Utility Construction Services, LLC v. Richard Ethridge, II, Cecily Larue Ethridge, and Tempest Energy, LLC

Summary

This order resolves discovery disputes in Utility Construction Services, LLC v. Ethridge, including requests for Slack communications, financial ledger entries, communications concerning minority contractors and PGS, and production of an expert damages report. The court granted in part and denied in part the motion to compel concerning Request for Production No. 23, requiring UCS to identify responsive previously produced documents and supplement its response or provide an affidavit and privilege log. The court denied the motion to compel production of the entire unredacted expert report, upholding redactions protecting UCS’s historical profit-margin information under the agreed protective order.

Holdings

1. Request for Production No. 23 was relevant, but its demand for communications concerning unnamed or unrelated minority contractors was overly broad and outside the scope of the litigation. The portion seeking communications concerning PGS was sufficiently specific and narrowly tailored.
2. UCS must review its prior production, identify by Bates range documents responsive to the narrowed Request No. 23, and either supplement its response and production or serve an affidavit stating that it has satisfied its discovery obligations and that no additional responsive documents exist. Any withheld responsive documents must be identified in a privilege log.
3. Ethridge was not entitled to production of UCS's entire unredacted expert damages report. The redacted report sufficiently disclosed the expert's opinions, damages, methodology, assumed margins, and damages calculations, while the actual historical profit margins and underlying calculations were properly protected under the agreed attorney-eyes-only designation.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Request for Production No. 23 was relevant but overly broad or disproportionate insofar as it sought communications concerning unnamed or unrelated minority contractors.
2. Whether UCS was required to identify and produce communications concerning PGS and Ampirical, or otherwise attest that its prior production satisfied its discovery obligations.
3. Whether Ethridge was entitled to compel production of the entire unredacted expert damages report, including UCS's historical profit margins and underlying financial calculations, despite the agreed attorney-eyes-only protective order.

Disposition

other