# Hay Creek Royalties, LLC v. Roan Resources LLC

> District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · June 2, 2020

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10386392

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, N.D. Oklahoma
- **Decided:** June 2, 2020
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10386392

## Opinion text

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
HAY CREEK ROYALTIES, LLC, )
on behalf of itself and all others similarly )
situated, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) Case No. 19-CV-177-CVE-JFJ
)
ROAN RESOURCES LLC, )
)
Defendant. )
OPINION AND ORDER
Before the Court is Plaintiff’s First Motion to Compel (ECF No. 37), which is GRANTED
IN PART and DENIED IN PART as set forth below.
I. Factual and Procedural Background1
This case involves the alleged underpayment, late payment, or non-payment of royalties
and oil and gas production proceeds from gas-producing wells operated by Defendant Roan
Resources LLC (“Roan”). Plaintiff Hay Creek Royalties, LLC owns royalty interests in at least
one Roan-operated well and purports to bring this action on behalf of itself and others similarly
situated. Plaintiff brings claims against Roan “concerning Roan’s actual, knowing and willful
underpayment, late payment or non-payment of royalties and oil-and-gas proceeds from wells
through improper accounting methods (such as not paying on the starting price for gas products
but instead taking improper deductions) and by failing to account for and pay royalties.” ECF No.
31 (First Am. Compl.) ¶ 1.
Plaintiff proposes two separate classes. Proposed Class I consists of all last successors in
interest to royalty owners in Oklahoma wells where Roan is or was the operator (or a working
1 This Order assumes familiarity with Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint (ECF No. 31).
interest owner who marketed its share of gas and directly paid royalties to the royalty owners
wherein Roan improperly underpaid royalties and took excessive deductions from the owners in
breach of the royalty owners’ oil-and-gas leases with Roan. Proposed Class II consists of all non-
excluded persons or entities who received untimely payments from Roan or its designee for oil
and gas proceeds from Oklahoma wells, and whose payments did not include statutory interest.
On July 11, 2019, Plaintiff issued the discovery requests currently at issue. ECF Nos. 37-
1, 37-2. On November 27, 2019, United States District Judge Claire Eagan issued a “Scheduling Order

for Class Certification Issues,” which set a Class Certification Motion deadline of August 19, 2020,
and a Class Certification Discovery Cutoff of November 19, 2020. ECF No. 36. Judge Eagan’s
scheduling order further indicated that, in the event a class is certified, she would enter a separate
scheduling order for a trial on the merits. Id. Accordingly, Judge Eagan elected to bifurcate
discovery into separate class certification and merits phases. No class has yet been certified.
II. Standard of Review
Under Rule 26 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, parties may obtain discovery
“regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or defense and
proportional to the needs of the case.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). Discoverable information need
not be admissible at trial. Id. Rule 26 provides six factors to consider regarding proportionality:
(1) the importance of the issues at stake in the action; (2) the amount in controversy; (3) the parties’

relative access to relevant information; (4) the parties’ resources; (5) the importance of the
discovery in resolving the issues; and (6) whether the burden or expense of the proposed discovery
outweighs its likely benefit. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). This analysis often means “that the burden
of responding to discovery lies heavier on the party who has more information, and properly so.”
Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b) advisory committee’s note (2015 amendment). Rule 26’s proportionality
requirement is not “intended to permit the opposing party to refuse discovery simply by making a
boilerplate objection that it is not proportional.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b) advisory committee’s note
(2015 amendment).
Document requests must describe what is being sought with “reasonable particularity.”
Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(b)(1)(A). Objections to discovery requests must be stated “with specificity.”
Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(b)(2)(B). Mere boilerplate objection language, such as “vague, over-broad,
unduly burdensome, not reasonably calculated to lead to discovery of admissible evidence,”
without more, is not sufficient. SeeHoward v. Segway, Inc., No. 11-CV-688-GKF-PJC, 2013 WL

