RoDa Drilling Company et al v. Siegal et al, No. 4:2007cv00400 - Document 243 (N.D. Okla. 2009)
Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER by Magistrate Judge Frank H McCarthy (Re: 242 Notice (Other), 238 Opinion and Order, Ruling on Motion to Compel ) (jcm, Dpty Clk)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA RODA DRILLING COMPANY; RODA LLC; ROLAND ARNALL; DAWN ARNALL; and THE ROLAND AND DAWN ARNALL LIVING TRUST, Plaintiff, vs. Case No. 07-CV-400-GFK-FHM RICHARD SIEGAL, an individual; BIPPY SIEGAL, an individual, PALACE EXPLORATION COMPANY, a corporation; PALACE OPERATING COMPANY, a corporation; B&R EXPLORATION CO., INC.; BISTATE OIL MANAGEMENT CORPORATION; and OIL AND GAS TITLE HOLDING CORPORATION, Defendant. SUPPLEMENTAL OPINION AND ORDER This Supplemental Opinion and Order corrects and clarifies the Opinion and Order entered on January 22, 2009, [Dkt. 238], which addressed Defendants Motion to Compel [Dkt. 195]. At footnote 2 of the January 22nd Opinion and Order, the Court noted that because of the number of documents, the Order may contain inconsistencies which should be brought to the Court s attention by way of filing a short notice. The footnote advised that the Court would review the matter and issue a supplemental order without further briefing. A Notice was filed pursuant to the instruction in footnote 2, [Dkt. 242]. The Court has reviewed the Notice and has determined that the matters addressed therein should be corrected, as follows. At page 7 of the January 22nd Opinion and Order, document 144 was mistakenly listed as privileged instead of document 145. Document 144 must be produced. Document 145 is privileged as attorney client communication which was not the subject of Mr. Holthouse s testimony and need not be produced. Document number 162 was ordered produced in its entirety. However, part of that document contains the same text as document 119, which the Court found was privileged as attorney client communication which was not the subject of Mr. Holthouse s testimony. [Dkt. 238, p. 7]. The text of document 119 may be redacted from document 162. Page 9 of the January 22nd Opinion and Order contains a typographical error. The Court ordered the redacted portion of document 118 to be produced. The correct document number is 18. The redacted portion of document 18 must be produced as it was the subject of testimony at the Preliminary Injunction hearing. SO ORDERED this 29th day of January, 2009. 2
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
