Anschutz Filings 12-28-11

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

JASON BAKER, JOHN BREWSTER, JOANN
BREWSTER, MAXINE CONDON, KAREN
FARRELL, BROOKS LIDDIARD, JANET
LIDDIARD, JAMES MCDERMOTT, HEIDI
MCDERMOTT, PAUL MOREY, DONETTA
MOREY, JOE TODD, BONNIE TODD, TOM
WHIPPLE and PAULINE WHIPPLE,

Plaintiffs,

v.

ANSCHUTZ EXPLORATION CORPORATION,
CONRAD GEOSCIENCE CORPORATION,
PATHFINDER ENERGY SERVICES, INC. and
JOHN and JANE DOES 1 through 100,

Defendants.

Case No. 6:11-cv-06119-CJS-JWF

NOTICE OF MOTION OF DEFENDANT ANSCHUTZ EXPLORATION
CORPORATION FOR ENTRY OF A MODIFIED SCHEDULING ORDER

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that upon the accompanying Declaration of Margot Timbel,
the accompanying Affidavit of Michael J. Guzman, and the accompanying Memorandum of
Law, dated December 28, 2011, Defendant Anschutz Exploration Corporation (AEC) hereby
moves this Court, before the Honorable Jonathan W. Feldman at the United States Courthouse,
100 State Street, Rochester, New York, at a date and time to be determined by the Court, for an
Order pursuant to Rule 16 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, for a modified scheduling
order. The basis and authority for this motion are set forth in the attached Declaration, Affidavit,
and Memorandum of Law.
PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE that Defendant intends to file and serve reply
papers and that Plaintiffs are therefore required to file and serve opposing papers at least fourteen
(14) business days before the return date, or at such other time as the Court may direct.
Case 6:11-cv-06119-CJS -JWF Document 44 Filed 12/28/11 Page 1 of 2
2

Dated: December 28, 2011

Christopher D. Thomas
NIXON PEABODY LLP
1300 Clinton Square
Rochester, New York 14604
Telephone: (585) 263-1000
Fax: (585) 263-1600

By: /s/ Michael J. Guzman

Mark C. Hansen pro hac vice
Aaron M. Panner pro hac vice
Michael J. Guzman pro hac vice
KELLOGG, HUBER, HANSEN,
TODD, EVANS & FIGEL, P.L.L.C.
1615 M Street, N.W.
Suite 400
Washington, D.C. 20036
Tel. (202) 326-7900
Fax (202) 326-7999

Counsel for Anschutz Exploration Corporation
Case 6:11-cv-06119-CJS -JWF Document 44 Filed 12/28/11 Page 2 of 2

BREWSTER, MAXINE CONDON, KAREN
FARRELL, BROOKS LIDDIARD, JANET
LIDDIARD, JAMES MCDERMOTT, HEIDI
MCDERMOTT, PAUL MOREY, DONETTA
MOREY, JOE TODD, BONNIE TODD, TOM
WHIPPLE and PAULINE WHIPPLE,

Plaintiffs,

v.

ANSCHUTZ EXPLORATION CORPORATION,
CONRAD GEOSCIENCE CORPORATION,
PATHFINDER ENERGY SERVICES, INC. and
JOHN and JANE DOES 1 through 100,

Defendants.

Case No. 6:11-cv-06119-CJS-JWF

DEFENDANT ANSCHUTZ EXPLORATION CORPORATIONS
MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF
A MODIFIED SCHEDULING ORDER

Defendant Anschutz Exploration Corporation (AEC) moves for entry of a Modified
Scheduling Order (attached hereto) that will focus the next phase of discovery on alleged
contamination, injury, and causation. Defendant Pathfinder Energy Services, Inc. (Pathfinder)
supports the motion.
1

1
Counsel for AEC and Counsel for Plaintiffs have met and conferred pursuant to L.R Civ. P
7(d)(4) by phone and by email on several occasions during the week of December 19, 2011, but
have been unable to agree on what the next phase of discovery should include. AEC and
Pathfinder seek focused discovery as described in this motion. Plaintiffs prefer to move directly
into fact depositions and then expert discovery. Pursuant to this Courts Scheduling Order of
May 4, 2011 (Dkt. No. 29), the parties will submit a joint pleading outlining their competing
proposals for the next phase of discovery.
As set out in detail below, good cause exists for deviating from the normal
course of discovery. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). Plaintiffs written discovery responses
coupled with well testing results show obvious deficiencies in their allegations. In a nutshell,
Plaintiffs refuse to specify what contamination they allege is in their wells, what physical injuries
Case 6:11-cv-06119-CJS -JWF Document 44-7 Filed 12/28/11 Page 1 of 18
2

(if any) they allege as a result, or how Defendants activities could have caused the alleged
contamination and injury. Before the Court orders the Parties to embark on a burdensome and
time-consuming round of depositions and then proceed to expert discovery, Plaintiffs should be
required to (1) demonstrate that their wells are contaminated with substances known to cause
whatever physical injuries, including cancer, that they claim, (2) specify whether any of them
alleges physical harm arising from alleged contamination, and (3) show a causal link between the
alleged exposure, the alleged physical harm, and Defendants natural gas drilling activities
approximately half a mile away. In a near-identical case brought by the same lawyers who are
counsel for Plaintiffs here, a Colorado court recently entered such an order.
2
INTRODUCTION
A copy is attached
for the Courts convenience.
Plaintiffs claim that Defendants drilling of two natural gas wells in Chemung County,
New York (the Dow Wells) contaminated their residential water wells. But Plaintiffs did not
test their wells prior to filing their Complaint. As a result, the Complaint does not specify the
type of alleged contamination in the water wells or the nature of Plaintiffs claimed physical
injuries (if any). The Complaint also makes no attempt to link any alleged contamination to any
particular injury; nor does the Complaint attempt to plead a theory for how Defendants activities
actually caused the alleged contamination. Instead, Plaintiffs whole case seems to rest on a res
ipsa loquitur theory of causation i.e., they never had problems with their wells before
Defendants arrived.
Defendant AEC highlighted these deficiencies at the outset of the case and sought
discovery focused on specificity and causation. Plaintiffs resisted, insisting that notice pleading

2
See Modified Case Management Order, Strudley v. Antero Res. Corp., No. 2011 CV 2218
(Colo. D. Ct. Nov. 10, 2011) (Strudley Modified CMO, attached hereto as Exhibit A).
3

under the Federal Rules requires nothing further from them. Recognizing the disproportionate
burden of discovery on Defendants in this action, this Court limited the initial phase to written
discovery only and ordered the Parties to submit a joint pleading recommending a course of
action for the next phase once written discovery was complete.
The results of written discovery show the Courts wisdom in proceeding with measured
steps. The post-Complaint well testing shows that Plaintiffs wells are free from allegedly toxic
contamination, industrial wastes, and sludge. While some wells showed elevated levels of
methane and/or ethane, isotopic testing by the New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation (DEC) the regulatory body responsible for overseeing oil and natural gas
development in New York showed that natural gas in Plaintiffs wells was shallow gas with
an identifiably different chemical composition than the deep gas tested from the Defendants
10,000 feet deep wells. The DEC found that natural gas is not toxic and is common in residential
water wells in the area. The DEC recommended venting wells that contain shallow methane
so that the gas can escape harmlessly into the atmosphere. Several plaintiffs did so. See Condon
Resp. to AEC Interrog. No. 9 (June 30, 2011); Todds Resp. to AEC Interrog. No. 9 (June 30,
2011); Whipples Resp. to AEC Interrog. No. 9 (June 30, 2011).
3
Discovery to date also shows that not a single plaintiff claims material physical injuries
caused by any alleged contamination.

4

3
Plaintiffs answers to AECs interrogatories are attached hereto as Exhibit C.
Instead, Plaintiffs refuse to produce any medical records
on the ground that they have not knowingly sustained personal injuries that have manifested,
have been treated by medical professionals, nor that are personally known to the Plaintiffs.
4
Plaintiff Donetta D. Morey claims emotional distress and mental anguish, specifying that she
went into depression, and suffered from insomnia, mood swings, a change in personality,
apath[y] towards life and activities once enjoyed, [and] loss of energy even when rested. Morey
Resp. to AEC Interrog. No. 8 (June 30, 2011).
4

E.g., Liddiards Resp. to Interrog. No. 8 (June 30, 2011). Similarly, Plaintiffs refuse to identify
treating physicians or other medical service providers because they claim that they have not
placed their health or physical condition at issue in this litigation in any other manner and [their]
medical condition(s), diagnoses and treatment for unrelated issues is privileged . . . . Plaintiffs
are only asserting damage claims requiring medical monitoring, including fear of cancer. E.g.
id.
In contrast to Plaintiffs obstructionist approach to written discovery, Defendants have
produced a large volume of documents detailing their activities at the Dow Wells. These
documents show that the wells were designed and constructed to the current state of the art and
in complete conformance with all applicable regulations. The DEC inspected the wells nearly
daily during the construction phase and did not issue a single citation or notice of violation.
Defendants have already incurred substantial costs in defending against this frivolous
case. See Declaration of Margot Timbel (AEC defense costs have surpassed one million dollars).
Proceeding with additional discovery in the traditional manner ensures that those costs will
escalate further. Unfocused discovery will involve deposing more than two dozen fact witnesses
and then eliciting expert testimony in a variety of disciplines, including well construction,
hydrogeology, toxicology, medical causation, and property valuation.
Rather than begin an expensive and disruptive round of general purpose depositions,
Defendants respectfully renew their request for entry of a Lone Pine order and ask this Court to
stage the next phase of discovery like the Colorado court did in Strudley. The purpose of a Lone
Pine order, which derives its name from Lore v. Lone Pine Corp., No. L-33606-85, 1986 WL
637507 (N.J. Sup. Ct. Nov. 18, 1986), is to identify and cull potentially meritless claims and
streamline litigation in complex cases. Baker v. Chevron USA, Inc., No. 1:05-cv-227, 2007 WL
5

315346, at *1 (S.D. Ohio Jan. 30, 2007). Here, a Lone Pine order would require Plaintiffs to set
forth a prima facie case on the issues of exposure, injury, and causation.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Plaintiffs are individuals who are and/or were residents and/or property owners in the
Town of Horseheads, in New York State. Compl. 2. Plaintiffs complain . . . of
environmental contamination and polluting events caused by the conduct and activities of the
defendants, which allegedly caused releases, spills, and discharges of combustible gases,
hazardous chemicals and industrial wastes from its various oil and gas drilling facilities. Id. 1.
In alleging that Defendants drilling activities released combustible gases, toxic
pollutants, and hazardous chemicals into Plaintiffs water wells, Plaintiffs allege the presence of
[e]levated levels of dissolved methane, propane, or other natural gases, [n]atural gas,
[p]ollutants, including but not limited to toxic sediments, and industrial and/or residual waste,
and [d]rilling muds and fluids. Id. 97, 107.
Plaintiffs allegedly suffered harm because their potable water and their property was
exposed to . . . hazardous gases, chemicals and industrial wastes, causing damage to . . .
natural resources and causing plaintiffs to incur health injuries, loss of use and enjoyment of
their property, loss of quality of life, emotional distress and other damages. Id. 1.
The Complaint names three defendants: AEC, alleged to be a Delaware Corporation with
its principal place of business in Colorado; Pathfinder Energy Services, Inc. (Pathfinder),
alleged to be a Louisiana Corporation with its principal place of business in Louisiana; and
Conrad Geoscience Corporation (Conrad), alleged to be a New York Corporation with its
principal place of business in New York. Id. 20, 48, 60. According to the Complaint, AEC
engaged in drilling activities, and owned and operated two gas wells near Plaintiffs properties.
Id. 83; see also id. 85. Pathfinder allegedly engaged in drilling activities at those wells. Id.
6