869955, at *1, *3 (N.D. Okla. Mar. 7, 2013). “When the district court does intervene in discovery,
it has discretion in determining what the scope of discovery should be.” In re Cooper Tire &
Rubber Co., 568 F.3d 1180, 1189 (10th Cir. 2009). District courts managing discovery matters
are subject to review only for abuse of discretion. See Caves v. Beechcraft Corp., No. 15-CV-125-
CVE-PJC, 2016 WL 355491, at *1 (N.D. Okla. Jan. 29, 2016).
III. Parties’ Arguments
In its brief, Roan raises two principal objections to Plaintiff’s discovery requests: (1) the
requests will require extensive searches of Roan’s electronically stored information (“ESI”) and
emails, which is overly burdensome prior to class certification; and (2) all challenged individual
requests are facially overbroad, unduly burdensome, disproportionate to the needs of the case,

vague, or irrelevant to class-certification issues. Defendant states that, despite having to deal with
a recent merger and change of management in 2019, it has produced 6.7 gigabytes of payment
history documents and is in the process of producing many more responsive documents. Roan
contends that, once this production is complete, “Plaintiff will have access to all the relevant
information needed to analyze and argue class certification.” ECF No. 43 at 3.
In its briefing, Plaintiff argues: (1) Roan’s blanket objection to conducting an ESI or email
search at the class-certification stage is without merit; (2) the challenged individual requests are
relevant to class certification and are not overbroad or vague; and (3) Roan should be compelled
to produce the documents it already promised to produce. Plaintiff has offered to mitigate Roan’s
burden by establishing ESI protocols and relevant custodians, as this Court ordered on a motion to
compel in another oil-and-gas royalty underpayment case, Kunneman Properties, LLC v.
Marathon Oil Company, No. 17-CV-456-GKF-JFJ, 2019 WL 5188355 (N.D. Okla. Oct. 15, 2019).
IV. Analysis
The Court holds: (1) Roan must search and produce ESI, subject to agreed ESI protocols;

(2) certain requests are vague or overbroad and will be limited by the Court; and (3) the Court will
not compel Roan to produce the documents it already agreed to produce.
A. ESI Must Be Searched With Established ESI Protocols
Across multiple requests for production, Plaintiff is requesting that Roan search, review,
and produce ESI. Specifically, Plaintiff is requesting searches of email accounts, databases, and
other electronic sources. Plaintiff states its willingness to negotiate ESI protocols for these
requests. Roan argues that ESI searches are overly burdensome and premature at the class-
certification stage, because such searches are “unlikely to be probative of anything further that is
relative to the class certification issues” yet will strain the resources of a company as small as
Roan. ECF No. 43 at 7. Roan argues that the company was recently acquired, and Roan’s

management team has left the company. The current Roan/Citizen Energy III has fewer than fifty
employees, and there is no available staff that can be assigned to conducting an ESI search.
The Court overrules Roan’s blanket objection to search and production of ESI. Although
Roan contends Plaintiff has all discovery it needs for purposes of class certification, Roan’s
internal documents and communications, and communications with royalty owners, midstream
providers (Class I), and the State of Oklahoma (Class II), could tend to show commonality of
claims and Roan’s royalty payment practices on a class-wide basis. Further, search of electronic
databases for relevant internal communications or documents is not merely a fishing expedition.
It is not overly speculative that Roan employees discussed the bases and reasoning behind the
royalty calculation data already produced. Communications and presentations may be important
to establishing class-wide treatment of royalty calculations for Oklahoma wells.
Roan’s burden argument is not particularly meaningful, because it is unsupported by
affidavit or other evidence, and it provides no specific information regarding the alleged burden
imposed on Roan from having to conduct ESI searches. Roan’s argument in its brief does not

