Preview
CAUSE NO. 2019-66559
SILVERBO RESOURCES IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF
OPERATING, LLC,
Plaintiff
HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS
CHAMPIONS CINCO PIPE & SUPPLY,
LLC, TMK IPSCO, TEXAS STEEL
CONVERSION, INC., AND
AM TEX MACHINE PRODUCTS, INC.,
JUDICIAL DISTRICT
AM TEX MACHINE PRODUCTS, INC.’S MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY
RESPONSES FROM PLAINTIFF SILVERBOW
Defendant AM TEX MACHINE PRODUCTS, INC. (“Am Tex hereby files this
Motion to Compel Discovery Responses f m Plaintiff SilverBow Resources Operating
LLC (“SilverBow”).
I. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
SilverBow contracted Champions Cinco Pipe & Supply, LLC (Cinco to supply
casing and couplings for various wells. Cinco sourced casing and couplings from TMK
IPSCO International, LLC (“TMK”). TMK ordered coupling stock from coupling
rer American Cap Company (“ACC”). ACC subcontracted Texas Steel
Conversion (exas Steel Texas Steel
coupling stock and certfied that it was heat treated according to the required
specifications.
ACC could not make TMK’s complete order and thus TMK called
already heat treated coupling stock from ACC and cut and thread the
coupling stock into couplings sell to TMK. To make the couplings, cut the 30
to 40 feet lengths of coupling stock into smaller lengths and applied threading inside
the smaller lengths
has been sued because it issued our Certificate of Compliances for the
hat allegedly may have been used in SilverBows wells:
Certificate of Compliance ; Quantity AM TEX00000
e of Compliancedated 4/1/2018; Quantity 720 (00000
Certificate of Compliancedated 4/16/2018; Quantity 1,080AM TEX
Certificate of Compliance5/9; Quantity 306
each of these Certificates, certified thall couplings fitting the above
manufactured, sampled, tested, and inspected in accordance with the latest editions
API Specifications 5Ct, 5B, Q1 including Wet Fluorescent Magnetic Particle Inspection
with Black Light and made in accordance to TWK g DQX REV 1, Zinc
phate to the API 5CT Latest Edition Am Tex did not heat treat the coupling stock;
Am Tex certified that the heat treatment was done correctly. Nevertheless,
brings vague claims against Am Tex for negligence an negligent
resentat simply because SilverBow alleges that the couplings failed to meet
specifications for P110 Thus, in order develop its defenses, Am Tex serve written
requests Silver, some of which SilverBow refuses to answer and are the
subject of this motion
Exhi
Plaintiff s Fourth Amended Petition, pa
GUMENTS ANDAUTHORITIES
Legal Standard
Under Rules 192 and 197 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, a party entitled
to discovery regarding nonprivileged matters that are relevant to the parties' claims and
defenses. Tex. R. Civ. P. 192, 197; e CSX Corp., 124 S.W.3d 149, 152 (Tex.
The Texas Rules of Civil Procedure allow a party to obtain discovery regarding
any matter that is not privileged and is relevant to the subject matter of the case. TEX
The purpose of discovery is to seek the truth, so that disputes may be
decided by what the facts reveal, not by what facts are concealed. See Axelson, Inc. v.
, 798 S.W.2d 550, 555 (Tex. 1990). As the Texas Supreme Court has stressed,
discovery is “the lynchpin of the search for truth, and it makes a trial less of a game of
blind man’s bluff and more a fair contest with the issues and facts disclosed to the fullest
practicable extent State v. Lowry, 802 S.W.2d 669, 671 (Tex. 1991). “[A]n evasive or
incomplete answer is to be treated as a failure to answer.” TEX P. 215.1(c).
co very requests are not overbroad or irrelevant when they seek information
related to a party’s claims or defenses. See In re Master Flo Valve Inc., 485 S.W.3d 207,
217 (Tex. App. on [14th Dist.] 2016, no pet.).
a party fails to comply with proper discovery requests, the court in which
the action is pending may, after notice and hearing, compel the offending party to comply
with the discovery requests and may require the party whose conduct necessitated the
n to pay the moving party the reasonable expenses incurred in obtaining the order.
Tex. R. Civ. P. 215.1(d) see also Bodnow Corp. v. Hondo, 721 S.W.2d 839, 840
Am Tex seeks an order overruling objections and compelling
substantive answers to econd, a Set of Interrogatories and
quests for Admissions
History and Meeting and Confering
On January 7, 2020, Am Tex served SilverBow with a First Set of Interrogatories
no. 1 rBow responded on February 19, 2020. On May 11, 2022, Am Tex
SilverBow with a Second Set of Interrogatories rBow
responded on June 10, 2022. For Interrogatories No 6, 9, 10, 11, 14 SilverBow
Discovery is ongoing and SilverBow will supplement in accordance with the Texas
Rules of Civil Procedure.
[D]iscovery is ongoing and SilverBow will supplement its answer once it obtains this
information.
Based on SilverBow sentation that it supplement its reponses, Am Tex
waited for SilverBow to supplement and it never did.
vember 23, 2022, Silve with Request for Admissions
ird Set of Interrogatorie (no. 2430) Upon receiving an extension, Plaintiff
responded on January 6, 2023.
hibi
Exhibit
Exhibit
Exhibit
Exhibit and
hibiF and
hibi and
requested supplements a letter dated August 2, 2022
Si ’s counsel stated one call that Plaintiff as
supplements. When Am Tex again ested supplements in a letter dated January
SilverBow s counsel responded in an email ing take more time
since their client was in trial. When Am Tex requested supplements in an email
on January 23, 2023, SilverBows counsel stated he would be out of the office the
following week. Finall upon threatening a motion to compel
Silver ounsel responded on that same day the first time be
enting the responses it previously stated it would supplement
Thus, this motion has become necessary.
ormation Requested in Discove
Category #1: Basis aims Am Tex Which
Contains the eged Misrepresentation (Interrogatory 5)
is seeking to discover all statements o which SilverBow
negligent / misrepresetation Am Tex issued icate of
pliancesfor the couplingsthat allegedly en used in Silver s wells:
Certificate of Compliance ; Quantity AM TEX00000
e of Com dated 4/1; Quantity AM
/SB 000015
of Compliancedated 4/16/2018; Quantity 1,080AM TEX
Certificate of Compliance5/9; Quantity 306
Exhibit
Id.
Id.
Id.
Exhi bit A
is seeking to discover which of these four are being alleged to have
been negligent / misrepresentatio that caused SilverBow s damages Because
SilverBow’s petition and disclosures fail to state which certificate is at issue,
is seeking this information through discovery.
Interrogatory SilverBo s response is below:
Interrogatory No. 5: If you contend that Am Tex was in any way liable,
negligent, or responsible for the alleged incidents involving the casing and
couplings at issue, then list each such alleged act and/or basis for such
alleged liaility, negligence or conduct and why you believed same to
have caused your damages.
ANSWER: Am T issued multiple certificates of compliance regarding
the casing (See response to Interrogatories 3 and 4). The casing however
did not comply with the specif cations to which Am Tex certified. These
certifications misrepresented the quality of the product and were relied
upon to the detriment of SilverBow when it used the casing in its wells.
Despite the certifications provided by Am Tex the casing exceeded the
ield range and was too hard. Due to these defects the casing was
abnormally susceptible to failure and because of the defects did fail. As a
result, SilverBow had to repair the wells and mitigate the damage caused.
The failure also causedSilverBow to los and delay production.
’s answer to No. 5 refers to its answer to No. 4. Plaintiff’s answer to
Interrogatory 4 Certificate of Compliance Bates labeled SB 000015
which is the same as AM TEX 000003 However, SilverBow discovery
r to multiple” certificates. SilverBow should respond to Intetory
with the bates number of the specific certificate or certificates ue
in this lawsuit. If only this single certificate (SB 0000 is at i, then SilverBow
should amend its tion and other discovery to
Exhi bit
#2: Basis of Plaintiffaims Am Tex Which
Statements Alleged to be Negligent Misrepresentation
ry 24 RFA 440, 41
Certificateof Compliance, thefollowing repsentations are
SilverBow admitted Am Tex made a misrepresentation in a
Compliance that is bates stamped / SB 000015 Silv admitted
paragraph above contained a misrepresentation in Response to RFA 3
Silver denied that the second paragraph (above) is a misrepresentation in Respons
RFA No.