84. Plaintiffs do not allege that Conrad engaged in any drilling activities. The sole allegations
concerning Conrad in particular are that it was retained by [AEC] to investigate groundwater
contamination complaints caused by the drilling activities at the two wells; and that Conrad
failed to conduct a reasonable and prudent investigation . . . that would have warned plaintiffs
and the public about the subsurface contamination. Id. 89, 90; see also 101 (alleging that
Defendants provided no warning of the risk of groundwater contamination); compare
Plaintiffs [sic] Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion To Remand Pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
1447(c) at 2 (Dkt. No. 20-5).
The Complaint includes ten counts arising out of a single set of operative facts:
negligence, negligence per se, private nuisance, premises liability, trespass, strict liability under
Navigation Law Article 12, strict liability for an abnormally dangerous activity, deceptive
business acts and practices, fear of developing cancer, and future medical monitoring. The
Complaint seeks $2 billion in damages.
On May 4, 2011, the Court entered a scheduling order calling for mandatory disclosures
under Rule 26(a)(1) to be completed by June 1, 2011, and document discovery (including
interrogatories) to be completed by December 2, 2011. See Scheduling Order (Dkt. No. 29).
Between May 4, 2011 and December 2, 2011, AEC and Conrad propounded
interrogatories, requests for production, and requests for admission upon Plaintiffs. In response,
Plaintiffs produced 2,015 pages of documents and one video clip. Plaintiffs also answered short
informal questionnaires.
ARGUMENT
The Court should focus discovery on exposure, injury, and causation for four reasons.
First, Plaintiffs claims have lacked foundation and specificity from the outset. Second, six
months of written discovery has done nothing to focus or substantiate their claims. Post-
7

Complaint well testing shows that Plaintiffs wells are clean but for some elevated levels of
natural gas. Plaintiffs discovery answers and document production seem to disclaim alleged
physical injuries from contamination, but Plaintiffs also ambiguously suggest that the injuries
may not yet have manifest themselves and reserve the right to update their interrogatory answers.
Third, Plaintiffs make no attempt to rebut DECs investigation and conclusion that the presence
of methane in some of Plaintiffs wells is a naturally occurring event that has been well-known in
the area for decades. Finally, focusing discovery now will streamline issues and simplify the
case. The deposition phase of the case will be more efficient and less burdensome if Plaintiffs
are required to first state definitively what contamination they allege, what injuries they claim
resulted, and how they believe Defendants caused the alleged contamination.
I. Plaintiffs Pre-Complaint Investigation Was Deficient
In their Complaint, Plaintiffs asserted that Defendants actions in drilling, constructing,
and operating the Dow Wells caused hazardous substances to be discharged into the well water
Plaintiffs use for their water supply. See Compl. 97. But they did not identify (1) what
substances in their water wells were toxic, (2) in what amounts they were toxic, (3) how those
substances resulted from Defendants drilling activities, or (4) how those substances caused
current or future injury to people or property. Indeed, other than methane and ethane, Plaintiffs
did not identify any chemicals by name as present in their well water. This is no surprise
considering Plaintiffs and their counsel conducted minimal investigation and no testing prior to
filing their Complaint.
To be sure, Plaintiffs clearly alleged that natural gas contaminates their well water. See
Compl. 100. But methane is a common gas found throughout the local aquifer. Plaintiffs did
not allege a basis for considering it toxic or explain how it resulted from Defendants activities
8

rather than naturally-occurring sources. They have also not specified any physical injuries they
claim were caused by natural gas.
Moreover, government investigations have already ruled out the possibility that methane
is toxic and resulted from Defendants activities. In a November 2010 fact sheet, summarizing
the results of a preliminary investigation, the DEC stated that methane commonly occurs in
residential water wells since it is often present in bedrock at shallow depths and it is not toxic.
DEC Fact Sheet at 1 (Nov. 2010) (Dkt. No. 22-2).
The DEC went further and rejected any connection between the gas wells and water
wells. There was clear evidence that methane and turbidity were present in the areas water
wells years before either of the Dow gas wells was drilled, the DEC reported. DEC
Memorandum Report at 1 (Jan. 31, 2011) (Dkt. No. 22-3). It was unlikely that drilling and
operation of the Dow Wells could cause gas from deeper formations [to] migrate through
multiple cemented casing strings [surrounding the Dow Wells] into any aquifers near the
surface. Id. at 1-2. Moreover, after conducting an isotopic analysis of gas found in Plaintiffs
wells and gas from one of the Dow wells, the DEC concluded that the deep gas from the Dow
test had a distinct isotopic composition from gas found in the Plaintiffs wells and thus the two
were from different sources of gas. Letter from T. Santulli to Mr. & Mrs. R. Sixt at 2 (Apr. 6,
2011) (Dkt. No. 22-4). Plaintiffs have not addressed these findings in discovery.
II. Plaintiffs Failed to Produce Facts in Discovery that Substantiate Their
Allegations

Despite six months of written discovery, Plaintiffs have carefully avoided providing
specificity or narrowing their case. The initial disclosures, interrogatory and questionnaire
9

responses, and document production in the first stage of discovery did not fill the gaps left by
their Complaint or rebut the conclusions of the government investigation.
5
Identification of Toxic Substances: Plaintiffs provided the results of post-Complaint
laboratory testing of their well water, which show that Plaintiffs wells are generally
clean. Plaintiffs did not identify which, if any, of the substances found in the wells
are toxic (i.e., capable of causing injury), much less identify whether they claim
injuries caused by some particular contaminant used at the Dow well sites. When
asked to describe . . . the nature of the alleged contamination, and state which of
the alleged contaminants are present in [each Plaintiffs] well, AEC Interrog. Nos. 5,
11 (attached hereto as Exhibit B), Plaintiffs objected to each request on the grounds
that it is vague, ambiguous, requires interpretation and seeks expert testimony, e.g.
Baker Resp. to AEC Interrog. Nos. 5, 11 (June 30, 2011). They otherwise repeated
their vague descriptions of alleged contamination.

6

5
Plaintiffs document production was largely duplicative of their Rule 26(A)(1) disclosures.
Both Plaintiffs document production and Rule 26(A)(1) disclosures consisted primarily of
AECs own files as submitted to the New York Department of Environmental Conservation in
response to Freedom of Information Law requests.
See Baker Resp. to AEC Interrog.
No. 11 (gassy water, milky water, or sediment); Liddiards Resp. to AEC Interrog.
Nos. 5, 11 (methane gas, gas bubbles, cloudiness, and seems to have
sediment); Brewsters Resp. to AEC Interrog. No. 11 (June 30, 2011) (elevated
methane levels and sediment of unknown makeup); Moreys Resp. to AEC Interrog.
No. 11 (elevated methane levels and sediment of unknown makeup); Todds Resp.
6
There was one exception: Plaintiff Maxine Condon did specifically allege the presence of
barium and fecal coli form. Condon Resp. to AEC Interrog. Nos. 5, 11 (natural gases,
barium, fecal coli form, odors, brown sediment, and grey sediment).

10

to AEC Interrog. No. 11 (elevated methane levels and toxic sediment of unknown
makeup); Whipples Resp. to AEC Interrog. No. 11 (elevated methane levels and
sediment of unknown makeup); Farrell Resp. to AEC Interrog. No. 11 (June 30,
2011) (not even a general description of contamination). To the extent that Plaintiffs
alleged the presence of methane, ethane, or turbidity, they did not provide evidence
showing that methane, ethane, or turbidity are toxic.
Injury to Person or Property: Plaintiffs have not produced evidence that alleged
contamination in Plaintiffs well water caused any sort of personal injury or loss of
property value. Instead, Plaintiffs equivocate and defer any specificity regarding their
claims to their experts. To avoid producing medical records now, for example,
Plaintiffs disclaim damages for any past or current physical conditions, arguing that
they are only asserting damage claims requiring medical monitoring, including fear
of cancer. E.g. Baker Resp. to AEC Interrog. No. 8.
7
Plaintiffs should not be allowed to equivocate about present health effects,
claim to live in fear of future health effects, and yet refuse to disclose anything about
their existing baseline health or personal habits. Plaintiffs current physical state and
fitness levels are obviously relevant to their claims for either current or future health
concerns. And even claims of medical monitoring and fear of cancer require
Similarly, Plaintiffs have
produced no evidence explaining how a substance in their well water might cause
cancer, or any other future disease. Yet, Plaintiffs also suggest that they may already
be suffering from some undiscovered health effects, and they reserve the right to
supplement th[eir] response[s] up to and including the time of trial. E.g. Brewsters
Resp. to AEC Interrog. No. 8.

7
Plaintiff Donetta D. Morey alleges emotional and mental damages. See supra note 4.
11

Plaintiffs to specify their exposure to a hazardous substance, at toxic levels, sufficient
to cause disease and thereby provide a rational basis for the fear of contracting
disease. See In re Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether (MTBE) Prods. Liab. Litig., 379 F.
Supp. 2d 348, 430 (S.D.N.Y. 2005); Sorrentino v. ASN Roosevelt Ctr., 579 F. Supp.
2d 387, 390 (E.D.N.Y. 2008); Abbatiello v. Monsanto Co., 522 F. Supp. 2d 524, 539
(S.D.N.Y. 2007); Jones v. Utilities Painting Corp., 198 A.D.2d 268, 268 (2d Dept
1993).
With respect to claimed losses in property value and enjoyment of property,
Plaintiffs object to requests for specificity and do not quantify or detail any such
losses, instead responding with conclusory platitudes. E.g. Brewsters Resp. to AEC
Interrog. No. 13 (Plaintiffs property has diminished in value due to water
contamination and discoloration that has resulted from Defendants activities.); id.
Interrog. No. 14 (Plaintiffs have lost enjoyment of property and quality of life
through the diminished quality of water and this diminished water quality has created
emotional stress and economic burden.).
8
Causation: Plaintiffs also did not produce evidence demonstrating a causal
connection between Defendants activities and the presence of any substance in
Plaintiffs water wells. When asked to describe with specificity any problems the
Plaintiff had with his/her ground water wells . . . especially problems such as
contamination, and identify . . . the cause or suspected cause of the problem, AEC

8
The Liddiards and the McDermotts provide some more detail. The McDermotts elaborate on,
but do not quantify, their losses, noting some anxi[ety] that disclosure of these water quality
issues will deter prospective buyers. McDermotts Resp. to AEC Interrog. No. 14. The
Liddiards cite a purchase offer they received on their home for $125,000; the offer was
disapproved with suspicion that disapproval occurred due to methane contamination; the house
eventually sold for $117,000. See Liddiards Resp. to AEC Interrog. No. 13.
12