account for any specified search terms, specific number of custodians, or other ESI protocols. See
Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(B) (“On motion to compel discovery . . . , the party from whom discovery
is sought must show that the [ESI] is not reasonably accessible because of undue burden or cost.”).
Cf. Panel Specialists Inc. v. Tenawa Haven Processing LLC, No. 16-4140-SAC, 2017 WL
3503354, at *3 (D. Kan. 2017) (motion to compel denied where producing company submitted
affidavit from company executive in support of its allegation that producing the requested material
would be overly burdensome for such a small company, and court found the requested material
was of “minimal probative value”).
Further, Roan indicates that that it was formed in June 2017 and acquired by Citizen Energy
III in December 2019. ECF No. 43 at 2. In its objections to the RFPs, Roan objects to production

of documents pertaining to the time period prior to April 1, 2017, “the effective date on which
Roan acquired its working interest in the putative class wells.” ECF No. 37-3 at 4; ECF No. 37-4
at 4. Therefore, it appears that ESI searches will encompass a relatively limited duration of less
than three years. Roan’s burden argument does not persuade the Court that production of ESI is
globally overly burdensome or disproportionate to the needs of this case. Considering all
proportionality factors, the Court finds the requested ESI is important to the issues at stake; that
there is a significant amount in controversy; that Roan has access and resources to search ESI; and
that the overall burden or expense of searching ESI does not outweigh its likely benefit. Fed. R.
Civ. P. 26(b)(1). The Court therefore orders Roan to conduct searches of ESI and other documents
for the period of April 1, 2017, to the present.
However, as discussed below, certain requests are overly burdensome without limitations
in the form of ESI protocols, and Plaintiff agrees that protocols are appropriate. The Court will
not sua sponte establish ESI search protocols, and the Court orders the parties to meet and confer
on the subject of establishing ESI protocols. Subject to establishment of these protocols by