Admit that you have no other allegat ons that Am Tex made a negligent misrepresentation
other than in the statements recited in Request No. 3 and 4
its objections, SilverBow responded deny.
Exhi
See Exhibit , SilverBow s Response to RFA No. 1. SilverBow admitted only to the extent that Am
Tex misrepresented that the purchased casing met industry standards and specifications for P‐110 HC
casing.
Id.,Silver Response to RFA No. 3
Id., Silver Bow Response to RFA No. 2
This should state recited in Request No. and
RFA No.
Admit that Am Tex’s Certificate of Compliance bates stamped SB 0000 / AM TEX
contains the only misrepresentations by Am Tex that you claimed to have relied
upon that caused your damages in the instant lawsuit.
its objections, SilverBow responded, den
RFA No. 40stated:
Admit that you have no other llegations that Am Tex made a negligent
misrepresentation other than in the statements recited in SB 000015 / AM TEX 00003,
AM TEX 00001, AMTEX 00005, and AM TEX 00007.
bjections, Silv responded with
RFA No. 4stated:
mit that Am Tex’s Certificate of Compliance bates stamped SB 000015 / AM
TEX 00003, AM TEX 00001, AM TEX 00005, and AM TEX 00007 contain the only
misrepresentations by Am Tex that you claimed to have relied upon that caused your
damages in the instant uit.
its objections, SilverBowresponded with
hese responses certificates and statements
SilverBow will claim are negligen misrepresentations. simply wants
SilverBow to identify all alleged representations
SilverBow did not respond , then Am Tex moves
compel SilverBow to answer Interrogatory No. 24 which requests the legal and/or factual
thels to Request for dmissions 4, 5, 40 and 41
at is the evidence that shows a coupling certified by
was used in the subject Interrogatory 24 as it pertains to RFA
Exhi bit
Exhibit
will need to pr that a coupling Am Tex was used in one
of the three failed wells namely the San Miguel Ranch 19H, Rio Bravo 3H, or the Rio
Bravo 102H. Thus, Am Tex the following requests for admissions asking whether
SilverBow had any such evidence.
4. Admit that you have no evidence that a coupling referred to in Certificat
Compliance AM TEX 000001 was used in well SMR 19H.
25. Admit that you have no evidence that a coupling referred to in Certificate of
Compliance AM TEX 000003 was used in w ll SMR 19H.
26. Admit that you have no evidence that a coupling referred to Certificate of
Compliance AM TEX 000005 was used in well SMR 19H.
27. Admit that you have no evidence that a coupling referred to in Certificate of
Compliance AM TEX 000007was used in well SMR 19H.
28. Admit that you have no evidence that a coupling referred to in Certificate of
Compliance AM TEX 000001 was used in well Rio Bravo 3H.
29. Admit that you have no evidence that a coupling referred to in Certificate of
Compl ance AM TEX 000003 was used in well Rio Bravo 3H.
30. Admit that you have n vidence that a coupling referred to in Certificate of
Compliance AM TEX 000005 was used in well Rio Bravo 3H.
31. Admit that you have no evidence that a coupling referred to in Certificate of
Compliance AM TEX 000007 was used in well Rio Bravo 3H.
Admit that you have no evidence that a coupling referred to in Certificate of
ComplianceAM TEX 000001 was used in well Rio Bravo 102H.
Admit that you have no evidence that a coupling referred to in Certificate of
ComplianceAM TEX 000003 was us well Rio Bravo 102H.
Admit that you have no evidence that a coupling referred to in Certificate of
ComplianceAM TEX 000005 was used in well Rio Bravo 102H.
Admit that you have no evidence that a coupling referred to in Certificate of
Com ianAM TEX 000007 was used in well Rio Bravo 102H.
RESPONSE [to Plaintiff objects to this Request on the grounds that requests for
admission are intended to simplify trials by addressing uncontroverted matters or
evidentiary ones like authenti ty or admissibility of documents. They are not intended to
require a plaintiff to admit the validity of its claims or concede defendant’s defenses. See
Marino, 355 S.W.3d at 632. Parties may not use requests for admission as a tool to trap
theiroppositi ee Birdo, 842 S.W .2d at 701. Plaintiff objects to this Request because it
impliedly calls for a legal conclusion. Plaintiff objects to this Request because it
improperly has a merits‐preclusive effect and will preclude presentation of the merits of
this case. See Time Warner, 441 S.W.3d at 66566. Plaintiff objects to this Request
because it improperly seeks an expert opinion. Plaintiff objects to this Request because it
improperly attempts to conduct expert discovery in contravention of Rule 195 of th
exas Rules of Civil Procedure. Subject to the foregoing objections and without waiving
the same, deny.
objections should be overruled. ese requests are ing Plaintiff to admit
the truth of any matter within the scope of discovery whics covered under Rule 198. It
SilverBow burden at trial to prove tha coupling was even used in any of
s wells. SilverBow has any evidence that Am Tex couplings were used in
wells, is obligated to disclose that inforion.
Since SilverBow ultimately responded deny then moves the court to
compel SilverBow to answer Interrogatory No. 24 which requests the legal and/or factual
for In other words, has evidence that a couplinert
was actually used in one of the failed wells is entitled to know that
to prepare it es
at is the evidence that shows a c pling certified by
efective? Interrogatory 24 as it pertainFA
Fourth Amended Petition allege Am Tex inspected the
Purchased Casing and issued ertificat that the Purchased Casing met the standards
for P The petition alleges that Purchased Casing (including coupling stock
id not meet the API 5CT standards for P 110 HC casingand thus was defective It is
SilverBows burden to establish that a coupling or couplings Am Tex certified was
Exhibit
See Plaintiff ’s Fourth Amended Petition, page
See Plaintiff ’s Fourth Amended Petition, page 6.
coupling that found to be defective. In the document production
SilverBow has not yet produced any such evidence. Thus, issued
the following Request for Admissions:
Admit that you have no evidence that a coupling referred to in Certificate of
ComplianceAM TEX 000001 was defective.
Admit that you have no evidence that a coupling referred to in Certificate of
ComplianceAM TEX 000003 was defective.
Admit that you have no evidence that a coupling referred to in Certificate of
ComplianceAM TEX 000005 was defectiv
Admi at you have no evidence tha t a coupling referred to in Certificate of
ComplianceAM TEX 000007 was defective.
RESPONSE [to 36 39] Plaintiff objects to this Request on the grounds that requests for
admission are intended to simplify trials by addressi ncontroverted matters or
identiary ones like authenticity or admissibility of documents. They are not intended to
require a plaintiff to admit the validity of its claims or concede defendant’s defenses. See
Marino, 355 S.W.3d at 632. Parties may not use requests for admission as a tool to trap
theiropposition. See Birdo, 842 S.W.2d at 701. Plaintiff objects to this Request because it
impliedly calls for a legal conclusion. Plaintiff objects to this Request because it
improperly has a merits‐preclusivffect and will preclude pres entation of the merits of
this a case. See Time Warner, 441 S.W.3d at 66566. Plaintiff objects to this Request
because it improperly seeks an expert opinion. Plaintiff objects to this Request because it
improper attempts to conduct expert discovery in contravention of Rule 195 of the
Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. Subject to the foregoing objections and without waiving
the same, deny.
objections should be overruled. ese requests are asking Platiff to admit
the truth of any matter within the scope of discovery which is covered under Rule 198.
been pending since 2019. SilverBow should provide
nce support its claim that a coupling certified was def If
SilverBow does not have any evidence, then it should answer that it does not have any
Exhibit
Since SilverBow ultimately responded Am Tex moves
urt to compel SilverBow to answer Interrogatory No. 24 which ts the legal
factual basis for
SilverBows Reading of Alleged Misrepresentations (RFA
and Interrogatory as it pertains to RFA
s Request for Admission No. 6 and SilverBows response is
Adm t that you did not read Am Tex’s Certificate of Compliance that is bates stamped
000015 / AM TEX 00003 before the subject incident.