Interrog. No. 4, Plaintiffs demurred, noting that they are not experts of hydrogeology
or any science related to ground water and thus cannot answer this part of the
question. E.g. Brewsters Resp. to Interrog. No. 4.
If anything, Plaintiffs discovery responses actually undermine their claims. Several
Plaintiffs state or imply that their well water was of poor quality long before Defendants began
operating in the area. See Todds Resp. to AEC Interrog. No. 2 (used water filter since at least
1988); Liddiards Resp. to AEC Interrog. No. 2 (used water filter and softener since at least
1990); Moreys Resp. to AEC Interrog. No. 2 (used water filter since early 1990s); Baker Resp. to
Interrog. No. 2 (used water softener since May 2009).
III. Plaintiffs Answers Do Not Address the DECs Findings
The DEC performed a thorough investigation into the water levels and turbidity
conditions of Plaintiffs residential well water as soon as the first complaints were raised in
September 2010. As part of its several-month investigation, the DEC consulted private well
owners, interviewed water well drillers, tested water samples, inspected the Dow Wells,
consulted the personnel and files of the Chemung County Health Department (CCHD), and
analyzed well-inspection records.
DEC released a series of findings discounting and dismissing Plaintiffs complaints of
toxic contamination from the Dow Wells. First, the DEC noted that methane is not toxic, is
often present in bedrock at shallow depths, and as a result commonly occurs in residential
water wells. DEC Fact Sheet at 1.
Second, the DEC found that the presence of methane in residential water wells had long
predated Defendants activities in the area. Its investigation revealed clear evidence that
methane and turbidity were present in the areas water wells years before either of the Dow gas
wells was drilled. DEC Memorandum Report at 1. Water well drillers . . . informed DEC that
13

they encountered naturally occurring shallow methane gas during drilling and have been aware
of the presence of methane in this areas water wells prior to the drilling of the Dow wells in
2008 (perhaps as early as 1997. . . .). Id. at 4. Indeed, methane was present in [at least] one
residential water well in the neighborhood currently experiencing problems for some time prior
to the drilling of the Dow Wells. DEC Fact Sheet at 1.
Third, the DEC concluded that, as a simple matter of physics, it was unlikely that
drilling and operation of the Dow Wells could cause gas from deeper formations [to] migrate
through multiple cemented casing strings [surrounding the Dow Wells] into any aquifers near the
surface. Id. This conclusion was buttressed by DECs inspection of the Dow Wells and testing
that demonstrated that the wells were properly constructed and not leaking gas at any depth.
DEC staff confirmed that there were no gas migration problems at the Dow well sites, no
violations were found and that the casing cement was in fact at the surface as reported. DEC
Memorandum Report at 4.
Fourth, CCHD-commissioned isotopic testing demonstrated that the gas found in four of
the Plaintiffs wells was different in kind from the gas found in Dow Well #2: their chemical
compositions were distinct. This finding established that the gas in Plaintiffs wells and the gas
in Dow Well #2 derived from different sources of gas. Letter from T. Santulli to Mr. & Mrs.
R. Sixt at 2.
IV. Focusing the Case Now Will Streamline and Simplify the Litigation
Without evidence to support their claims, Plaintiffs nonetheless seek unfettered discovery
in the hopes of finding a cause of action. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and well-
established case law, empower this Court to focus and prioritize discovery to avoid burden and a
broad fishing expedition. The Federal Rules give this Court broad discretion to take appropriate
action to facilitate the just, speedy, and inexpensive disposition of the action by, among other
14

things, adopting special procedures for managing potentially difficult or protracted actions that
may involve complex issues, multiple parties, difficult legal questions, or unusual proof
problems. Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(c)(2)(L), (P). Indeed, in a recent case involving the same
Plaintiffs firm and a strikingly similar complaint, the Court ordered a more efficient procedure
than what is routine by requiring Plaintiffs, before full discovery and other procedures are
allowed, to make a prima facie showing of exposure and causation. Strudley Modified CMO at
2. The required showing included producing an expert report discussing exposure to
contaminants and how such exposure causes injury, identifying Plaintiffs exposure to
contaminants, and providing access to medical records that presumably would evidence any
injury. See id. at 3.
It was fully within the Courts authority to demand such detail. As courts in this circuit
have observed, the purpose of Lone Pine style CMOs . . . is to protect defendants and the Court
from the costs and burdens of litigating complex actions that may not have merit. Abbatiello v.
Monsanto Co., 569 F. Supp. 2d 351, 354 (S.D.N.Y. 2008). Lone Pine orders have been
routinely used by courts where, as here, a plaintiffs allegations appear to conflict with well
established facts; under such circumstances, allowing Plaintiffs to proceed to unfettered
discovery threatens to waste the parties and the courts resources. Id. at 353 n.3 (internal
quotation marks omitted); see also In re Rezulin Prods. Liab. Litig., 441 F. Supp. 2d 567, 570
(S.D.N.Y. 2006).
9

9
Lone Pine orders enjoy widespread support in other circuits as well. See, e.g., Avila v. Willits
Envtl. Remediation Trust, 633 F.3d 828, 833-34 (9th Cir. 2011); In re Vioxx Prods. Liab. Litig.,
388 F. Appx 391, 397-98 (5th Cir. 2010), cert. denied, 131 S. Ct. 1477 (2011); Steering Comm.
v. Exxon Mobil Corp.,461 F.3d 598, 604 n.2 (5th Cir. 2006); Acuna v. Brown & Root, Inc., 200
F.3d 335, 340 (5th Cir. 2000); Burns v. Universal Crop Prot. Alliance, No. 4:07cv00535, 2007
WL 2811533, at *1, *3 (E.D. Ark. Sep. 25, 2007); Morgan v. Ford Motor Co., No. 06 Civ. 1080,
2007 WL 1456154, at *7 (D.N.J. May 17, 2007); Baker v. Chevron USA, Inc., No. 1:05-cv-227,

15

Lone Pine orders are especially appropriate in cases involving allegations of
environmental contamination because of the complicated causation issues involved in the claims.
See Pinares v. United Techs. Corp., No. 10-80883-CIV, 2011 WL 240512, at *1-2 (S.D. Fla. Jan.
19, 2011) (where plaintiffs sued manufacturer for contamination by toxic wastes, but plaintiffs
failed to allege that their property is contaminated, much less that Defendant contaminated their
property, the case was the classic expansive, time-consuming, and highly expert dependent
case that gave birth to the Lone Pine case management method.); see also, e.g., Wilcox v.
Homestake Mining Co., No. Civ. 04-534, 2008 WL 4697013, at *1 (D.N.M. Oct. 23, 2008)
(court entered order giving plaintiffs 120 days to produce expert affidavits which make a prima
facie showing of harmful exposure and specific causation for each injury the particular Plaintiff
claims was caused by the Defendants alleged contamination), affd, 619 F.3d 1165 (10th Cir.
2010); Burns, 2007 WL 2811533, at *23 (Lone Pine order necessary for efficient case
management where plaintiffs alleged contamination of cotton fields by herbicide applied to
nearby rice crops and many variables including temperature, wind speed, field location, aircraft
speed, and use of drift control products are pertinent to the causation issue in this case); In re
1994 Exxon Chem. Plant Fire Litig., No. 94-MS-3-C-1, 2005 WL 6252312, at *12 (M.D. La.
Apr. 7, 2005) (Lone Pine order appropriate where complaints did not identify the particular
injury, illness, loss or other harm sustained by each individual named plaintiff and did not
identify which contaminant caused which injury or damage, but instead broadly alleged that
substances were released, [plaintiffs] were exposed to the substances, and they were injured or
otherwise suffered damages from the exposure).

2007 WL 315346, at *1 (S.D. Ohio Jan. 30, 2007); In re Silica Prods. Liab. Litig., 398 F. Supp.
2d 563, 576 (S.D. Tex. 2005).
16

V. The Court Should Require Plaintiffs to Make a Prima Facie Showing of
Exposure, Injury, and Causation

Before further discovery is permitted to proceed in this case, the Court should require
Plaintiffs to provide the Court and each Defendant with the following items, within 90 days of
the Courts ruling:
1. Expert Opinions. A sworn affidavit(s) from a qualified expert(s), with supporting data
and facts in the form required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2)(B), that will,
for each Plaintiff:
a. Identify, by name, the substances in Plaintiffs water wells that are toxic and
caused them injury.
b. Identify the amount or concentration of each toxic substance necessary to cause
injury.
c. Explain how those toxic substances resulted from Defendants activities. For
methane and ethane, Plaintiffs must identify a basis for finding that methane and
ethane in Plaintiffs well water is anything other than naturally occurring, shallow
gas that pre-dates Defendants drilling activities.
d. Identify how those toxic substances cause injury to person and property. For
injury to person, this must include medical evidence explaining how each alleged
toxic substance caused the disease or other health injury in question. For injury to
property, this includes evidence explaining how the presence of a toxic substance
in well water has reduced property values.
17

2. Contamination Findings. Plaintiffs must cite each and every report or analysis that
contains any finding of contamination of Plaintiffs residential well water. Plaintiffs
must also identify and quantify any alleged contamination.
3. Medical Records. A list of the name and last known address and phone number of each
health care provider who has provided each Plaintiff with health services in the past five
years (whether physical, mental or emotional) along with a release authorizing the health
care providers to provide Plaintiffs and Defendants counsel with all of each Plaintiffs
medical records, in the form of Exhibit A-1 hereto, within twenty-one days of the date of
this Courts entry of this Modified Case Management Order.
18

CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Court should grant Defendant Anschutz Exploration
Corporations motion to modify the scheduling order in this case.