agreement, and other limits established for specific requests below, the Court overrules Roan’s
global objection to search and review of ESI at this stage of the proceeding.
B. Specific Requests as to Plaintiff’s First Set of Document Requests are Granted,
Denied, or Narrowed as Follows2
1. All Documents with Midstream Service providers regarding
Marketable Condition or marketable products; title transfer; testifying
in a royalty underpayment case; or off-lease fuel use (1st RFP Nos. 4(a)-
(c), 5)3
Granted, subject to limitations and ESI protocols. RFPs 4 and 5 request documents,
including communications, with providers of Midstream Services regarding four topics. These
requests are relevant to what fees and proceeds midstream service providers absorb or pass on to
Roan, which then may be passed on to royalty owners. The Court finds all four subparts relevant
to class-certification issues presented but finds that the requests are facially overbroad and
therefore imposes limits to ensure proportionality to the needs of the case. On a global basis, the
2 As Plaintiff points out in its opening brief, the challenged RFPs in the First Set of Document
Requests are similar to certain challenged RFPs in Kunneman, which this Court addressed in a
written Opinion and Order. See Kunneman, 2019 WL 5188355. The Court identifies no reason to
depart from the principles articulated in Kunneman, and the Court’s order in this case aligns with
those principles. While discovery in Kunneman was not bifurcated, as it is here, the Court clarified
that the “vast majority” of the challenged RFPs in Kunneman were relevant to both class
certification and merits. Id. at *2.
3 The Court’s capitalized phrases refer to defined terms in Plaintiff’s discovery requests.
Court limits RFPs 4 and 5 to Roan’s communications with providers of Midstream Services, rather
than all “Documents” as defined in the RFP. The parties shall meet and confer to establish ESI
protocols and to identify relevant search terms and relevant custodians.
2. Emails, meeting minutes, meeting agendas, or other Documents
regarding “title transfer” clauses in gas contracts (1st RFP No. 7)
Granted, subject to limitations and ESI protocols. The requests are relevant to class
certification, because emails, meeting minutes, and meeting agendas may show what fees and
proceeds are being passed on to royalty owners. The request is limited to the specifically listed
items, and the phrase “other documents” is stricken from the request. To ensure proportionality,
Plaintiff must limit this request to a proportional and reasonable number of search terms and
custodians. The parties shall meet and confer to establish ESI protocols and to identify relevant
search terms and relevant custodians.
3. Analyses, presentations, and financial projections (including asset
reviews, joint venture meetings, asset sales, and board minutes)
regarding Roan’s Wells and any oil and gas production assets and
associated Midstream Costs and off-lease fuel use (1st RFP. No. 8)
Granted, subject to limitations and ESI protocols. Plaintiff requests a variety of documents
“regarding Defendant’s Wells and any oil and gas production assets and the associated Midstream
Costs and off lease fuel use.” ECF No. 37-1 at 8. The requests are relevant to class certification,
because such documents may show what fees and proceeds are being passed on to royalty owners
at what stages of marketability. However, the request is facially overbroad as written, and could
conceivably encompass every analysis, presentation, or financial projection Roan generated.
Therefore, the phrase “Defendant’s Wells” is stricken from the request. To ensure proportionality,
Plaintiff must limit this request to a proportional and reasonable number of search terms and
custodians. The parties shall meet and confer to establish ESI protocols and to identify relevant
search terms and relevant custodians.
4. Organizational charts and employee lists (1st RFP No. 9)
Granted, subject to limitations. In its brief, Roan agreed to provide a list of employees
with information about relevant Roan leases and wells. Roan’s proposal is a reasonable limitation,
and Plaintiff appears to agree to the proposal. See ECF No. 46 at 9. The Court will not order Roan
to create additional documents not already in existence or to alter existing documents.
5. Documents concerning royalty payment practices, including fuel use
and deduction of GCDTP for Class I (1st RFP No. 11)
Granted, subject to ESI protocols. These requests are relevant to showing Roan’s class-
wide decisions regarding royalty calculations. To ensure proportionality, Plaintiff must limit this
request to a proportional and reasonable number of search terms and custodians. The parties shall
meet and confer to establish ESI protocols and to identify relevant search terms and relevant
custodians.
C. Specific Requests as to Plaintiff’s Second Set of Document Requests are
Granted, Denied, or Narrowed as Follows
1. Organizational charts and employee lists for employees responsible for
determining whether and when to pay oil and gas proceeds and
whether to pay statutory interest (2d RFP No. 1)
Granted, subject to limitations. In its brief, Roan agreed to provide a list of employees
responsible for determining when to pay oil and gas proceeds and whether to pay interest. Roan’s
proposal is a reasonable limitation, and Plaintiff appears to agree to the proposal. See ECF No. 46
at 10. The Court will not order Roan to create additional documents not already in existence or to
alter existing documents.
2. All Documents referring to the PRSA, including all Documents relating
to efforts to amend or modify the PRSA regardless of whether such
efforts were undertaken by Roan or another person/entity (2d RFP No.
9)
Denied, as facially overbroad. Plaintiff states that documents responsive to this RFP will
prove relevant to company-wide decisions made concerning the PRSA, which is a focus of the
class certification determination. Plaintiff proposes an ESI protocol requiring custodians and
search terms to limit any potential overbreadth. The Court finds it would be disproportionately
burdensome for Roan to comply with this request as written, given that, according to Plaintiff, it
seeks any document in which “Roan talked about the PRSA.” ECF No. 37 at 12. To the extent
this request seeks information regarding company-wide implementation of the PRSA, Plaintiff’s
other requests are more narrowly tailored to obtain such relevant information. The Court finds
that documents specifically discussing efforts to amend or modify the PRSA are not relevant to