RESPONSE: Plaintiff objects to this Request because it is compound. Plaintiff objects to
this Request because, as draft d, it is misleading. Plaintiff objects to this Request because
it seeks irrelevant information and/or is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery
of admissible evidence. Subject to the foregoing objections and without waiving the
same, the indiv dual most directly involved in the procurement of the subject
casing/couplings is no longer employed by SilverBow. Thus, SilverBow currently lacks
sufficient information to admit or deny. SilverBow will supplement this response once
more information is ob ained.
two objections should be overruled. First, the request is not
compound. SB 000015 / AM TEX 00003 are the same document. Seche request is
relevant because it concerns one of the elements of SilverBo negligent
misrepresentatioclaim.
over, SilverBo d be compelled to respond to this for
Rule 198.2 Lack of information or knowledge is not a
proper response unless the responding party states that a reasonable inquiry was made b
information known or easily obtainable is insufficient to enable the responding
party to admit or deny. rBow has d to state that a reasonable inquiry has been
Rather, SilverBow mitted that this individual most
Exhibit
Brian Murrah and while Mr. Murrah is no longer employed by SilverBow counsel for
still has control o Brian Murrah enced by Silvers willingness
produce him for deposition. Tus, SilverBow is obgated to at least make reasonable
quiry withMr. Murrahin order torespond to this Request
s Request for Admission No. SilverBows responses to same
ar
Admit that you did not read any of Am Tex’s Certificates of Compliance before the
subject inc dent.
Admit that before the subject incident, you did not read the Am Tex Certificate of
Compliance that is bates stamped AM TEX 000001.
Admit that before the subject incident, you did not read the Am Tex Certificate of
Compliance that is bates tamped AM TEX 000005.
Admit that before the subject incident, you did not read the Am Tex Certificate of
Compliance that is bates stamped AM TEX 000007.
RESPONSE [to 7 Plaintiff objects to this Request because, as drafted, it is
misleading. intiff objects to this Request as overly broad as it is not reasonably limited
in time an scope. Plaintiff objects to this Request because it seeks irrelevant information
and/or is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence
Subject to the foregoing objections and without waiving the same, the individual most
rectly involved in the procurement of the subject casing/couplings is no longer
employed by SilverBow. Thus, SilverBow currently lacks sufficient information to admit
deny. SilverBow will supplement this response once more i nformation is obtained.
objections (misleading, overbroad, and relevance)
The request not misleading and because it concerns one
f the elements of Plaintiff’s negligent misrepresentation claim. is ying to
whether Silverow read any of Am Tex’s Certificates of Compliance prior to
the subject incident.
Exhibit
over, SilverBo d be compelled to respond to these
Rule 198.2 Lack of information or knowledge is not a
proper response unless the responding party states that a reasonable inquiry was made but
information known or easily obtainable is insufficient to ena responding
party to admit or deny. rBow has d to state that a reasonable inquiry has been
Rather, SilverBow mitted that this individual most
Brian Murrah and while Mr. Murrah is no longer employed by Sil counsel for
still has control o Brian Murrah as evidenced by Silvers willingness
produce him for deposition. Tus, rBow is obgated to at least make a rea
quiry withMr. Murrahin order torespond to this Request
r, to the extent that SilverBow does not respond , then
urt to compel SilverBow to answer Interrogatory No. 24 which requests the
legal and/or factual basis for denial lification to a response.
Category #6 Silver Reliance leged Misrepresentations
Interrogatory 24 as it pertains to RFA
Am Texs Request for Admission No. SilverBow s response to same
Admit that you did not rely on Am Tex’s statements in its Certificate of Compliance
thatis bates stamped, SB 0 00015 / AM TEX 000003.
Admit that before the subject incident, you did not rely on the Am Tex Certificate of
Compliance that is bates stamped AM TEX 000001.
Admit that before the subject incident, you did ot rely on the Am Tex Certificate of
ompliance that is bates stamped AM TEX 000005.
Admit that before the subject incident, you did not rely on the Am Tex Certificate of
Compliance that is bates stamped AM TEX 000007.
Admit that before the suject incident, you did not rely on the Am Tex Certificate of
Compliance that is bates stamped AM TEX 000001 to confirm that the coupling stock
washeat treated properly.
Admit that before the subject incident, you did not rely on the Am Tex Certific te of
Compliance that is bates stamped SB 000015 / AM TEX 000003 to confirm that the
coupling stock was heat treated properly.
Admit that before the subject incident, you did not rely on the Am Tex Certificates of
Compliance that is bates stamped AM TEX 000005 to confirm that the coupling stock
washeat treated properly.
Admit that before the subject incident, you did not rely on the Am Tex Certificate of
Compliance that is bates stamped AM TEX 000007 to confirm that the coupling stock
washeat treated properly.
Admit that you did not rely on any of Am Tex’s Certificates of Compliance before
thesubject incident took place.
ESPONSE [to 11 Plaintiff objects to this Request because it is compound.
Plaintiff objects to this Request as verly broad as it is not reasonably li mited in time and
scope. Plaintiff objects to this Request on the grounds that requests for admission are
intended to simplify trials by addressing uncontroverted matters or evidentiary ones like
authenticity or admis ibility of documents. They are not intended to require a plaintiff to
admit the validity of its claims or concede defendant’s defenses. See Marino, 355 S.W.3d
at 632. Parties may not use requests for admission as a tool to trap their opposition. See
Birdo 842 S.W.2d at 701. Plaintiff objects to this Request because it impliedly calls for a
legal conclusion. Plaintiff objects to this Request because it improperly has a
merits‐preclusive effect and will preclude presentation of the merits of this a case. See
Time Warner, S.W.3d at 66566. bject to the foregoing objections and without
waiving the same, deny.
Admit that you have no evidence that anyone relied on Am Tex’s Certificates of
Compliance before the subject incident took place.
Admit that you have no evidence that anyone relied on the statements concerning
heat treatment in Am Tex’s Certificates of Compliance before the subject incident took
place.
Admit that you did not rely on any statements by Am Tex as to heat treatment before
thesubject incident took place.
Admit that you have no evidence that anyone relied on any statements by Am Tex as
hea t treatmentbefore the subject incident took place.
RESPONSE [to 20 23] Plaintiff objects to this Request as overly broad as it is not
reasonably limited in scope. Plaintiff objects to this Request on the grounds that requests
for admission are intended to simplify trials by addressing uncontroverted matters or
evidentiary ones like authenticity or admissibility of documents. They are not intended to
require a plaintiff to admit the validity of its claims or concede defendant’s defenses. See
Marino, 355 S.W.3d at 632. Parties may not use requests for admission as a tool to trap
their opposition. See Birdo, 842 S.W.2d at 701. Plaintiff objects to this Request because it
impliedly calls for a legal conclusion. Plaintiff objects to this Request because it
roperly has a merits‐preclusive effect and will preclude presentation of the merits of
this a case. See Time Warner, 441 S.W.3d at 665 Subject to the foregoing objections
and without waiving the same, deny.
objections should be overruled. First, the request not compound.
Anytime there are two documents listed, it is because they are the same document. The
relevant ation and are sufficiently limited in scope because
one of the elements of Plaintiff’s negligent miepresentation claim, the reliance
is ying to discover whether Silverow relied on any of Am Tex
Certificates of Compliance prior to the subject incident.
Since SilverBow ultimately responded moves
SilverBow to answer Interrogatory No. 24 which requests the legal and/or factual
such In other words, if SilverBow contends that it did rely on an
certificate, then it should provide the evidence that supports that contention.
thers who performed work on couplings at issue
tory 6)
Interrogatory 6SilverBow s response is below:
Interrogatory No. 6: Identify each and every person, firm, association, company or
entity that performed work involving the casing and couplings at issue. Please described
the job/service thateach entity was retained to perform.
ANSWER: SilverBow objects to this interrogatory as it is overly broad, unduly
burdensome and vague regarding “performed work involving the casin and couplings at
issue.” Subject to and without waiving the foregoing. Discovery is ongoing and
SilverBow will supplement in accordancewith the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure.
Exhibit
Exhibit
SilverBow claims that three of its wells failed due to defective couplings. Am Tex
could not have been the only company who provided couplings that were used in the
SilverBow wells at issue Am Tex is aware of at least one other company, American Cap
Company, LLC (“ACC”), who provided couplings for SilverBow well To the exten
Bow has knowledge of companies who provided couplings for its own
at issueit cannot hide this information and is obgated to disclose this information.