Dated: December 28, 2011

Christopher D. Thomas
NIXON PEABODY LLP
1300 Clinton Square
Telephone: (585) 263-1000
Fax: (585) 263-1600

By: /s/ Michael J. Guzman

Mark C. Hansen pro hac vice
Aaron M. Panner pro hac vice
Michael J. Guzman pro hac vice
KELLOGG, HUBER, HANSEN,
TODD, EVANS & FIGEL, P.L.L.C.
1615 M Street, N.W.
Suite 400
Washington, D.C. 20036
Tel. (202) 326-7900
Fax (202) 326-7999

Counsel for Anschutz Exploration Corporation

EXHIBIT C
-------------------------------------------------------------------)(
BREWSTER, MA)(INE CONDON, KAREN FARRELL,
BROOKS LIDDIARD, JANET LIDDIARD, JAMES
MCDERMOTT, HEIDI MCDERMOTT, PAUL MOREY,
DONETTA MOREY, JOE TODD, BONNIE TODD, Case No. 11-CV-06119-CJS
TOM WHIPPLE and PAULINE WHIPPLE,
PlaintiffS, District Judge Charles J. Siragusa
-against-
ANSCHUTZ E}(PLORATION CORPORATION, CONRAD
GEOSCIENCE CORPORATION, PATHFINDER ENERGY
SERVICES, INC. and JOHN and JANE DOES 1 through 100,
Deftndants.
------------------------------------------------------------------------)(
PLAINTIFF JASON BAKER RESPONSES TO ANSCHUTZ EXPLORATION
CORPORATION'S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES
Pursuant to Rule 33 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff Jason Baker, by and
through his attorneys, Napoli Bern Ripka & Associates LLP, makes the following Objections
and Responses to Defendant Anschutz Exploration Corporation's First Set oflnterrogatories.
GENERAL OBJECTIONS AND RESERVATIONS
1. Plaintiff objects to the definitions and instructions set forth in Defendant's
discovery requests to the extent they deviate from or purport to impose requirements other than
or in addition to those required by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
2. Plaintiff objects to these discovery requests to the extent they seek information
outside the restricted scope of discovery permissible under the Local Civil Rules of this Court.
3. Plaintiff objects to these discovery requests to the extent that they seek documents
or information covered by the attorney-client privilege, the work product doctrine, or any other
applicable privilege or immunity. None of these responses are intended as, or should be
construed as, a waiver or relinquishment of any part of the protections afforded by the attorney-
client privilege, the work product doctrine, or any other applicable privileges or immunities.
that does not pertain to or is beyond that in Plaintiffs possession, custody, or control, and/or
information that is equally available to defendant.
that cannot be located after a reasonable search of its records reasonably believed most likely to
contain the responsive information on the grounds that any such requirement would be unduly
burdensome and oppressive.
6. Plaintiff objects to these discovery requests to the extent they are umelated to any
claim or defense in this case.
7. Plaintiff objects to these discovery requests to the extent that they contain vague
or ambiguous terms as such requests are overbroad, unduly burdensome and oppressive, and not
reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
8. Plaintiff objects to these discovery requests to the extent they request information
beyond the limitations and parameters agreed among the parties or imposed by the Court.
Plaintiffs responses are subject to all such limitations and parameters and incorporate by
reference the discovery parameters imposed by the Court.
9. The information plaintiff produces in response to these discovery requests, if any,
is produced solely for the purpose of this action. Plaintiff expressly reserves all objections to the
admissibility of such information at trial, including all objections regarding relevance,
authenticity, materiality, propriety and admissibility and any other objections that would require
exclusion of the information, if such information were offered as evidence at trial.
10. Plaintiffs decision to provide information notwithstanding the objectionable
nature of any of the discovery requests should neither be construed as a stipulation that the
information is relevant nor a waiver of Plaintiffs general or specific objections.
11. These General Objections apply to each discovery request as though restated in
full therein.
12. Plaintiffs responses to these discovery requests are based on information
available as a result of a good faith search in the time allowed before submitting its responses.
Plaintiff reserves the right to supplement its responses consistent with its obligations under the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
13. Plaintiff reserves the right to amend or supplement its responses as well as the
right to object to other discovery directed to the subject matter of Defendants' Discovery
Requests.
FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES
INTERROGATORY N0.1: For each Plaintiff, identify (i) the date that each Plaintiff purchased
his or her Property, (ii) the amount oftime that each Plaintiff has lived on the Property; and (iii)
the date that each Plaintiffs ground water well was installed on the Plaintiffs property.
2
RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 1:
Upon the advice of counsel, Plaintiff objects to this request on the grounds that it is
vague, ambiguous and not limited in terms oftime or scope. Subject to and without waiving the
foregoing, upon knowledge and belief, Plaintiff responds as follows:
(i): April15, 2009
(ii): Approximately 3 years
(iii): Unknown
Plaintiff reserves the right to supplement this response up to and including the time of trial.
INTERROGATORY NO.2: For each Plaintiff, describe with specificity the Plaintiffs ground
water well and any other ground water well(s) located on any property near Plaintiffs' Properties
for which the Plaintiff possesses information. For each well, describe, with specificity, (i) the
date the well was installed, (ii) the installer, (iii) the depth of the well, (iv) whether well is lined,
(v) the type of lining or casing, if applicable, (vi) whether the well is vented, (vii) if so, when the
venting was installed, and (viii) any other equipment or systems designed to filter, purify or
otherwise improve the quality of the well water.
RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO.2:
vague, ambiguous and not limited in terms of time or scope. Subject to and without waiving the
(i):Upon information and beliefthis is unknown to Plaintiff.
(ii): Upon information and belief this is unknown to Plaintiff.
(iii): Upon information and belief this is unknown to Plaintiff.
(iv): Upon information and belief this is unknown to Plaintiff.
3
(v): Upon information and belief this is unknown to Plaintiff.
(vi): The ground water well is not vented.
(vii): Upon information and belief this is unknown to Plaintiff.
(viii): A water softener was installed in May 2009 by Culligan.
INTERROGATORY NO. 3: For each Plaintiff, describe the servicing and maintenance of each
Plaintiffs ground water wells since 2000, including (i) every date that each ground water well
was inspected, serviced, maintained, or tested; (ii) the name of any Person, including that
Person's employer, that performed the inspection, service, maintenance, or testing; and (iii) a
detailed description of the type of and the results of the inspection, service, maintenance, or
testing performed.
vague, ambiguous and requires interpretation as to what "servicing" and "maintenance" would or
may entail. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing, upon knowledge and belief, Plaintiff
responds as follows:
(i): Plaintiff did not own the property until 2009 and is therefore unaware of any
information regarding the well between 2000 and April15, 2009. In May of2009
Plaintiff had Culligan test the ground water well.
(ii): Upon information and belief this is unknown to Plaintiff.
(iii): Upon information and belief this is unknown to Plaintiff.
4
INTERROGATORY NO.4: For each Plaintiff, describe with specificity any problems the
Plaintiff had with his/her ground water wells or any other ground water wells located on any
property near Plaintiffs' Properties, since 2000 - especially problems such as contamination,
discoloration, odors, or turbidity in the well water. For all problems described, identify (i) the
nature of the problem, (ii) when the problem occurred, (iii) the resolution of the problem (if any),
and (iv) the cause or suspected cause of the problem.
vague, ambiguous and requires interpretation as to what "problems" would be defined as or may
entail. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing, upon knowledge and belief, Plaintiff
responds as follows: A water softener was installed by Culligan in May 2009 to resolve the hard
water issues Plaintiff experienced. In September of 2010 Plaintiff noticed water from ground
water well to be gassy and "milky". Plaintiff is unaware of any resolution ofthis problem and
plaintiff is not water ofthe cause or suspected cause because he is not an expert ofhydrogeology
or any science related to ground water and thus cannot answer this part of the question. Plaintiff
reserves the right to supplement this response up to and including the time of trial.
INTERROGATORY NO.5: For each Plaintiff, describe with specificity the nature of the
alleged contamination the Plaintiff claims was caused by the drilling activities of Anschutz
Exploration Corporation in 201 0. In your response, for any alleged contamination, state whether
you tested for that substance in any Plaintiffs' ground water well or any other ground water well
5
located on any property near Plaintiffs' Properties prior to filing the complaint and provide the
results or the basis for such allegation.
vague, ambiguous, requires interpretation as to what "nature" would be defined as or may entail
and seeks expert testimony. Furthermore, this request is not reasonably calculated to lead to the
discovery of admissible evidence to the extent that it prematurely seeks information and
documents relating to the subject matter and opinions of expert witnesses, whose disclosure is
governed by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing, upon knowledge
and belief, Plaintiff responds as follows: Plaintiff had no testing on ground water well prior to
the filing of the complaint.
Plaintiff reserves the right to supplement this response up to and including the time of
trial.
INTERROGATORY NO. 6: For each Plaintiff, describe with specificity all damages claimed
to date, including personal, mental, emotional, physical, property and punitive damages.
Upon the advice of counsel, Plaintiff objects to this request on the grounds that the
information that has been requested is not limited in time or scope. Plaintiff also objects to this
interrogatory on the grounds that it is unduly burdensome, oppressive, and calls for an exhaustive
enumeration of every document supporting a broad array of facts. Fmihermore, this request is
not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence to the extent that it
prematurely seeks information and documents relating to the subject matter and opinions of
6
expert witnesses, whose disclosure is governed by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26, Case Management Orders,
or Pre-Trial Orders.
Without waiving the general objections and prior objections, plaintiff also objects in that
this request for production of documents duplicates prior discovery. The documents sought in
this request have long been in the possession of the Defendants and indeed many have been
created by the Defendants in large part. Plaintiff further objects to this request on the ground it
asks plaintiffto summarize information contained in documents from plaintiff's files. Pursuant to
Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 33(d), plaintiff is not required to summarize all responsive information
contained in business records which Plaintiff has previously produced or will produce in
response to discovery demands. Subject to the foregoing, Plaintiff's damages include, but are
not limited to the costs of purchasing water, the destruction of all water fixtures and pipes due to
gas and sediment, loss of enjoyment of property, a diminishment of property value.
Plaintiff continues its investigation of all relevant facts in this case and reserves its right
to supplement or modify its response to Defendant's' interrogatories up to and including the time
of trial.
INTERROGATORY NO.7: For any damage claimed in response to Interrogatory No.6
above, state with particularity Plaintiff's allegation for how the drilling activities of Anschutz
Exploration Corporation caused the claimed damage.
7
enumeration of every document supporting a broad array of facts. Furthermore, this request is
Without waiving the general objections and prior objections, Plaintiff also objects in that
asks plaintiff to summarize information contained in documents from Plaintiffs files. Pursuant
to Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 33(d), Plaintiff is not required to summarize all responsive information
contained in business records that Plaintiff has previously produced or will produce in response
to discovery demands. Subject to the foregoing, Plaintiff claims that the negligent drilling
activities of Anschutz Exploration Corporation proximately caused the ground water well
contamination because for the years before any drilling activities occurred in the affected area
water was not experiencing any of the issues now present. Plaintiff continues his investigation of
all relevant facts in this case and reserves its right to supplement or modify its response to
Defendant's interrogatories up to and including the time of trial.
INTERROGATORY NO. 8: Identify any physician or other medical service provider from
which any Plaintiff received medical care during the period from June 1, 2000 to the present,
including (i) the name of the physician visited; (2) the address where the visit occurred; (3) the
reason that Plaintiff visited the physician; and ( 4) the outcome of the treatment.
8
Upon the advice of counsel, Plaintiff objects to this request because it seeks irrelevant
information that will not lead to the discovery of relevant information and improperly and unduly
invades the Plaintiff's privacy because the Plaintiff has not knowingly sustained personal injuries
that have manifested, have been treated by medical professionals, nor that are personally known
to the Plaintiff. Plaintiff further objects on the grounds that no physician or other medical
provider's examination of plaintiff is properly the subject of this litigation or interrogatories or
other discovery connected therewith unless said examination, treatment or diagnosis was related
to the subject matter of this litigation, as Plaintiff has not placed his health or physical condition
at issue in this litigation in any other manner and her medical condition(s), diagnoses and
treatment for unrelated issues is privileged and said privilege has not been waived. Upon the
further advice of counsel, Plaintiff is only asserting damage claims requiring medical monitoring,
including fear of cancer.
INTERROGATORY NO.9: Identify whether any Plaintiff has ever installed any venting
equipment on any ground water well(s) located on any of the Properties. For any venting
equipment that has been installed, identify (i) on which Plaintiffs property the equipment or
device was installed; (ii) a description of the type of equipment that was installed; (3) the date on
which the equipment was installed; (3) the name of the Person(s), including the Person's
employer, who installed the equipment; and (4) a description of why the equipment or device
was installed.
9
vague, ambiguous, requires interpretation as to what "venting" would be defined as or may entail
and seeks expert testimony. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing, upon knowledge and
belief, Plaintiff responds as follows: No venting equipment has been installed on the ground
water well located on Plaintiffs' property.
INTERROGATORY NO. 10: For each Plaintiff, specify whether the Plaintiff continues to use
his/her ground water well to supply water for drinking, cooking, washing, bathing or other daily
residential uses since the alleged contamination in approximately September 2010. If not, state
the alternative source of water for each activity.
RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 10
vague, ambiguous and requires interpretation. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing,
Plaintiff uses bottled water from Culligan for drinking, cooking, and washing. Plaintiff still uses
ground well water for bathing as there are no other alternatives.
INTERROGATORY NO. 11: For each Plaintiff, state the basis as of the filing of the
Complaint for the allegations in paragraphs 97 and 98 in the Complaint that Plaintiffs' wells are
contaminated with "[p ]ollutants, including but not limited to toxic sediments, and industrial
and/or residual waste," "[drilling muds and fluids," and "diesel fuel." For each Plaintiff, state
which of the alleged contaminants are present in his/her well.
10
vague, ambiguous, requires interpretation and seeks expert testimony. Furthermore, this request
is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence to the extent that it
expert witnesses, whose disclosure is governed by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26. Subject to and without
waiving the foregoing, upon knowledge and belief, plaintiff responds as follows: Before
September of2010 Plaintiff never experienced gassy water, milky water, or sediment.
trial.
INTERROGATORY NO. 12: For each Plaintiff, state whether the Plaintiff claims any damage
as a result of actual fires or explosions or whether the Plaintiff's claim is for the threat of such
fires or explosions. Describe any steps taken to mitigate claimed damage from actual or
threatened fires or explosions- e.g., moving out of the house, venting the well, disconnecting the
household water system from the well, etc.
vague, ambiguous, requires interpretation and seeks expert testimony. Subject to and without
waiving the foregoing, Plaintiff's claim at this time is the imminent threat of such fires and
explosion. Methane is known as a combustible gas and asphyxiate and plaintiffs are concerned
about a possible explosion and illnesses associated with contaminates.
trial.
11
INTERROGATORY NO. 13: For each Plaintiff, state the specific basis for the allegation that
Plaintiffs' properties "have been harmed and diminished in value." (Complaint
vague, ambiguous, requires interpretation, seeks legal conclusions and seeks expert testimony.
Furthermore, this request is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible
evidence to the extent that it prematurely seeks information and documents relating to the subject
matter and opinions of expert witnesses, whose disclosure is governed by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26.
Subject to and without waiving the foregoing, upon knowledge and belief, Plaintiff responds as
follows: Plaintiff's property has diminished in value due to water contamination that has
resulted from defendants' activities.
INTERROGATORY NO. 14: State with specificity how each Plaintiff has "lost the use and
enjoyment oftheir property, and the quality oflife they otherwise enjoyed."
103(d)).
'
follows: Plaintiffhas lost enjoyment of property and quality oflife through the diminished
12
quality of water and this diminished water quality has created significant emotional stress and
economic burden.
INTERROGATORY NO. 15: For each Plaintiff, state with particularity when each Plaintiff
claims that his/her well became contaminated and the basis for the allegation.
follows: Plaintiffs' ground well water became contaminated on or around September of2010.
Date: June 30, 2011
New York, New York
13
Tate J. Kunkle, sq. (NY4468542)
350 Fifth Avenue, Suite 7413
New York, New York 10118
(212) 267-3700
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that on June 30, 2011, I caused a copy of the foregoing document to be served on
all counsel of record and on defendants' counsel by First Class Mail:
Christopher D. Thomas, Esq.
NIXON PEABODY LLC
1300 Clinton Square
cdthomas@nixonpeabody .com
Michael J. Guzman, Esq.
KELLOG, HUBER, HANSEN, TODD,
EvANS & FIGEL, PLLC
1615 M Street N.W., Suite 400
Washington, DC 20036
mguzman@khhte.com
Attorneys for Defendant Anschutz Exploration Corporation
James T. Potter, Esq.
HINMAN STRAUB PC
121 State Street
Albany, New York 12207
jpotter@hinmanstraub.com
Attorneys for Defendant Conrad Geoscience Cmporation
Christopher C. Loeber, Esq.
MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
502 Carnegie Center
Princeton, New Jersey 08540
cloeber@morganlewis.com
Attorneys for Defendant Pathfinder Energy Services
14
NAPOLI BERN RIPKA & ASSOCIATES, LLP