class certification, and Plaintiff fails to articulate any rationale for seeking these documents for
purposes of class certification.
3. All Documents evidencing, demonstrating, and/or reflecting the
amount of O&G Proceeds and interest on O&G Proceeds Roan
currently holds in suspense for Owners in the Wells (2d RFP. No. 15)
Granted, subject to limitations and ESI protocols. Plaintiff states that documents
responsive to this RFP will prove relevant to class certification, because they will demonstrate
whether Roan holds interest, as well as principal, in suspense whenever a royalty owner is
unknown. The Court finds this request to be relevant to class certification. However, the Court
finds this request to be overbroad and limits the request to summary documents and
communications demonstrating the amount of O&G Proceeds and interest on O&G Proceeds that
Roan holds in suspense for Owners of the Wells. The parties shall meet and confer to establish
ESI protocols and to identify relevant search terms and relevant custodians.
4. All Documents evidencing, demonstrating, or reflecting the amount of
O&G Proceeds and interest on O&G Proceeds from Oklahoma Wells
that have escheated or otherwise been paid by Roan to the State of
Oklahoma (including documents identifying each person who is/was an
Owner in the Oklahoma Well for which such O&G Proceeds were
transferred to the State), and all Documents Roan provided to the State
of Oklahoma regarding O&G Proceeds and interest on O&G Proceeds
that have escheated or otherwise been paid to the State of Oklahoma
(2d RFP. Nos. 17, 18)
Granted, subject to limitations and ESI protocols. Plaintiff states that documents
responsive to RFP Nos. 17 and 18 will prove relevant to class certification, because an owner’s
right to unclaimed property funds exists, whether the owner takes possession of the funds or a state
holds the money for the owner. The Court finds this request to be relevant to class certification.
See Cline v. Sunoco, Inc., No. 6:17-cv-313-JAG, ECF No. 186, at 1 (E.D. Okla. Nov. 26, 2019)
(finding that late-payment class may include recipients of payments made to state unclaimed
property funds, because the owners’ right to the funds in question “exists, whether the owners take

possession of the funds themselves or a state holds the money for them”). However, the Court
finds this request to be overbroad and limits the request to summary documents and
communications, including such summary documents and communications with the State of
Oklahoma, demonstrating the amount of O&G Proceeds and interest on O&G Proceeds that Roan
paid to the State of Oklahoma in escheatment. The parties shall meet and confer to establish ESI
protocols and to identify relevant search terms and relevant custodians.
5. Communications between Roan and any Owners concerning the
payment of interest on any Untimely Payments in any Oklahoma Well
(2d RFP No. 24)
Granted, subject to ESI protocols. Plaintiff states that documents responsive to this RFP
will prove relevant to class certification, pointing out that Roan maintained an Interest Demand
Tracking Spreadsheet to keep track of interest owed for late payments. The Court finds this request
to be relevant to class certification, because it may show whether Roan had a company-wide policy
regarding payment of interest on late payments. The parties shall meet and confer to establish ESI
protocols and to identify relevant search terms and relevant custodians.
6. Documents concerning Any Communication between Roan and any
Oklahoma state, county, or local agency regarding Roan’s obligation to
pay interest on Untimely Payments (RFP No. 26)
Granted, subject to ESI protocols. Plaintiff states that documents responsive to this RFP
will prove relevant to class certification, because escheated funds and state unclaimed funds fall
squarely within the issues of this case. The Court finds this request to be relevant to class
certification, because it may show whether Roan had a company-wide policy regarding payment
of interest on late payments. The parties shall meet and confer to establish ESI protocols and to
identify relevant search terms and relevant custodians.
D. Request to Compel Production of Documents Roan Promised to Produce
Plaintiff asks the Court to compel Roan to produce documents it agreed to produce in
response to various RFPs in both the First and Second Sets of RFPs. Plaintiff contends that, despite
Roan’s promise to produce documents, production has not been forthcoming. Roan is still in the
process of searching for and producing documents to Plaintiff. Roan further represents that,
despite some initial production delay, it has now produced significant volumes of documents. ECF
No. 43. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s request for an order compelling production of the agreed
documents is denied at this time.
V. Conclusion
Plaintiffs First Motion to Compel (ECF No. 37) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED
IN PART as set forth above. Plaintiff shall propose ESI protocols for relevant requests no later
than ten days from the date of this Order, and the parties shall meet and confer regarding disputes
and make all efforts to reach agreement.
SO ORDERED this 2nd day of June, 2020.
( Jeti □□ : Jee Qs
JQDIF. JAY AGISFRATE JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

11

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10386392. Public record. Not legal advice.