If SilverBow does not know of any other companies who provided couplings, then it
should answer as such.
Category rsons who performed repair, maintenance or remedial
work on couplings at issueInterrogatory
Interroga ory SilverBows response is below:
Interrogatory No. 10: Please identify every person, firm, association, company or
entity that has performed any repair, maintenance or other remedial work on the casing
and couplings at issue, as well as the work performed, and the dates such work was
performed.
ANSWER: SilverBow objects to this request as it is overly broad and unduly
burdensome. SilverBow also objects as this request seeks information that is irrelevant
and not likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Further, the information
sought is ascertainable from a review of documents that SilverBow is currently
gathering and will produce. Discovery is ongoing and SilverBow will supplement in
accordance with the Texas Rulesof Civil Procedure.
SilverBow knows of an entity that hired to repair oain the subject couplings
at issue, then is entitled to that infor
ry #9 manufacturers and heat treaters of coupling stock
21)
SilverBow preserved (and pipe) involved in the subject
litigation and d thPatterson I Facility uly 13, 2021
Exhibit
SilverBow hosted an for the p inspection, Am Tex
presentatives identified couplings that appear to have been manufactured by other
entities other than Am Tex nterrogatoy No 21 simply request ty of the
other coupling manufacturers and heat treaters of the couplings that are being store by
Intertories 15and SilverBowresponsebelow:
Interrogator o. 1 Please identify manufacturer of the coupling (i.e. what entity cut and
threaded the coupling) that contains the following denti cation arking Line #1: “TMK UP
ULTRA DQX 5.5/6.CYHP” and Line #2 AHT 271318P SN201995 027 7 3B
coupling reported location in te str ng was #19 Top/Coupling/#18 Bottom The coupling was
located at the Patterson spection Facility during the July 13, 2021 inspection by the parties in
the in ant lawsuit.
Interrogatory No. As to the coupling identified in terrogator No. , who was the
manufacturer of the coupling stockto which the coupling originated from?
Interrogatory No. As to the coupling identified in errogatory No. , who heat treated
the upling stockto which the coupling originated from?
terroga ory No. Please identify the coupling manufacturer (i.e. what entity cut and
threaded the coupling) for the following coupling that is de cted in the photographs AM TEX
and AM TEX 0 The photographs are enclosed for ease of reference. The upling
was located at the Patterson Ispection Facility during the J uly 13, 2021 inspection by the parties
in the instant lawsuit.
Interrogatory No. As to the coupling identified in errogatory No. [18], who was the
manufacturer of the uplin tockto which the coupling originated from?
Interrogatory No. As to the couplin identified in nterrogatory No. [18], w heat treated
thecoupling stockto which the coupling originated from?
Interrogatory No. Please identify all upling manu acturers, manfacturers of coupling
stock, or companies who heat treated coupling stock that was used for couplings hat were used
n the Silverbow wells Miguel Ranch 19H, the Rio Bravo 3H, and the Rio Bravo 102H, other
han entities who are already parti s to the subject lawsuit.
ANSWER to 15 : SilverBow objects to this Interrogatory because the information sought is
equally or more available to AM Tex Machine Products, Inc. and/or other defendants in this
matter. Subject to the objection and without aiving same, at this time, the information sought is
the subject of expert testimony which is not yet due per the agreed docket control order. Further,
discovery is ongoing and SilverBow will supplement its answer once it obtains this
information.
Sil s objections are without merit. This information is not equally available to
as these couplings are in SilverBows possession. Further if SilverBow
have ascertained the identity of other manufacturers of couplings that were found
at e subject wells invol in this litigation, then SilverBow is required to disclose
these entities. Am Tex that SilverBows objections be overruled and SilverBow
compelledto answer these interrogatories.
Category #10Coupling Testing Details(Interrogatory 23)
Interroga SilverBows response
Interrogatory No. For Joint # 1 (Rio Bravo 3H shallowest joint Coupling
heat 275643 referenced in VIKING 006887 produced by you ere any test
data for the coupling at 27564 This test data includes upling yield strength,
coupling impact testing, and coupling hardness ring. If yes, please advise where
the test data is located.
ANSWER: SilverBow objects to this Interrogatory because the information
sought is equal y or more available to AM Tex Machine Products, Inc. Subject to
the objection and without waiving same, SilverBow refers to the documents
previously produced, including, but not limited to, VIKING 006889 (Brinell
Hardness Testing), VIKING 006891 (Chemistr Analysis), VIKING 006893
6894 (Magnetic Particle Test Report), VIKING 006903 (Charpy V Notch Impact
Testing per API 5CT), VIKING 006907 (API 5CT Hardness Test Ring Joint
#1), and VIKING 006908 (Yield StrengtDetermination).
Interrogatory 23 requestd information about coupling testing n Joint #1. SilverBow
provided information about Pipe Body testing. In a call with
co represented that no coupling tests were performed on Joint #1. Am Tex
requests that SilverBowamend its answer to reflect the same.
Exhibit
hibit
Category #11Damage Interrogator
Interrogatoryand 11and SilverBows response are
nterrogatory No. 9: Please itemize each and every item and expense which you claim
to ave incurred as a result of the incident(s) that are made the basis of this lawsuit,
includinremediation costs, lost reve nue, lost profits, and other claimed expenses.
ANSWER to No. 9 SilverBow objects to this interrogatory as it seeks information tha
will be the subject of expert testimony. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing
objection, SilverBow is continuing o obtain information regarding its damages, which
will in part be the subject of expert testimony. Once completed, SilverBow will
plement this response. Currently, SilverBow suffered the below categories of costs
and expenses as damages. Discovery is ongoing and SilverBow will supplement in
accordance with the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure.
Purchase price paid for defective casing that was not within specifications, including
service costs to run the defective casing
Costs to repair and mitigate the damage caused by the defective casing; and
Deferred, delayed and lost production resulting from the delays caused by the
defectivecas
Interrogatory No. 11: Please identify any estimates of damages or appraisals that have
been made regarding the damagesas alleged in this matter.
ANSWER to No. 11 SilverBow objects to this interrogatory as it seeks information that
will be the subj ct of expert testimony. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing
objection, damages are being determined and this response will be supplemented once
our damages are complete. To date SilverBow has not received any payment for any
damages to the wells. Discovery is ongoing and SilverBow will supplement in
accordance with the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure.
es occurred over four years ago and Silver first filed the Original
Petition in 2019. Yet SilverBow is requesting to wait until is expert deadline which
continues to be and is now June 16, 2023 to disclose what its economic damages
Plaintiff should answer this int ry and update its disclosures to provi its
economic damages.
ilverBow has failed toprovide fications
SilverBow has failed to provide signed verifications to its answers to
Exhibit
nd Third Set of Interrogatories as required by Rule 197.2(d) Am Tex has
requested such verifications and to date, SilverBow has not provided them. Thus,
Court for an order compelling SilverBow to provide verified answers to
rogatories
PRAYER
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, AM Tex Machine Products, Inc.
ays the Court rant this otion eland order that
of the signing of this Plaintiff SilverBow Resources
Operating, LLC rovide complete answers and responses Am
Machine Products, Inc.
Interrogatory 5
ry 24 as it pertains to Request sion
ory 24 as it pertains to Request sion
Interrogatory 24 as it pertainRequest sion
for Admission
Interrogatory as it pertains toRequest sion
Interrogatory it pertains to Request sion
tory 6
Interrogatory
ries
Interrogatory 23
ies 9 & 11
SilverBow Resources Operating, LLCs objections to Rquests for
Admissions 6 39 are OVERRULED
SilverBow Resources Operating, LLCs objections to Interrogator
are OVERRULED
of the signing of this Plaintiff SilverBow Resources
Operating, LLC shall signed Verifications to its answers to Am Tex
First, Second, and Third Set of Interrogatories
Further, Defendant seeks any further relief to which Defendant may prove itself entitled
equity and
ly submitted,
LC
. WILLIAMS
StateBar No. 0078867
State Bar No. 536
erica Tower
2929 Allen Parkway, Suite 2900
77019
: (713) 65
(713) 7397420
twillia @germer
@germer.c
NEY FOR DEFENDANT
AM TEX MACHINE PRODUCTS,INC.
CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE
I hereby certify that made the following attempts to meet and confer with
ounsel for SverBow regarding the discovery requests outlined in this motion etter to
s counsel dated August 2, 2022 nd call shortly thereafter with Wesley Keel;
to Silvers counsel dated January 11, 2023 Email with SilverBow’s counsel
nuary 18 , and 31, 2023 and February 6 and 9, 2023. The letters and emails are
attached to this motion as Exhibit As of the date of filing this motion, lverBow has
provided the requested discovery and has stated it would not be supplementi
f the requested disco
TIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing instrument
has been duly served to all counsel through the Court’s eservice to a
February
Preview
CAUSE NO. 2019-66559 SILVERBO RESOURCES IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF OPERATING, LLC, Plaintiff HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS CHAMPIONS CINCO PIPE & SUPPLY, LLC, TMK IPSCO, TEXAS STEEL CONVERSION, INC., AND AM TEX MACHINE PRODUCTS, INC., JUDICIAL DISTRICT AM TEX MACHINE PRODUCTS, INC.’S MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY RESPONSES FROM PLAINTIFF SILVERBOW Defendant AM TEX MACHINE PRODUCTS, INC. (“Am Tex hereby files this Motion to Compel Discovery Responses f m Plaintiff SilverBow Resources Operating LLC (“SilverBow”). I. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT SilverBow contracted Champions Cinco Pipe & Supply, LLC (Cinco to supply casing and couplings for various wells. Cinco sourced casing and couplings from TMK IPSCO International, LLC (“TMK”). TMK ordered coupling stock from coupling rer American Cap Company (“ACC”). ACC subcontracted Texas Steel Conversion (exas Steel Texas Steel coupling stock and certfied that it was heat treated according to the required specifications. ACC could not make TMK’s complete order and thus TMK called already heat treated coupling stock from ACC and cut and thread the coupling stock into couplings sell to TMK. To make the couplings, cut the 30 to 40 feet lengths of coupling stock into smaller lengths and applied threading inside the smaller lengths has been sued because it issued our Certificate of Compliances for the hat allegedly may have been used in SilverBows wells: Certificate of Compliance ; Quantity AM TEX00000 e of Compliancedated 4/1/2018; Quantity 720 (00000 Certificate of Compliancedated 4/16/2018; Quantity 1,080AM TEX Certificate of Compliance5/9; Quantity 306 each of these Certificates, certified thall couplings fitting the above manufactured, sampled, tested, and inspected in accordance with the latest editions API Specifications 5Ct, 5B, Q1 including Wet Fluorescent Magnetic Particle Inspection with Black Light and made in accordance to TWK g DQX REV 1, Zinc phate to the API 5CT Latest Edition Am Tex did not heat treat the coupling stock; Am Tex certified that the heat treatment was done correctly. Nevertheless, brings vague claims against Am Tex for negligence an negligent resentat simply because SilverBow alleges that the couplings failed to meet specifications for P110 Thus, in order develop its defenses, Am Tex serve written requests Silver, some of which SilverBow refuses to answer and are the subject of this motion Exhi Plaintiff s Fourth Amended Petition, pa GUMENTS ANDAUTHORITIES Legal Standard Under Rules 192 and 197 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, a party entitled to discovery regarding nonprivileged matters that are relevant to the parties' claims and defenses. Tex. R. Civ. P. 192, 197; e CSX Corp., 124 S.W.3d 149, 152 (Tex. The Texas Rules of Civil Procedure allow a party to obtain discovery regarding any matter that is not privileged and is relevant to the subject matter of the case. TEX The purpose of discovery is to seek the truth, so that disputes may be decided by what the facts reveal, not by what facts are concealed. See Axelson, Inc. v. , 798 S.W.2d 550, 555 (Tex. 1990). As the Texas Supreme Court has stressed, discovery is “the lynchpin of the search for truth, and it makes a trial less of a game of blind man’s bluff and more a fair contest with the issues and facts disclosed to the fullest practicable extent State v. Lowry, 802 S.W.2d 669, 671 (Tex. 1991). “[A]n evasive or incomplete answer is to be treated as a failure to answer.” TEX P. 215.1(c). co very requests are not overbroad or irrelevant when they seek information related to a party’s claims or defenses. See In re Master Flo Valve Inc., 485 S.W.3d 207, 217 (Tex. App. on [14th Dist.] 2016, no pet.). a party fails to comply with proper discovery requests, the court in which the action is pending may, after notice and hearing, compel the offending party to comply with the discovery requests and may require the party whose conduct necessitated the n to pay the moving party the reasonable expenses incurred in obtaining the order. Tex. R. Civ. P. 215.1(d) see also Bodnow Corp. v. Hondo, 721 S.W.2d 839, 840 Am Tex seeks an order overruling objections and compelling substantive answers to econd, a Set of Interrogatories and quests for Admissions History and Meeting and Confering On January 7, 2020, Am Tex served SilverBow with a First Set of Interrogatories no. 1 rBow responded on February 19, 2020. On May 11, 2022, Am Tex SilverBow with a Second Set of Interrogatories rBow responded on June 10, 2022. For Interrogatories No 6, 9, 10, 11, 14 SilverBow Discovery is ongoing and SilverBow will supplement in accordance with the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. [D]iscovery is ongoing and SilverBow will supplement its answer once it obtains this information. Based on SilverBow sentation that it supplement its reponses, Am Tex waited for SilverBow to supplement and it never did. vember 23, 2022, Silve with Request for Admissions ird Set of Interrogatorie (no. 2430) Upon receiving an extension, Plaintiff responded on January 6, 2023. hibi Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit and hibiF and hibi and requested supplements a letter dated August 2, 2022 Si ’s counsel stated one call that Plaintiff as supplements. When Am Tex again ested supplements in a letter dated January SilverBow s counsel responded in an email ing take more time since their client was in trial. When Am Tex requested supplements in an email on January 23, 2023, SilverBows counsel stated he would be out of the office the following week. Finall upon threatening a motion to compel Silver ounsel responded on that same day the first time be enting the responses it previously stated it would supplement Thus, this motion has become necessary. ormation Requested in Discove Category #1: Basis aims Am Tex Which Contains the eged Misrepresentation (Interrogatory 5) is seeking to discover all statements o which SilverBow negligent / misrepresetation Am Tex issued icate of pliancesfor the couplingsthat allegedly en used in Silver s wells: Certificate of Compliance ; Quantity AM TEX00000 e of Com dated 4/1; Quantity AM /SB 000015 of Compliancedated 4/16/2018; Quantity 1,080AM TEX Certificate of Compliance5/9; Quantity 306 Exhibit Id. Id. Id. Exhi bit A is seeking to discover which of these four are being alleged to have been negligent / misrepresentatio that caused SilverBow s damages Because SilverBow’s petition and disclosures fail to state which certificate is at issue, is seeking this information through discovery. Interrogatory SilverBo s response is below: Interrogatory No. 5: If you contend that Am Tex was in any way liable, negligent, or responsible for the alleged incidents involving the casing and couplings at issue, then list each such alleged act and/or basis for such alleged liaility, negligence or conduct and why you believed same to have caused your damages. ANSWER: Am T issued multiple certificates of compliance regarding the casing (See response to Interrogatories 3 and 4). The casing however did not comply with the specif cations to which Am Tex certified. These certifications misrepresented the quality of the product and were relied upon to the detriment of SilverBow when it used the casing in its wells. Despite the certifications provided by Am Tex the casing exceeded the ield range and was too hard. Due to these defects the casing was abnormally susceptible to failure and because of the defects did fail. As a result, SilverBow had to repair the wells and mitigate the damage caused. The failure also causedSilverBow to los and delay production. ’s answer to No. 5 refers to its answer to No. 4. Plaintiff’s answer to Interrogatory 4 Certificate of Compliance Bates labeled SB 000015 which is the same as AM TEX 000003 However, SilverBow discovery r to multiple” certificates. SilverBow should respond to Intetory with the bates number of the specific certificate or certificates ue in this lawsuit. If only this single certificate (SB 0000 is at i, then SilverBow should amend its tion and other discovery to Exhi bit #2: Basis of Plaintiffaims Am Tex Which Statements Alleged to be Negligent Misrepresentation ry 24 RFA 440, 41 Certificateof Compliance, thefollowing repsentations are SilverBow admitted Am Tex made a misrepresentation in a Compliance that is bates stamped / SB 000015 Silv admitted paragraph above contained a misrepresentation in Response to RFA 3 Silver denied that the second paragraph (above) is a misrepresentation in Respons RFA