Tate J. Kunkle, Esq. (NY 4468542)
(212) 267-3700
-------------------------------------------------------------------)(
JASON BAKER, JOHN BREWSTER, JOANN BREWSTER,
MA)(INE CONDON, KAREN FARRELL, BROOKS
LIDDIARD, JANET LIDDIARD, JAMES MCDERMOTT,
HEIDI MCDERMOTT, PAUL MOREY, DONETTA MOREY,
JOE TODD, BONNIE TODD, TOM WHIPPLE and PAULINE Case No. 11-CV-06119-CJS
WHIPPLE,
P laintijfs, District Judge Charles I. Siragusa
-against-
ANSCHUTZ E){PLORATION CORPORATION, CONRAD
Dijendants.
)(
PLAINTIFFS JOHN BREWSTER AND JOANNE BREWSTER RESPONSES TO ANSCHUTZ
EXPLORATION CORPORATION'S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES
Pursuant to Rule 33 ofthe Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiffs John and Joanne Brewster,
by and through their attorneys, Napoli Bern Ripka & Associates LLP, make the following Objections and
Responses to Defendant Anschutz Exploration Corporation's First Set of Interrogatories.
1. Plaintiffs object to the definitions and instructions set forth in Defendant's discovery
requests to the extent they deviate from or purport to impose requirements other than or in addition to
those required by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
2. Plaintiffs objects to these discovery requests to the extent they seek information outside
the restricted scope of discovery pennissible under the Local Civil Rules of this Court.
3. Plaintiffs object to these discovery requests to the extent that they seek documents or
information covered by the attorney-client privilege, the work product doctrine, or any other applicable
privilege or immunity. None of these responses are intended as, or should be construed as, a waiver or
relinquishment of any part of the protections afforded by the attorney-client privilege, the work product
doctrine, or any other applicable privileges or immunities.
4. Plaintiffs object to these discovery requests to the extent they seek information that does
not petiain to or is beyond that in Plaintiffs possession, custody, or control, and/or information that is
equally available to defendant.
5. Plaintiffs object to these discovery requests to the extent they seek information that
cannot be located after a reasonable search of their records reasonably believed most likely to contain the
responsive information on the grounds that any such requirement would be unduly burdensome and
oppresstve.
6. Plaintiffs object to these discovery requests to the extent they are unrelated to any claim
or defense in this case.
7. Plaintiffs object to these discovery requests to the extent that they contain vague or
ambiguous terms as such requests are overbroad, unduly burdensome and oppressive, and not reasonably
calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
8. Plaintiffs object to these discovery requests to the extent they request information beyond
the limitations and parameters agreed among the parties or imposed by the Court. Plaintiffs responses are
subject to all such limitations and parameters and incorporate by reference the discovery parameters
imposed by the Court.
9. The information Plaintiffs produce in response to these discovery requests, if any, is
produced solely for the purpose of this action. Plaintiffs expressly reserve all objections to the
admissibility of such information at trial, including all objections regarding relevance, authenticity,
materiality, propriety and admissibility and any other objections that would require exclusion of the
information, if such information were offered as evidence at trial.
10. Plaintiffs' decision to provide infonnation notwithstanding the objectionable nature of
any of the discovery requests should neither be construed as a stipulation that the information is relevant
nor a waiver of Plaintiffs' general or specific objections.
11. These General Objections apply to each discovery request as though restated in full
therein.
12. Plaintiffs' responses to these discovery requests are based on infonnation available as a
result of a good faith search in the time allowed before submitting its responses. Plaintiffs reserve the
right to supplement their responses consistent with their obligations under the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure.
13. Plaintiff reserves the right to amend or supplement their responses as well as the right to
object to other discovery directed to the subject matter of Defendants' Discovery Requests.
INTERROGATORY N0.1: For each Plaintiff, identify (i) the date that each Plaintiff purchased his or
her Property, (ii) the amount of time that each Plaintiff has lived on the Property; and (iii) the date that
each Plaintiff's ground water well was installed on the Plaintiff's property.
Upon the advice of counsel, Plaintiffs object to this request on the grounds that it is vague,
ambiguous and not limited in terms of time or scope. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing, upon
knowledge and belief, Plaintiffs respond as follows:
2
(i): On or about November 14, 1985
(ii): Approximately 26 years.
(iii): Unknown.
Plaintiffs reserve the right to supplement this response up to and including the time of trial.
INTERROGATORY NO.2: For each Plaintiff, describe with specificity the Plaintiffs ground water
well and any other ground water well(s) located on any property near Plaintiffs' Properties for which the
Plaintiff possesses information. For each well, describe, with specificity, (i) the date the well was
installed, (ii) the installer, (iii) the depth of the well, (iv) whether well is lined, (v) the type of lining or
casing, if applicable, (vi) whether the well is vented, (vii) if so, when the venting was installed, and (viii)
any other equipment or systems designed to filter, purifY or otherwise improve the quality of the well
water.
(i): Unknown;
(ii): Unknown
(iii): Unknown.
(iv): The well is not lined.
(v): Unknown.
(vi): Unknown.
(vii): Unknown.
(viii): Unknown.
3
INTERROGATORY NO.3: For each Plaintiff, describe the servicing and maintenance of each
Plaintiffs ground water wells since 2000, including (i) every date that each ground water well was
inspected, serviced, maintained, or tested; (ii) the name of any Person, including that Person's employer,
that performed the inspection, service, maintenance, or testing; and (iii) a detailed description of the type
of and the results of the inspection, service, maintenance, or testing performed.
ambiguous and requires interpretation as to what "servicing" and "maintenance" would or may entail.
Subject to and without waiving the foregoing, upon knowledge and belief, Plaintiffs respond as follows:
(i): The well has never been serviced or tested.
(ii): Not applicable.
(iii): Not applicable.
INTERROGATORY NO.4: For each Plaintiff, describe with specificity any problems the Plaintiff had
with his/her ground water wells or any other ground water wells located on any property near Plaintiffs'
Properties, since 2000 - especially problems such as contamination, discoloration, odors, or turbidity in
the well water. For all problems described, identify (i) the nature of the problem, (ii) when the problem
occurred, (iii) the resolution of the problem (if any), and (iv) the cause or suspected cause of the problem.
Upon the advice of counsel, Plaintiff objects to this request on the grounds that it is vague,
ambiguous, calls for expert testimony and requires interpretation as to what "problems" would be defined
as or may entail. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing, upon knowledge and belief, Plaintiffs
respond as follows: (i): Water spits when taps are run, and methane bubbles are present in the dispensed
water. Water is discolored, appearing black; (ii) problems were first noticed in or around October 2010;
4
(iii) no resolution of the issues has occurred; (iv) Plaintiffs are not experts of hydrogeology or any science
related to ground water and thus cannot answer this part of the question.
INTERROGATORY NO.5: For each Plaintiff, describe with specificity the nature of the alleged
contamination the Plaintiff claims was caused by the drilling activities of Anschutz Exploration
Corporation in 2010. In your response, for any alleged contamination, state whether you tested for that
substance in any Plaintiffs' ground water well or any other ground water well located on any property near
Plaintiffs' Properties prior to filing the complaint and provide the results or the basis for such allegation.
ambiguous, requires interpretation as to what "nature" would be defined as or may entail and seeks expert
testimony. Furthennore, this request is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible
evidence to the extent that it prematurely seeks information and documents relating to the subject matter
and opinions of expert witnesses, whose disclosure is governed by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26. Subject to and
without waiving the foregoing, upon knowledge and belief, Plaintiffs respond as follows: the New York
State Depatiment of Environmental Conservation conducted a water test in September 2010. See also
Response to Intenogatory No.4 above.
INTERROGATORY NO.6: For each Plaintiff, describe with specificity all damages claimed to date,
including personal, mental, emotional, physical, propetiy and punitive damages.
Upon the advice of counsel, Plaintiffs object to this request on the grounds that the information
that has been requested is not limited in time or scope. Plaintiffs also object to this interrogatory on the
grounds that it is unduly burdensome, oppressive, and calls for an exhaustive enumeration of every
5
document supporting a broad array of facts. Furthennore, this request is not reasonably calculated to lead
to the discovery of admissible evidence to the extent that it prematurely seeks information and documents
relating to the subject matter and opinions of expert witnesses, whose disclosure is govemed by Fed. R.
Civ. P. 26, Case Management Orders, or Pre-Trial Orders.
Without waiving the general objections and prior objections, Plaintiffs also object in that this
request for production of documents duplicates prior discovery. The documents sought in this request
have long been in the possession of the Defendants and indeed many have been created by the Defendants
in large part. Plaintiff further objects to this request on the ground it asks Plaintiffs to summarize
information contained in documents from plaintiffs' files. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 33(d),
Plaintiffs are not required to summarize all responsive information contained in business records which
Plaintiffs have previously produced or will produce in response to discovery demands.
Subject to the foregoing, Plaintiffs' damages include, but are not limited to: Plaintiffs have been
inconvenienced by having to purchase water for their daily use, and forced to suffer financial detriment
through these expenditures. They are subjected to further inconvenience and financial harm by being
forced to do their laundry away from home at a laundromat. Further, Plaintiffs' property has to be
cleaned on an almost constant basis. The water in their sinks, toilet, and bathtub, as well as all other
water-using appliances, leaves behind residues that require frequent cleaning and attention.
Plaintiffs reserve their right to supplement this response up to and including the time of trial.
INTERROGATORY NO.7: For any damage claimed in response to Interrogatory No.6 above, state
with particularity Plaintiffs' allegation for how the drilling activities of Anschutz Exploration Corporation
caused the claimed damage.
document supporting a broad array of facts. Furthermore, this request is not reasonably calculated to lead
6
to the discovery of admissible evidence to the extent that it prematurely seeks infonnation and documents
relating to the subject matter and opinions of expert witnesses, whose disclosure is governed by Fed. R.
have long been in the possession of the Defendants and the Defendants have created indeed many in large
part. Plaintiffs further objects to this request on the ground it asks Plaintiffs to summarize information
contained in documents from Plaintiffs' files. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 33(d), Plaintiffs are not
required to summarize all responsive infonnation contained in business records that Plaintiffs have
previously produced or will produce in response to discovery demands. Subject to the foregoing and
without the objections, Plaintiffs claim that the drilling activities of Anschutz Exploration Corporation
caused the ground water well contamination because for the 25 years which plaintiffs lived in their house
before any drilling activities occurred in the affected area, the water supply did not experience any of the
contamination and issues now present.
INTERROGATORY NO.8: Identify any physician or other medical service provider from which any
Plaintiff received medical care during the period from June 1, 2000 to the present, including (i) the name
of the physician visited; (2) the address where the visit occurred; (3) the reason that Plaintiff visited the
physician; and (4) the outcome of the treatment.
Upon the advice of counsel, Plaintiffs object to this request because it seeks irrelevant
information that will not lead to the discovery of relevant information and improperly and unduly invades
the Plaintiffs' privacy because the Plaintiffs have not knowingly sustained personal injuries that have
manifested, have been treated by medical professionals, nor that are personally known to the Plaintiffs.
Plaintiffs further object on the grounds that no physician or other medical provider's examination of
7
plaintiff is properly the subject of this litigation or interrogatories or other discovery connected therewith
unless said examination, treatment or diagnosis was related to the subject matter of this litigation, as
plaintiff has not placed her health or physical condition at issue in this litigation in any other manner and
her medical condition(s), diagnoses and treatment for unrelated issues is privileged and said privilege has
not been waived. Upon the further advice of counsel, Plaintiffs are only asserting damage claims
requiring medical monitoring, including fear of cancer.
Plaintiffs reserve the right to supplement this response up to and including the time oftrial.
INTERROGATORY NO.9: Identity whether any Plaintiff has ever installed any venting equipment on
any ground water well(s) located on any of the Properties. For any venting equipment that has been
installed, identity (i) on which Plaintiffs property the equipment or device was installed; (ii) a description
of the type of equipment that was installed; (3) the date on which the equipment was installed; (3) the
name of the Person(s), including the Person's employer, who installed the equipment; and (4) a
description of why the equipment or device was installed.
