Team Trustee Replies on Discovery Needs

tpltblogger9 Comments

https://www.pacermonitor.com/case/28272476/Texas_Pacific_Land_Trust_et_al_v_Oliver

Link to doc

Counter-Plaintiffs1 have already agreed that discovery is appropriate for the Declaratory Judgment/PI Motion—the only question before the Court is the scope of such discovery. CounterPlaintiffs have requested significant discovery from Plaintiffs, and Plaintiffs agreed to respond to all discovery requested by Counter-Plaintiffs, including additional requests for discovery beyond that included in the Court’s July 15, 2019 Scheduling Order (Dkt. 53). Indeed, Plaintiffs are working hard to provide responses to the broad discovery sought by Counter-Plaintiffs. Yet despite a mutual exchange of discovery,2 Counter-Plaintiffs insist that they can selectively use the PSLRA stay in a way that it was never intended—as both a sword to allow it to marshal evidence in its sole possession in favor of its position3 and as a shield to prevent Plaintiffs from being able to access key evidence relating to disputed fact issues.

9 thoughts on “Team Trustee Replies on Discovery Needs”

  1. Several observations:
    o This response was filed by Team Trustees the same day as the answer to the motion by Team Oliver was filed. They clearly had it ready to file, other than some minor modifications and adjustments. Not a surprise, since they had to be expecting an objection from Team Oliver to the motion for additional discovery.

    o Both sides are far apart, with little agreement. Not much new legal ground in the latest filing. Probably nobody is going to talk about compromise or settlement until Judge Boyle rules on this motion and the strengths or weaknesses of their positions are better known.

    o Team Trustees is placing a lot of importance on getting additional discovery. Sort of like their case depends on it, or at least getting this to then drag out the proceedings into 2020. Team Oliver believes their position and the already signed Judge Boyle order staying further discovery is sufficient. They believe the limited discovery and depositions agreed to shows some reasonableness, but they refuse to open the doors to a much broader discovery process.

    o I believe Team Oliver gets a rebuttal opportunity to this filing, and then Judge Boyle gets to decide if a day of hearings in this before issuing her opinion will be necessary. Given the tight schedule on DJ/PI hearing of late September, a decision on this is needed soon, otherwise dates are going to move further out.

    With earnings out for TPL Q2 soon, will be interesting to see if there is any mention of the costs for all the legal festivities. Trying hard to not think of all the shares that could have been repurchased with what has to be eyebrow raising legal fees.

    Liked by 2 people

  3. Seriously, Ted you have helped in more ways than you know. I appreciate you and TPLTblog for keeping some sanity with all of the insanity going on now. TPL feels like the golf course in Caddyshack with the trustees trying to blow it all up to get rid of a gopher problem. Oliver?

    (nothing against Bill Murray though…)

    Liked by 2 people

    • Niq,

      They have not said they are not buying back shares, but the last few quarters they have been spending less on this, as the water and other business expansion activities has taken free cash. My thinking is the legal/PR/proxy fight of the last quarter is going to be a 7 figure number (if disclosed), and thats going to leave less money for share buybacks. We will know soon enough, as earnings will be out soon for q2, and they do share what they have bought back every quarter.

      Something else I am tracking is TPL’s airplane, N677J. Its still showing it belongs to TPL Holdings, LLC, and on May 31 was flown from the Dallas regional executive airport to Dallas/Fort Worth. Previously it was being taken out every week or so, and its now nearly 2 months with no flights. Am thinking the visibility of their ownership has made them stop flying it, as it has to be much more expensive than flying commercial between Dallas and Midland.

      I can’t find its for sale, but something clearly has changed. Made a few fruitless calls. Seems too long for a maintenance cycle. Other theories, anyone?

      Source: https://flightaware.com/live/flight/N677J

      Liked by 1 person

  5. TPLTblog – Always a pleasure reading your blog. Not sure I could keep up on the legal festivities without your blog.
    Ted: You are a rockstar! Thank you!

    Liked by 1 person

  6. Following up on the plane being at Ft. Worth Meacham field since May 31…major overhauls of either or both engines, especially on a 41 year old aircraft, can and does take substantial time, leading to more money out of TPL’s coffers for spending that they really didn’t have to do. None of the online aircraft sales site have it listed for sale.

    Liked by 1 person

Comments are closed.