No. Admit that you have no other allegat ons that Am Tex made a negligent misrepresentation other than in the statements recited in Request No. 3 and 4 its objections, SilverBow responded deny. Exhi See Exhibit , SilverBow s Response to RFA No. 1. SilverBow admitted only to the extent that Am Tex misrepresented that the purchased casing met industry standards and specifications for P‐110 HC casing. Id.,Silver Response to RFA No. 3 Id., Silver Bow Response to RFA No. 2 This should state recited in Request No. and RFA No. Admit that Am Tex’s Certificate of Compliance bates stamped SB 0000 / AM TEX contains the only misrepresentations by Am Tex that you claimed to have relied upon that caused your damages in the instant lawsuit. its objections, SilverBow responded, den RFA No. 40stated: Admit that you have no other llegations that Am Tex made a negligent misrepresentation other than in the statements recited in SB 000015 / AM TEX 00003, AM TEX 00001, AMTEX 00005, and AM TEX 00007. bjections, Silv responded with RFA No. 4stated: mit that Am Tex’s Certificate of Compliance bates stamped SB 000015 / AM TEX 00003, AM TEX 00001, AM TEX 00005, and AM TEX 00007 contain the only misrepresentations by Am Tex that you claimed to have relied upon that caused your damages in the instant uit. its objections, SilverBowresponded with hese responses certificates and statements SilverBow will claim are negligen misrepresentations. simply wants SilverBow to identify all alleged representations SilverBow did not respond , then Am Tex moves compel SilverBow to answer Interrogatory No. 24 which requests the legal and/or factual thels to Request for dmissions 4, 5, 40 and 41 at is the evidence that shows a coupling certified by was used in the subject Interrogatory 24 as it pertains to RFA Exhi bit Exhibit will need to pr that a coupling Am Tex was used in one of the three failed wells namely the San Miguel Ranch 19H, Rio Bravo 3H, or the Rio Bravo 102H. Thus, Am Tex the following requests for admissions asking whether SilverBow had any such evidence. 4. Admit that you have no evidence that a coupling referred to in Certificat Compliance AM TEX 000001 was used in well SMR 19H. 25. Admit that you have no evidence that a coupling referred to in Certificate of Compliance AM TEX 000003 was used in w ll SMR 19H. 26. Admit that you have no evidence that a coupling referred to Certificate of Compliance AM TEX 000005 was used in well SMR 19H. 27. Admit that you have no evidence that a coupling referred to in Certificate of Compliance AM TEX 000007was used in well SMR 19H. 28. Admit that you have no evidence that a coupling referred to in Certificate of Compliance AM TEX 000001 was used in well Rio Bravo 3H. 29. Admit that you have no evidence that a coupling referred to in Certificate of Compl ance AM TEX 000003 was used in well Rio Bravo 3H. 30. Admit that you have n vidence that a coupling referred to in Certificate of Compliance AM TEX 000005 was used in well Rio Bravo 3H. 31. Admit that you have no evidence that a coupling referred to in Certificate of Compliance AM TEX 000007 was used in well Rio Bravo 3H. Admit that you have no evidence that a coupling referred to in Certificate of ComplianceAM TEX 000001 was used in well Rio Bravo 102H. Admit that you have no evidence that a coupling referred to in Certificate of ComplianceAM TEX 000003 was us well Rio Bravo 102H. Admit that you have no evidence that a coupling referred to in Certificate of ComplianceAM TEX 000005 was used in well Rio Bravo 102H. Admit that you have no evidence that a coupling referred to in Certificate of Com ianAM TEX 000007 was used in well Rio Bravo 102H. RESPONSE [to Plaintiff objects to this Request on the grounds that requests for admission are intended to simplify trials by addressing uncontroverted matters or evidentiary ones like authenti ty or admissibility of documents. They are not intended to require a plaintiff to admit the validity of its claims or concede defendant’s defenses. See Marino, 355 S.W.3d at 632. Parties may not use requests for admission as a tool to trap theiroppositi ee Birdo, 842 S.W .2d at 701. Plaintiff objects to this Request because it impliedly calls for a legal conclusion. Plaintiff objects to this Request because it improperly has a merits‐preclusive effect and will preclude presentation of the merits of this case. See Time Warner, 441 S.W.3d at 66566. Plaintiff objects to this Request because it improperly seeks an expert opinion. Plaintiff objects to this Request because it improperly attempts to conduct expert discovery in contravention of Rule 195 of th exas Rules of Civil Procedure. Subject to the foregoing objections and without waiving the same, deny. objections should be overruled. ese requests are ing Plaintiff to admit the truth of any matter within the scope of discovery whics covered under Rule 198. It SilverBow burden at trial to prove tha coupling was even used in any of s wells. SilverBow has any evidence that Am Tex couplings were used in wells, is obligated to disclose that inforion. Since SilverBow ultimately responded deny then moves the court to compel SilverBow to answer Interrogatory No. 24 which requests the legal and/or factual for In other words, has evidence that a couplinert was actually used in one of the failed wells is entitled to know that to prepare it es at is the evidence that shows a c pling certified by efective? Interrogatory 24 as it pertainFA Fourth Amended Petition allege Am Tex inspected the Purchased Casing and issued ertificat that the Purchased Casing met the standards for P The petition alleges that Purchased Casing (including coupling stock id not meet the API 5CT standards for P 110 HC casingand thus was defective It is SilverBows burden to establish that a coupling or couplings Am Tex certified was Exhibit See Plaintiff ’s Fourth Amended Petition, page See Plaintiff ’s Fourth Amended Petition, page 6. coupling that found to be defective. In the document production SilverBow has not yet produced any such evidence. Thus, issued the following Request for Admissions: Admit that you have no evidence that a coupling referred to in Certificate of ComplianceAM TEX 000001 was defective. Admit that you have no evidence that a coupling referred to in Certificate of ComplianceAM TEX 000003 was defective. Admit that you have no evidence that a coupling referred to in Certificate of ComplianceAM TEX 000005 was defectiv Admi at you have no evidence tha t a coupling referred to in Certificate of ComplianceAM TEX 000007 was defective. RESPONSE [to 36 39] Plaintiff objects to this Request on the grounds that requests for admission are intended to simplify trials by addressi ncontroverted matters or identiary ones like authenticity or admissibility of documents. They are not intended to require a plaintiff to admit the validity of its claims or concede defendant’s defenses. See Marino, 355 S.W.3d at 632. Parties may not use requests for admission as a tool to trap theiropposition. See Birdo, 842 S.W.2d at 701. Plaintiff objects to this Request because it impliedly calls for a legal conclusion. Plaintiff objects to this Request because it improperly has a merits‐preclusivffect and will preclude pres entation of the merits of this a case. See Time Warner, 441 S.W.3d at 66566. Plaintiff objects to this Request because it improperly seeks an expert opinion. Plaintiff objects to this Request because it improper attempts to conduct expert discovery in contravention of Rule 195 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. Subject to the foregoing objections and without waiving the same, deny. objections should be overruled. ese requests are asking Platiff to admit the truth of any matter within the scope of discovery which is covered under Rule 198. been pending since 2019. SilverBow should provide nce support its claim that a coupling certified was def If SilverBow does not have any evidence, then it should answer that it does not have any Exhibit Since SilverBow ultimately responded Am Tex moves urt to compel SilverBow to answer Interrogatory No. 24 which ts the legal factual basis for SilverBows Reading of Alleged Misrepresentations (RFA and Interrogatory as it pertains to RFA s Request for Admission No. 6 and SilverBows response is Adm t that you did not read Am Tex’s Certificate of Compliance that is bates stamped 000015 / AM TEX 00003 before the subject incident. RESPONSE: Plaintiff objects to this Request because it is compound. Plaintiff objects to this Request because, as draft d, it is misleading. Plaintiff objects to this Request because it seeks irrelevant information and/or is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Subject to the foregoing objections and without waiving the same, the indiv dual most directly involved in the procurement of the subject casing/couplings is no longer employed by SilverBow. Thus, SilverBow currently lacks sufficient information to admit or deny. SilverBow will supplement this response once more information is ob ained. two objections should be overruled. First, the request is not compound. SB 000015 / AM TEX 00003 are the same document. Seche request is relevant because it concerns one of the elements of SilverBo negligent misrepresentatioclaim. over, SilverBo d be compelled to respond to this for Rule 198.2 Lack of information or knowledge is not a proper response unless the