.'' ld. (internal citations omitted).
The requests for production ask for business plans to develop the fields, projected production, actual production, and any contracts to sell the production. These requests do not clearly ask for the Steconom ic risk analyses,'' tûreal tim e option analyses,'' or internal and external valuations that V icinay now seeks, so they do not ûçdescribe w ith reasonable particularity'' the m aterials sought. Nor has V icinay show n this inform ation is w ithin the scope of permissible discovery because it is relevant. See F'ED. R. CIV. P. 34(a) (request for production must be within the scope of Rule 26(b)). Although Vicinay included the reports from Petrobras' dam age experts, it did not allege those experts relied upon this inform ation to form or support their opinions. A fter exam ining the opinions, it is clear they did not. ln fact, Vicinay does not argue that Petrobras calculated its dam ages based on its pre- production projections and valuations, only that those valuations might show that Petrobras' pre-loss decision to ilinvest and charter vessels'' was a poor business choice. That does not m ake it relevant to the claim s in this case.
Petrobras insists it has produced the relevant valuations for the tw o w ells at issue in this m atter. The reports from its experts reflect the actual production from the w ells during the relevant tim e. Further, it is not even clear from the presentation m aterials that any valuations or risk analyses were done for the individual wells rather than for a1l projects in Gulf of Mexico as a group. (See Dkt 329-4 at 39). Defendant's requests did not describe with reasonable particularity the m aterials sought, so Petrobras' failure to object that the *4 valuations and risk analyses were not relevant is not waived.FED. R. CIV. P. 33(b)(4) (ûW ny ground not stated in a timely objection is waived unless the party's failure to object is excused by the court for good cause shown.').
For these reasons, defendant's m otion is denied IC 2018
Signed at Houston, Texas on M arch
L
Stephen W m . Sm ith United State M agistrate Judge