ambiguous, requires interpretation as to what "venting" would be defined as or may entail and seeks
expert testimony. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing, upon knowledge and belief, Plaintiffs
respond as follows: (i): Upon information and belief the Plaintiffs are not in possession of any venting
equipment; (ii): Upon information and belief the Plaintiffs are not in possession of any venting
equipment; (iii): Upon information and belief the Plaintiffs are not in possession of any venting
equipment; (iv): Upon infonnation and belief the Plaintiffs are not in possession of any venting
equipment; (v): The Plaintiff, not being an expert in hydrogeology or well drilling cannot respond as to if
or why a well cap was or would be installed.
8
INTERROGATORY NO. 10: For each Plaintiff, specify whether the Plaintiff continues to use his/her
ground water well to supply water for drinking, cooking, washing, bathing or other daily residential uses
since the alleged contamination in approximately September 2010. If not, state the alternative source of
water for each activity.
ambiguous and requires interpretation. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing, Plaintiffs purchase
their drinking water. Plaintiffs have no choice but to use well water for all other residential uses.
INTERROGATORY NO. 11: For each Plaintiff, state the basis as of the filing of the Complaint for the
allegations in paragraphs 97 and 98 in the Complaint that Plaintiffs' wells are contaminated with
"[p]ollutants, including but not limited to toxic sediments, and industrial and/or residual waste," "[drilling
muds and fluids," and "diesel fuel." For each Plaintiff, state which ofthe alleged contaminants are present
in his/her well.
ambiguous, requires interpretation and seeks expert testimony. Furthermore, this request is not
reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence to the extent that it prematurely
seeks infonnation and documents relating to the subject matter and opinions of expert witnesses, whose
disclosure is governed by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing, upon
knowledge and belief, plaintiff responds as follows: Plaintiffs' ground water well was contaminated from
Anschutz's drilling activities with known contaminants that include but are not limited to, elevated
methane levels and sediment of unknown makeup. According to County Executive Thomas Santulli,
Isotech Laboratories Inc. found that there are 3 different sources of gas contamination currently in the
private water wells.
9
INTERROGATORY NO. 12: For each Plaintiff, state whether the Plaintiff claims any damage as a
result of actual fires or explosions or whether the Plaintiffs claim is for the threat of such fires or
explosions. Describe any steps taken to mitigate claimed damage from actual or threatened fires or
explosions- e.g., moving out of the house, venting the well, disconnecting the household water system
from the well, etc.
ambiguous, requires interpretation and seeks expert testimony. Subject to and without waiving the
foregoing, Plaintiffs' claim at this time is the imminent threat of such fires and explosion. Methane is
known as a combustible gas and asphyxiate and Plaintiffs are concerned about a possible explosion and
illnesses associated with exposure to contaminants.
INTERROGATORY NO. 13: For each Plaintiff, state the specific basis for the allegation that Plaintiffs'
properties "have been hanned and diminished in value." (Complaint
ambiguous, requires interpretation, seeks legal conclusions and seeks expert testimony. Furthermore, this
request is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence to the extent that it
prematurely seeks information and documents relating to the subject matter and opinions of expert
witnesses, whose disclosure is governed by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26. Subject to and without waiving the
foregoing, upon knowledge and belief, Plaintiffs respond as follows: Plaintiffs' property has diminished
in value due to water contamination and discoloration that has resulted from Defendants' activities.
10
INTERROGATORY N0.14: State with specificity how each Plaintiff has "lost the use and enjoyment
of their property, and the quality of life they otherwise enjoyed." (Complaint ~ 1 03( d)).
ambiguous, requires interpretation, seeks legal conclusions and seeks expe1t testimony. Furthermore, this
foregoing, upon knowledge and belief, plaintiffs respond as follows: Plaintiffs have lost enjoyment of
property and quality of life through the diminished quality of water and this diminished water quality has
created emotional stress and economic burden.
INTERROGATORY NO. 15: For each Plaintiff, state with particularity when each Plaintiff claims that
his/her well became contaminated and the basis for the allegation.
foregoing, upon knowledge and belief, Plaintiffs respond as follows: Plaintiffs noticed well water became
contaminated in or around September 2010 and it is believed that Anschutz Exploration Corporation gas
drilling activities were the direct and proximate cause.
11
Date: June 30, 2011
New York, New York
12
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Tate J. Kunkle, q. ( Y 4468542)
(212) 267-3700
I certify that on June 30, 2011, I caused a copy of the foregoing document to be served on all
counsel of record and on defendants' counsel by First Class Mail:
NIXON PEABODY LLC
1300 Clinton Square
EvANS & FIGEL, PLLC
mguzman@khhte.com
HINMAN STRAUB PC
121 State Street
Attorneys for Defendant Conrad Geoscience Corporation
502 Carnegie Center
13
Attorneys for Plaintiffs } /"'
~ ~
Tate J. Kunkle, ~ 2 )
(212) 267-3700
Verification
I certify that the foregoing Answers and Objections to Defendants' First Set of
Interrogatories are true and correct to my knowledge. I am aware that if any of the foregoing
responses are willfully false, I am subject to punishment.
I further certify that certain facts and matters set forth in these responses are not within
my personal knowledge, and that such facts and information have been assembled by my
attorneys, Napoli Bern Ripka & Associates, LLP based upon records, documents and other
information collected by myself and my attorneys.
DATE: v)lf/1
.,.,.
Verification
-------------------------------------------------------------------)(
P laintifft, District Judge Charles J. Siragusa
-against-
ANSCHUTZ EJ{PLORATION CORPORATION, CONRAD
GEOSClENCECORPORATION,PATHFlNDERENERGY
Dtjendants.
------------------------------------------------------------------------)(
PLAINTIFF MAXINE CONDON RESPONSES TO ANSCHUTZ E)(PLORATION
Pursuant to Rule 33 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, PlaintiffMaxine Condon, by
and through her attorneys, Napoli Bern Ripka & Associates LLP, makes the following
Objections and Responses to Defendant Anschutz Exploration Corporation's First Set of
Interrogatories.
infmmation that is equally available to defendant.
6. Plaintiff objects to these discovery requests to the extent they are umelated to any
9. The information Plaintiff produces in response to these discovery requests, if any,
full therein.
Requests.
2
his or her Property, (ii) the amount of time that each Plaintiff has lived on the Property; and (iii)
vague, ambiguous and not limited in tetms of time or scope. Subject to and without waiving the
(i): Maxine Condon and her husband Walter Condon (deceased) purchased the property
located at 10 Wolcott Dr. Horseheads, New York 14845 in August of 1968.
(ii): Maxine Condon has lived at the property located at 10 Wolcott Dr. Horseheads, New
York 14845 for 43 years.
(iii): The date the original ground water well located at 10 Wolcott Dr. Horseheads, New
York 14845 was installed is approximately 1962 when the house was built on the property.
Plaintiff reserves the right to supplement this response up to and including the time oftrial.
3
(i): A new ground water well was installed at the property located at 10 Wolcott Dr.
Horseheads, New York 14845 on June 16,2008.
(ii): Mr. Ken Wilcox installed the ground water well located on the property at 10
Wolcott Dr. Horseheads, New York 14845
(iii): The depth of the ground water well is approximately 138ft.
(iv): The well is lined with a steel casing that extends approximately 68ft.
(v): The well is lined with a steel casing that extends approximately 68 ft.
(vi): The well is vented.
(vii): The well vent was installed on June 19,2008
(viii): None.
testing performed.
4
(i): The ground water well located at 10 Wolcott Drive, Horseheads NY 14845 was tested
on: 10/9/07, 7/29/08, 8/12/08, 12/8110, and 4/28111
(ii): Ken Wilcox, of Wilcox Well Drilling
1158 Pleasant Street, Horseheads NY 14845
Pump Doctors, 76 Brown Road, Horseheads NY 14845
(iii): See testing results attached to responses to Defendant's demand for documents.
propeliy near Plaintiffs' Propeliies, since 2000 - especially problems such as contamination,
entail. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing, upon knowledge and belief, plaintiff
responds as follows: Plaintiff has had no problems with her well since 2000. Plaintiff has had
some slight sulfur smell of rotten eggs. Plaintiff is unaware of any resolution of this problem and
plaintiff is not water of the cause or suspected cause because she is not an expeli of
5
hydrogeology or any science related to ground water and thus cannot answer this part of the
question. Plaintiff reserves the right to supplement this response up to and including the time of
trial.
Exploration Corporation in 2010. In your response, for any alleged contamination, state whether
and belief, plaintiff responds as follows: Plaintiffs ground water well was contaminated from
Anschutz's drilling activities with known contaminates of natural gases, barium, fecal coli form,
odors, brown sediment, and grey sediment. Testing was carried out by the Chemung County
Health Department and Environmental Health Services. Plaintiff reserves the right to
supplement this response up to and including the time of trial.
6
INTERROGATORY NO.6: For each Plaintiff, describe with specificity all damages claimed
asks plaintiff to summarize information contained in documents from plaintiffs files. Pursuant to
Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 33(d), Plaintiff is not required to summarize all responsive information
contained in business records which Plaintiff has previously produced or will produce in
response to discovery demands. Subject to the foregoing, Plaintiffs damages include, but are
not limited to the discoloration of clothing due to water used in laundry, discoloration of
appliances such as washing machines, sinks, toilet, and bathtub, costs for the purchase of bottled
water used in washing, cooking, and consumption, emotional stress caused by contaminated
water and economic hardship caused by fixed income being used for the purchase of water,
7
ruined plumbing pipes and appliances, inconvenience damages and the diminution of value of
property.
to supplement or modify its response to Defendant's' interrogatories up to and including the time
of trial.
above, state with particularity Plaintiffs allegation for how the drilling activities of Anschutz
asks plaintiff to summarize information contained in documents from plaintiffs files. Pursuant
to Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 33(d), Plaintiff is not required to summarize all responsive information
8
contamination because for the 41 years before any drilling activities occurred in the affected area
water was not experiencing any of the issues now present. Plaintiff continues its investigation of
all relevant facts in this case and reserves its right to supplement or modify its response to
Defendant's' interrogatories up to and including the time of trial.
INTERROGATORY NO.8: Identify any physician or other medical service provider from
invades the Plaintiffs privacy because the Plaintiff has not knowingly sustained personal injuries
provider's examination of plaintiff is properly the subject ofthis litigation or interrogatories or
to the subject matter of this litigation, as plaintiff has not placed her health or physical condition
9
further adviCe of counsel, Plaintiff is only asserting damage claims requiring medical monitoring,
INTERROGATORY NO.9: Identify whether any Plaintiffhas ever installed any venting
equipment that has been installed, identi:ty (i) on which Plaintiffs property the equipment or
was installed.
belief, plaintiff responds as follows: a venting well cap was installed on June 19, 2010 on the
ground water well located at 10 Wolcott Drive, Horseheads NY 14845 by Ken Wilcox of Wilcox
Well Drilling. Plaintiff, not being an expert in natural gas contamination, natural gas operations,
hydrogeology, geology or well drilling cannot respond as to why a well cap was installed after
defendant contaminated the potable water supply with combustible gases and other toxic
substances. Plaintiff reserves the right to supplement this response up to and including the time
of trial.
10
Plaintiff uses the well ground water for washing and bathing. Plaintiff has been forced to
purchase water for cooking and drinking due to defendants' activities.
INTERROGATORY NO. 11: For each Plaintiff, state the basis as ofthe filing of the
contaminated with "[p]ollutants, including but not limited to toxic sediments, and industrial
vague, ambiguous, requires interpretation and seeks expert testimony. Fmihermore, this request
waiving the foregoing, upon knowledge and belief, Plaintiff responds as follows: Plaintiffs
ground water well was contaminated from Anschutz's drilling activities with known
11
contaminates of natural gases, barium, fecal coli form, odors, brown sediment, and grey
"sediment". Testing was carried out by the Chemung County Health Department and
Environmental Health Services. Plaintiff reserves the right to supplement this response up to and
including the time of trial.
as a result of actual fires or explosions or whether the Plaintiffs claim is for the threat of such
waiving the foregoing, Plaintiffs claim at this time is the imminent threat of such fires and
trial.
12
Subject to and without waiving the foregoing, upon knowledge and belief, plaintiff responds as
follows: Plaintiffs property has diminished in value due to water contamination that has
resulted from Defendants' activities.
enjoyment of their property, and the quality oflife they otherwise enjoyed."
103(d)).
RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY N0.14:
quality of water and this diminished water quality has created significant emotional stress and
economic burden.
13
follows: on or about September 9, 2010.
Date: June 30, 2011
New York, New York
14
~ ~
Tate J. Kunkle, sq. (NY 4468542)
(212) 267-3700
I cetiify that on June 30, 2011, I caused a copy of the foregoing document to be served on
NIXON PEABODY LLC
1300 Clinton Square
cdthomas@nixonpeabody.com
EvANS & FIGEL, PLLC
mguzman@khhte.com
HINMAN STRAUB PC
121 State Street
502 Carnegie Center
15