responding party states that a reasonable inquiry was made b information known or easily obtainable is insufficient to enable the responding party to admit or deny. rBow has d to state that a reasonable inquiry has been Rather, SilverBow mitted that this individual most Exhibit Brian Murrah and while Mr. Murrah is no longer employed by SilverBow counsel for still has control o Brian Murrah enced by Silvers willingness produce him for deposition. Tus, SilverBow is obgated to at least make reasonable quiry withMr. Murrahin order torespond to this Request s Request for Admission No. SilverBows responses to same ar Admit that you did not read any of Am Tex’s Certificates of Compliance before the subject inc dent. Admit that before the subject incident, you did not read the Am Tex Certificate of Compliance that is bates stamped AM TEX 000001. Admit that before the subject incident, you did not read the Am Tex Certificate of Compliance that is bates tamped AM TEX 000005. Admit that before the subject incident, you did not read the Am Tex Certificate of Compliance that is bates stamped AM TEX 000007. RESPONSE [to 7 Plaintiff objects to this Request because, as drafted, it is misleading. intiff objects to this Request as overly broad as it is not reasonably limited in time an scope. Plaintiff objects to this Request because it seeks irrelevant information and/or is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence Subject to the foregoing objections and without waiving the same, the individual most rectly involved in the procurement of the subject casing/couplings is no longer employed by SilverBow. Thus, SilverBow currently lacks sufficient information to admit deny. SilverBow will supplement this response once more i nformation is obtained. objections (misleading, overbroad, and relevance) The request not misleading and because it concerns one f the elements of Plaintiff’s negligent misrepresentation claim. is ying to whether Silverow read any of Am Tex’s Certificates of Compliance prior to the subject incident. Exhibit over, SilverBo d be compelled to respond to these Rule 198.2 Lack of information or knowledge is not a proper response unless the responding party states that a reasonable inquiry was made but information known or easily obtainable is insufficient to ena responding party to admit or deny. rBow has d to state that a reasonable inquiry has been Rather, SilverBow mitted that this individual most Brian Murrah and while Mr. Murrah is no longer employed by Sil counsel for still has control o Brian Murrah as evidenced by Silvers willingness produce him for deposition. Tus, rBow is obgated to at least make a rea quiry withMr. Murrahin order torespond to this Request r, to the extent that SilverBow does not respond , then urt to compel SilverBow to answer Interrogatory No. 24 which requests the legal and/or factual basis for denial lification to a response. Category #6 Silver Reliance leged Misrepresentations Interrogatory 24 as it pertains to RFA Am Texs Request for Admission No. SilverBow s response to same Admit that you did not rely on Am Tex’s statements in its Certificate of Compliance thatis bates stamped, SB 0 00015 / AM TEX 000003. Admit that before the subject incident, you did not rely on the Am Tex Certificate of Compliance that is bates stamped AM TEX 000001. Admit that before the subject incident, you did ot rely on the Am Tex Certificate of ompliance that is bates stamped AM TEX 000005. Admit that before the subject incident, you did not rely on the Am Tex Certificate of Compliance that is bates stamped AM TEX 000007. Admit that before the suject incident, you did not rely on the Am Tex Certificate of Compliance that is bates stamped AM TEX 000001 to confirm that the coupling stock washeat treated properly. Admit that before the subject incident, you did not rely on the Am Tex Certific te of Compliance that is bates stamped SB 000015 / AM TEX 000003 to confirm that the coupling stock was heat treated properly. Admit that before the subject incident, you did not rely on the Am Tex Certificates of Compliance that is bates stamped AM TEX 000005 to confirm that the coupling stock washeat treated properly. Admit that before the subject incident, you did not rely on the Am Tex Certificate of Compliance that is bates stamped AM TEX 000007 to confirm that the coupling stock washeat treated properly. Admit that you did not rely on any of Am Tex’s Certificates of Compliance before thesubject incident took place. ESPONSE [to 11 Plaintiff objects to this Request because it is compound. Plaintiff objects to this Request as verly broad as it is not reasonably li mited in time and scope. Plaintiff objects to this Request on the grounds that requests for admission are intended to simplify trials by addressing uncontroverted matters or evidentiary ones like authenticity or admis ibility of documents. They are not intended to require a plaintiff to admit the validity of its claims or concede defendant’s defenses. See Marino, 355 S.W.3d at 632. Parties may not use requests for admission as a tool to trap their opposition. See Birdo 842 S.W.2d at 701. Plaintiff objects to this Request because it impliedly calls for a legal conclusion. Plaintiff objects to this Request because it improperly has a merits‐preclusive effect and will preclude presentation of the merits of this a case. See Time Warner, S.W.3d at 66566. bject to the foregoing objections and without waiving the same, deny. Admit that you have no evidence that anyone relied on Am Tex’s Certificates of Compliance before the subject incident took place. Admit that you have no evidence that anyone relied on the statements concerning heat treatment in Am Tex’s Certificates of Compliance before the subject incident took place. Admit that you did not rely on any statements by Am Tex as to heat treatment before thesubject incident took place. Admit that you have no evidence that anyone relied on any statements by Am Tex as hea t treatmentbefore the subject incident took place. RESPONSE [to 20 23] Plaintiff objects to this Request as overly broad as it is not reasonably limited in scope. Plaintiff objects to this Request on the grounds that requests for admission are intended to simplify trials by addressing uncontroverted matters or evidentiary ones like authenticity or admissibility of documents. They are not intended to require a plaintiff to admit the validity of its claims or concede defendant’s defenses. See Marino, 355 S.W.3d at 632. Parties may not use requests for admission as a tool to trap their opposition. See Birdo, 842 S.W.2d at 701. Plaintiff objects to this Request because it impliedly calls for a legal conclusion. Plaintiff objects to this Request because it roperly has a merits‐preclusive effect and will preclude presentation of the merits of this a case. See Time Warner, 441 S.W.3d at 665 Subject to the foregoing objections and without waiving the same, deny. objections should be overruled. First, the request not compound. Anytime there are two documents listed, it is because they are the same document. The relevant ation and are sufficiently limited in scope because one of the elements of Plaintiff’s negligent miepresentation claim, the reliance is ying to discover whether Silverow relied on any of Am Tex Certificates of Compliance prior to the subject incident. Since SilverBow ultimately responded moves SilverBow to answer Interrogatory No. 24 which requests the legal and/or factual such In other words, if SilverBow contends that it did rely on an certificate, then it should provide the evidence that supports that contention. thers who performed work on couplings at issue tory 6) Interrogatory 6SilverBow s response is below: Interrogatory No. 6: Identify each and every person, firm, association, company or entity that performed work involving the casing and couplings at issue. Please described the job/service thateach entity was retained to perform. ANSWER: SilverBow objects to this interrogatory as it is overly broad, unduly burdensome and vague regarding “performed work involving the casin and couplings at issue.” Subject to and without waiving the foregoing. Discovery is ongoing and SilverBow will supplement in accordancewith the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. Exhibit Exhibit SilverBow claims that three of its wells failed due to defective couplings. Am Tex could not have been the only company who provided couplings that were used in the SilverBow wells at issue Am Tex is aware of at least one other company, American Cap Company, LLC (“ACC”), who provided couplings for SilverBow well To the exten Bow has knowledge of companies who provided couplings for its own at issueit cannot hide this information and is obgated to disclose this information. If SilverBow does not know of any other companies who provided couplings, then it should answer as such. Category rsons who performed repair, maintenance or remedial work on couplings at issueInterrogatory Interroga ory SilverBows response is below: Interrogatory No. 10: Please identify every person, firm, association, company or entity that has performed any repair, maintenance or other remedial work on the casing and couplings at issue, as well as the work performed, and the dates such work was performed. ANSWER: SilverBow objects to this request as it is overly broad and unduly burdensome. SilverBow also