Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Albin Family Revocable Living Trust v. Halliburton Energy Services, Inc.

United States District Court, W.D. Oklahoma

January 11, 2018




         Before the Court is plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Production of Documents, filed December 8, 2017. On December 22, 2017, defendant filed its response, and on December 29, 2017, plaintiffs filed their reply. Based upon the parties' submissions, the Court makes its determination.

         Plaintiffs move this Court to enter an order finding that defendant erred and misapplied the attorney-client privilege and work product doctrine for all documents on its initial Rule 26 privilege log (“First Log”) and compelling defendant to produce all of those documents on the First Log, with the exception of those documents for which it asserts attorney-client privilege and the only authors and recipients identified are Halliburton employees and a Halliburton in-house or retained counsel. Plaintiffs assert that within the First Log, defendant asserted attorney-client protection for 1, 022 documents of which less than 20 involve communications solely between defendant and its counsel. Plaintiffs further assert that defendant asserts either attorney-client or work product protection for hundreds of documents that its independent contractor, SAIC Energy, Environmental & Infrastructure, LLC, formerly known as The Benham Companies, LLC (collectively “SAIC”), drafted and received internally. Plaintiffs contend that defendant has incorrectly utilized Rule 26 to protect documents that SAIC drafted or possessed and that these documents pertain to defendant's efforts to address its contamination of the local aquifer, i.e., work done in the ordinary course of business. Plaintiffs also contend that defendant's regulatory compliance with Oklahoma law and its subsequent compliance with its Consent Order agreement with the Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality (“ODEQ”)[1] are regulatory, business requirements unrelated to litigation. Plaintiffs further contend that these documents do not reflect defendant's counsel's legal strategies and defendant did not cause them to be drafted in anticipation of litigation.

         Defendant asserts that the challenged documents are protected by the work product doctrine and/or the attorney-client privilege. Defendant states that after it discovered the potential for offsite perchlorate contamination, the site investigation became the responsibility of defendant's counsel, who advised defendant in connection with adversarial regulatory proceedings with the ODEQ and in anticipation of third-party litigation. Defendant asserts that the documents at issue on the First Log were prepared by or sent to SAIC, an environmental consulting firm that was assisting counsel in advising defendant how to deal with ODEQ in these proceedings, and that decisions about how defendant should proceed in its dealings with ODEQ have been made with the guidance and advice of defendant's in-house and outside counsel since May 2011. Defendant, therefore, contends that documents generated by defendant's environmental consultants, including SAIC, relating to work performed at the direction of counsel in connection with the defense of the ODEQ regulatory proceeding under the Consent Order are clearly work product and privileged.[2]Further, defendant contends that this Court should exercise its discretion and deny plaintiffs' motion because they unreasonably and without justification waited until after the close of discovery to file their motion.[3]

         Having carefully reviewed the parties' submissions, the Court, in its discretion, finds that it is appropriate to consider plaintiffs' motion to compel ever though said motion was filed after the discovery deadline. The Court finds that the issues raised in plaintiffs' motion are significant and plaintiffs' motion is not so untimely as to warrant denying the motion on the basis of untimeliness. Additionally, the Court finds that the most prudent approach to addressing plaintiffs' motion to compel would be to globally address defendant's claims of work product protection and attorney-client privilege, as no specific documents have been submitted to this Court for in camera review. If after receiving the instant order the parties are unable to agree as to the production of certain documents set forth on the First Log, the parties shall notify the Court and submit the disputed documents for an in camera review.

         I. Defendant's claims of work product protection

         In a case based on diversity, such as the instant case, federal law governs claims of work product protection. See Frontier Refining, Inc. v. Gorman-Rupp Co., Inc., 136 F.3d 695, 702 n.10 (10th Cir. 1998). The work product doctrine originated in the United States Supreme Court case, Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495 (1947). In 1970, the Supreme Court adopted Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(3), thereby codifying the work product doctrine. Rule 26(b)(3) provides, in pertinent part:

(3) Trial Preparation: Materials.
(A) Documents and Tangible Things. Ordinarily, a party may not discover documents and tangible things that are prepared in anticipation of litigation or for trial by or for another party or its representative (including the other party's attorney, consultant, surety, indemnitor, insurer, or agent). But, subject to Rule 26(b)(4), those materials may be discovered if:
(i) they are otherwise discoverable under Rule 26(b)(1); and
(ii) the party shows that it has substantial need for the materials to prepare its case and cannot, without undue hardship, obtain their substantial equivalent by other means.
(B) Protection Against Disclosure. If the court orders discovery of those materials, it must protect against disclosure of the mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal theories of a party's attorney or other representative concerning the litigation.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(3).

Accordingly, a party seeking work product immunity under Rule 26(b)(3) must establish that the materials are (1) “documents and tangible things;” (2) “prepared in anticipation of litigation or for trial;” (3) “by or for another party or by or for that other party's representative.” Feldman v. Pioneer Petroleum, Inc.87 F.R.D. 86, 88 (W.D. Okla. 1980) (quoting 8 Charles Alan Wright, Arthur R. Miller & Richard L. Marcus, Federal Practice and Procedure § 2024 (3d ed. 1998)). . . . Rule 26(b)(3) also incorporates the two-tier protection of work product implicit in Hickman. The discovering party may overcome work product protection of “documents and tangible things” if it establishes a “substantial need” for the materials and an inability “without undue hardship [to] obtain their substantial equivalent of the materials by other means.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(3). However, the Rule instructs that “the mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal theories” of ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.