Tate J. Kunkle, Esq. (NY4468542)
(212) 267-3700
Verification
DATE:
NAME:
TITLE:
ADDRESS:
-------------------------------------------------------------------)(
-against-
ANSCHUTZE){PLORATION CORPORATION, CONRAD
Defendants.
------------------------------------------------------------------------)(
PLAINTIFF KAREN FARRELL RESPONSES TO ANSCHUTZ EXPLORATION
Pursuant to Rule 33 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff Karen Farrell, by
and through her attorneys, Napoli Bern Ripka & Associates LLP, makes the following
Interrogatories.
that does not pertain to or is beyond that in Plaintiff's possession, custody, or control, and/or
information that is equally available to Defendant.
6. Plaintiff objects to these discovery requests to the extent they are unrelated to any
beyond the limitations and parameters agreed among the parties or imposed by the Comi.
9. The information plaintiff produces in response to these discovery requests, if any,
full therein.
Requests.
2
(i): In or about July 1986.
(iii): Unknown.
3
(i): Unknown.
(ii): Unknown.
(iii): Unknown.
(iv): Unknown.
(v): Unknown.
(vi): Unknown.
(vii): Unknown.
(viii): Unknown.
testing performed.
(i): Unknown.
(ii): Unknown.
(iii): Unknown.
4
property near Plaintiffs' Properties, since 2000- especially problems such as contamination,
entail. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing, upon knowledge and belief, Plaintiff
responds as follows: In Fall of2010, Plaintiff noticed discoloration, sediment, and the presence
of gas in her water. Since this time, Plaintiffs water supply has smelled of rust, and all
appliances that use water have visibly rusted. Plaintiff is unaware of any resolution of these
problems. Plaintiff is not aware of the cause or suspected cause of these problems because she is
not an expert of hydrogeology or any science related to ground water and thus cannot answer this
part of the question. Plaintiff reserves the right to supplement this response up to and including
the time of trial.
5
and belief, Plaintiff responds as follows: no testing of Plaintiffs ground water well has occurred.
trial.
6
Without waiving the general objections and prior objections, plaintiff also objects in that
asks plaintiff to summarize information contained in documents from plaintiffs files. Pursuant to
Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 33(d), Plaintiff is not required to summarize all responsive information
to discovery demands. Subject to the foregoing, Plaintiffs damages include, but are not limited
to problems of rusting, discoloration, and other malfunction of appliances and other fixtures that
use water.
to supplement or modify its response to defendant's' interrogatories up to and including the time
of trial.
above, state with pmiicularity Plaintiffs allegation for how the drilling activities of Anschutz
7
asks plaintiff to summarize information contained in documents from plaintiff's files. Pursuant
to Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 33( d), Plaintiff is not required to summarize all responsive information
contamination because for the years before any drilling activities occurred in the affected area
water was not experiencing of the issues now present. Plaintiff continues its investigation of all
relevant facts in this case and reserves its right to supplement or modify its response to
Defendant's interrogatories up to and including the time of trial.
reason that Plaintiffvisited the physician; and (4) the outcome ofthe treatment.
8
invades the Plaintiffs privacy because the Plaintiff has not knowingly sustained personal injuries
provider's examination of Plaintiff is properly the subject of this litigation or interrogatories or
to the subject matter of this litigation, as Plaintiff has not placed her health or physical condition
further advice of counsel, Plaintiff is only asserting damage claims requiring medical monitoring,
INTERROGATORY NO. 9: Identify whether any Plaintiff has ever installed any venting
employer, who installed the equipment; and (4) a description ofwhy the equipment or device
was installed.
9
belief, Plaintiff responds as follows: no venting has been installed on Plaintiff's property.
Plaintiff uses bottled water from Tops Brand, Poland Spring, and/or Deer Park for her drinking
and cooking needs. Plaintiff has no choice but to use well water for her washing, bathing, and
other daily residential water uses.
10
reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence to the extent that it
waiving the foregoing, Plaintiff continues her investigation of all relevant facts in this case and
reserves its right to supplement or modify its response to Defendant's' interrogatories up to and
threatened fires or explosions - e.g., moving out of the house, venting the well, disconnecting the
waiving the foregoing, plaintiffs claim at this time is the imminent threat of such fires and
trial.
11
Plaintiffs' properties "have been harmed and diminished in value." (Complaint '1!103(c)).
follows: Plaintiffs property has diminished in value due to water contamination that has
resulted from defendants' activities.
trial.
enjoyment of their property, and the quality oflife they otherwise enjoyed." (Complaint 'I!
103(d)).
12
quality of water and the emotional stress and economic burden that this diminished water quality
has caused.
trial.
follows: in or about the Summer of2010.
Date: June 30, 2011
New York, New York
13
~ ~
Tate J. Kunkle, sq. (NY4468542)
(212) 267-3700
NIXON PEABODY LLC
1300 Clinton Square
EvANS & FIGEL, PLLC
mguzman@khhte.com
HINMAN STRAUB PC
121 State Street
502 Carnegie Center
14
NAPOLI BERN RIPKA & AsSOCIATES, LLP