objects as this request seeks information that is irrelevant and not likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Further, the information sought is ascertainable from a review of documents that SilverBow is currently gathering and will produce. Discovery is ongoing and SilverBow will supplement in accordance with the Texas Rulesof Civil Procedure. SilverBow knows of an entity that hired to repair oain the subject couplings at issue, then is entitled to that infor ry #9 manufacturers and heat treaters of coupling stock 21) SilverBow preserved (and pipe) involved in the subject litigation and d thPatterson I Facility uly 13, 2021 Exhibit SilverBow hosted an for the p inspection, Am Tex presentatives identified couplings that appear to have been manufactured by other entities other than Am Tex nterrogatoy No 21 simply request ty of the other coupling manufacturers and heat treaters of the couplings that are being store by Intertories 15and SilverBowresponsebelow: Interrogator o. 1 Please identify manufacturer of the coupling (i.e. what entity cut and threaded the coupling) that contains the following denti cation arking Line #1: “TMK UP ULTRA DQX 5.5/6.CYHP” and Line #2 AHT 271318P SN201995 027 7 3B coupling reported location in te str ng was #19 Top/Coupling/#18 Bottom The coupling was located at the Patterson spection Facility during the July 13, 2021 inspection by the parties in the in ant lawsuit. Interrogatory No. As to the coupling identified in terrogator No. , who was the manufacturer of the coupling stockto which the coupling originated from? Interrogatory No. As to the coupling identified in errogatory No. , who heat treated the upling stockto which the coupling originated from? terroga ory No. Please identify the coupling manufacturer (i.e. what entity cut and threaded the coupling) for the following coupling that is de cted in the photographs AM TEX and AM TEX 0 The photographs are enclosed for ease of reference. The upling was located at the Patterson Ispection Facility during the J uly 13, 2021 inspection by the parties in the instant lawsuit. Interrogatory No. As to the coupling identified in errogatory No. [18], who was the manufacturer of the uplin tockto which the coupling originated from? Interrogatory No. As to the couplin identified in nterrogatory No. [18], w heat treated thecoupling stockto which the coupling originated from? Interrogatory No. Please identify all upling manu acturers, manfacturers of coupling stock, or companies who heat treated coupling stock that was used for couplings hat were used n the Silverbow wells Miguel Ranch 19H, the Rio Bravo 3H, and the Rio Bravo 102H, other han entities who are already parti s to the subject lawsuit. ANSWER to 15 : SilverBow objects to this Interrogatory because the information sought is equally or more available to AM Tex Machine Products, Inc. and/or other defendants in this matter. Subject to the objection and without aiving same, at this time, the information sought is the subject of expert testimony which is not yet due per the agreed docket control order. Further, discovery is ongoing and SilverBow will supplement its answer once it obtains this information. Sil s objections are without merit. This information is not equally available to as these couplings are in SilverBows possession. Further if SilverBow have ascertained the identity of other manufacturers of couplings that were found at e subject wells invol in this litigation, then SilverBow is required to disclose these entities. Am Tex that SilverBows objections be overruled and SilverBow compelledto answer these interrogatories. Category #10Coupling Testing Details(Interrogatory 23) Interroga SilverBows response Interrogatory No. For Joint # 1 (Rio Bravo 3H shallowest joint Coupling heat 275643 referenced in VIKING 006887 produced by you ere any test data for the coupling at 27564 This test data includes upling yield strength, coupling impact testing, and coupling hardness ring. If yes, please advise where the test data is located. ANSWER: SilverBow objects to this Interrogatory because the information sought is equal y or more available to AM Tex Machine Products, Inc. Subject to the objection and without waiving same, SilverBow refers to the documents previously produced, including, but not limited to, VIKING 006889 (Brinell Hardness Testing), VIKING 006891 (Chemistr Analysis), VIKING 006893 6894 (Magnetic Particle Test Report), VIKING 006903 (Charpy V Notch Impact Testing per API 5CT), VIKING 006907 (API 5CT Hardness Test Ring Joint #1), and VIKING 006908 (Yield StrengtDetermination). Interrogatory 23 requestd information about coupling testing n Joint #1. SilverBow provided information about Pipe Body testing. In a call with co represented that no coupling tests were performed on Joint #1. Am Tex requests that SilverBowamend its answer to reflect the same. Exhibit hibit Category #11Damage Interrogator Interrogatoryand 11and SilverBows response are nterrogatory No. 9: Please itemize each and every item and expense which you claim to ave incurred as a result of the incident(s) that are made the basis of this lawsuit, includinremediation costs, lost reve nue, lost profits, and other claimed expenses. ANSWER to No. 9 SilverBow objects to this interrogatory as it seeks information tha will be the subject of expert testimony. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objection, SilverBow is continuing o obtain information regarding its damages, which will in part be the subject of expert testimony. Once completed, SilverBow will plement this response. Currently, SilverBow suffered the below categories of costs and expenses as damages. Discovery is ongoing and SilverBow will supplement in accordance with the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. Purchase price paid for defective casing that was not within specifications, including service costs to run the defective casing Costs to repair and mitigate the damage caused by the defective casing; and Deferred, delayed and lost production resulting from the delays caused by the defectivecas Interrogatory No. 11: Please identify any estimates of damages or appraisals that have been made regarding the damagesas alleged in this matter. ANSWER to No. 11 SilverBow objects to this interrogatory as it seeks information that will be the subj ct of expert testimony. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objection, damages are being determined and this response will be supplemented once our damages are complete. To date SilverBow has not received any payment for any damages to the wells. Discovery is ongoing and SilverBow will supplement in accordance with the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. es occurred over four years ago and Silver first filed the Original Petition in 2019. Yet SilverBow is requesting to wait until is expert deadline which continues to be and is now June 16, 2023 to disclose what its economic damages Plaintiff should answer this int ry and update its disclosures to provi its economic damages. ilverBow has failed toprovide fications SilverBow has failed to provide signed verifications to its answers to Exhibit nd Third Set of Interrogatories as required by Rule 197.2(d) Am Tex has requested such verifications and to date, SilverBow has not provided them. Thus, Court for an order compelling SilverBow to provide verified answers to rogatories PRAYER WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, AM Tex Machine Products, Inc. ays the Court rant this otion eland order that of the signing of this Plaintiff SilverBow Resources Operating, LLC rovide complete answers and responses Am Machine Products, Inc. Interrogatory 5 ry 24 as it pertains to Request sion ory 24 as it pertains to Request sion Interrogatory 24 as it pertainRequest sion for Admission Interrogatory as it pertains toRequest sion Interrogatory it pertains to Request sion tory 6 Interrogatory ries Interrogatory 23 ies 9 & 11 SilverBow Resources Operating, LLCs objections to Rquests for Admissions 6 39 are OVERRULED SilverBow Resources Operating, LLCs objections to Interrogator are OVERRULED of the signing of this Plaintiff SilverBow Resources Operating, LLC shall signed Verifications to its answers to Am Tex First, Second, and Third Set of Interrogatories Further, Defendant seeks any further relief to which Defendant may prove itself entitled equity and ly submitted, LC . WILLIAMS StateBar No. 0078867 State Bar No. 536 erica Tower 2929 Allen Parkway, Suite 2900 77019 : (713) 65 (713) 7397420 twillia @germer @germer.c NEY FOR DEFENDANT AM TEX MACHINE PRODUCTS,INC. CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE I hereby certify that made the following attempts to meet and confer with ounsel for SverBow regarding the discovery requests outlined in this motion etter to s counsel dated August 2, 2022 nd call shortly thereafter with Wesley Keel; to Silvers counsel dated January 11, 2023 Email with SilverBow’s counsel nuary 18 , and 31, 2023 and February 6 and 9, 2023. The letters and emails are attached to this motion as Exhibit As of the date of filing this motion, lverBow has provided the requested discovery and has stated it would not be supplementi f the requested disco TIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing instrument has been duly served to all counsel through the Court’s eservice to a February