Tate J. Kunkle, Esq. (NY4468542)
(212) 267-3700
Verification
I certifY that the foregoing Answers and Objections to Defendants' First Set of
Interrogatories are true and correct to my knowledge. I am aware that if any ofthe
foregoing responses are willfully false, I am subject to punishment.
I further certify that certain facts and matters set forth in these responses are not
within my personal knowledge, and that such facts and information have been assembled
by my attorneys, Napoli Bern Ripka & Associates, LLP based upon records, documents
and other information collected by myself and my attorneys.
DATE: 0 lU\J._
-------------------------------------------------------------------)(
JOE TODD, BONNIE TODD, TOM WHIPPLE and PAULINE Case No. 11-CV-06119-CJS
WHIPPLE,
P laintif.IS, District Judge Charles J. Siragusa
-against-
ANSCHUTZ E){PLORATION CORPORATION, CONRAD
Dqendants.
)(
PLAINTIFFS BROOKS LIDDIARD AND JANET LIDDIARD RESPONSES TO ANSCHUTZ
E){PLORATION CORPORATION'S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES
Pursuant to Rule 33 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiffs Brooks and Janet Liddiard,
by and through their attorneys, Napoli Bern Ripka & Associates LLP, make the following Objections and
Responses to Defendant Anschutz Exploration Corporation's First Set oflnterrogatories.
1. Plaintiffs object to the definitions and instructions set forth in Defendant's discovery
2. Plaintiffs object to these discovety requests to the extent they seek information outside
the restricted scope of discovery permissible under the Local Civil Rules of this Court.
3. Plaintiffs object to these discovety requests to the extent that they seek documents or
relinquishment of any pati of the protections afforded by the attomey-client privilege, the work product
not pertain to or is beyond that in Plaintiffs' possession, custody, or control, and/or infonnation that is
cannot be located after a reasonable search of its records reasonably believed most likely to contain the
responsive infonnation on the grounds that any such requirement would be unduly burdensome and
oppressive.
ambiguous terms as such requests are overbroad, unduly burdensome and oppressive, and not reasonably
8. Plaintiffs object to these discovery requests to the extent they request infonnation beyond
the limitations and parameters agreed among the parties or imposed by the Comi. Plaintiffs' responses
are subject to all such limitations and parameters and incorporate by reference the discovery parameters
produced solely for the purpose of this action. Plaintiffs expressly reserve all objections to the
therein.
12. Plaintiffs' responses to these discovery requests are based on information available as a
right to supplement their responses consistent with its obligations under the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure.
13. Plaintiffs reserve the right to amend or supplement its responses as well as the right to
object to other discovery directed to the subject matter of Defendant's Discovery Requests.
INTERROGATORY N0.1: For each Plaintiff, identify (i) the date that each Plaintiff purchased his or
each Plaintiffs ground water well was installed on the Plaintiffs property.
2
(i): The property located at 22 Wolcott Drive, Horseheads NY was purchased on July 27, 1978.
(ii): Plaintiffs lived on the property from August 28, 1978 thru October 16, 2010. Also stayed
temporarily at the property from November 24,2010 thru November 27, 2010, and from December 23,
2010 thru December 31,2010.
(iii): Upon information and belief, Plaintiffs are unaware of when the ground water well was
installed on the property.
Plaintiff possesses infonnation. For each well, describe, with specificity, (i) the date the well was
installed, (ii) the installer, (iii) the depth of the well, (iv) whether well is lined, (v) the type oflining or
any other equipment or systems designed to filter, purify or otherwise improve the quality of the well
water.
(i): Upon information and belief Plaintiffs are unaware of the date the ground water well was
installed at the property located at 22 Wolcott Drive, Horseheads NY.
(ii): Upon information and belief Plaintiffs are unaware of the installer the ground water well was
installed at the property located at 22 Wolcott Drive, Horseheads NY.
(iii): Upon information and belief the ground water well is approximately 115 feet deep.
(iv): Upon information and belief Plaintiffs are unaware ifthe ground water well has a lining.
3
well.
cap.
(v): Upon information and belief Plaintiffs are unaware ofthe type of lining the ground water
(vi): Upon information and belief Plaintiffs are unaware if the ground water well is vented.
(vii): Upon infonnation and belief Plaintiffs are unaware who might have installed a well vent
(viii): Upon information and belief a greensand filter and water softener was installed by
Chemung Soft Water Service around 1989 or 1990.
Subject to and without waiving the foregoing, upon knowledge and belief, Plaintiffs responds as follows:
(i): The well located at 22 Wolcott Drive, Horseheads NY was not inspected, serviced, or
maintained since 2000, but was tested on September 21, 2010 for E. Coil and total chloroforms. A flow
test was also done on September 21, 2010.
(ii): Mark Costanza, owner of Water Wizard LLC conducted the testing on September 21,2010.
(iii): The test for E. Coli by method SM9223B -- <1.0 MPN/1 OOmL. The test for Total
Cloriforms by method SM9223B -results < 1.0 MPN/1 OOmL. See attached documentation.
4
Properties, since 2000- especially problems such as contamination, discoloration, odors, or turbidity in
occurred, (iii) the resolution of the problem (if any), and (iv) the cause or suspected cause of the problem.
as or may entail. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing, upon knowledge and belief, Plaintiffs
respond as follows: (i); Gas bubbles and cloudiness was found in the water. (ii) Water issues were first
noticed approximately in July of2010; (iii) The water issues have not yet been resolved; (iv) Plaintiffs are
not experts of hydrogeology or any science related to ground water and thus cannot answer this part of the
question.
ambiguous, requires interpretation as to what "nature" would be defined as or may entail and seeks expert
testimony. Furthermore, this request is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible
5
without waiving the foregoing, upon knowledge and belief, Plaintiffs respond as follows: the nature of the
contamination is that there is methane gas in the water. The water also has cloudiness and seems to have
sediment. There have been no tests for methane. See also Response to Interrogatory No. 4 above.
including personal, mental, emotional, physical, property and punitive damages.
in large part. Plaintiff further objects to this request on the ground it asks Plaintiffs to summarize
information contained in documents from Plaintiffs' files. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 33(d),
Plaintiffs are not required to summarize all responsive information contained in business records which
Plaintiffs have previously produced or will produce in response to discovery demands. Subject to the
foregoing, Plaintiffs' damages include, but are not limited to: the water well being contaminated with
methane gas, the economic burden and nuisance of purchasing bottled water for drinking and cooking for
Plaintiffs and pets, and property damages for the inability to sell their home at a fair market value due to
water contamination.
6
with particularity Plaintiffs' allegation for how the drilling activities of Anschutz Exploration Corporation
relating to the subject matter and opinions of expert witnesses, whose disclosure is govemed by Fed. R.
contained in documents from Plaintiffs' files. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 33(d), Plaintiffs are not
required to summarize all responsive information contained in business records which Plaintiff have
without the objections, Plaintiffs claims that the drilling activities of Anschutz Exploration Corporation
caused the ground water well contamination because for the 32 years which Plaintiffs lived in their house
before any drilling activities occurred in the affected area, the water supply did not experience any of the
contamination and issues now present.
7
physician; and ( 4) the outcome of the treatment.
Upon the advice of counsel, Plaintiffs Brooks and Janet Liddiard object to this request because it
seeks irrelevant information that will not lead to the discovery of relevant information and improperly and
unduly invades the Plaintiffs' privacy because the Plaintiff has not knowingly sustained personal injuries
that have manifested, have been treated by medical professionals, nor that are personally known to the
Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs further objects on the grounds that no physician or other medical provider's
examination of Plaintiffs is properly the subject of this litigation or interrogatories or other discovery
connected therewith unless said examination, treatment or diagnosis was related to the subject matter of
this litigation, as Plaintiffs have not placed their health or physical condition at issue in this litigation in
any other manner and her medical condition(s), diagnoses and treatment for unrelated issues is privileged
and said privilege has not been waived. Upon the further advice of counsel, Plaintiffs are only asserting
damage claims requiring medical monitoring, including fear of cancer.
INTERROGATORY NO.9: Identify whether any Plaintiff has ever installed any venting equipment on
any ground water well(s) located on any ofthe Properties. For any venting equipment that has been
installed, identify (i) on which Plaintiffs property the equipment or device was installed; (ii) a description
8
respond as follows: (i-iv) No venting equipment was installed while Plaintiffs were residing at the
property. (v): Plaintiffs, not being experts in hydrogeology or well drilling cannot respond as to if or why
a well cap was or would be installed.
since the alleged contamination in approximately September 20 l 0. If not, state the alternative source of
ambiguous and requires interpretation. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing, Plaintiffs continued
to use well water from September 2010 until October 16, 2010 for cooking (only if boiling water),
washing clothes, washing dishes, and bathing. Plaintiffs did not use well water for drinking and resorted
to bottled water for this purpose.
muds and fluids," and "diesel fuel." For each Plaintiff, state which of the alleged contaminants are present
in his/her well.
9
ambiguous, requires interpretation and seeks expe1i testimony. Furthermore, this request is not
seeks infonnation and documents relating to the subject matter and opinions of expe1i witnesses, whose
knowledge and belief, plaintiff responds as follows: Plaintiffs were aware of gas bubbles in the water
supply and a cloudiness in the water that was never present before the drilling activities of Anschutz
Exploration Corporation.
from the well, etc.
ambiguous, requires interpretation and seeks expert testimony. Subject to and without waiving the
foregoing, Plaintiffs' claim at this time is the imminent threat of such fires and explosion. Methane is
known as a combustible gas and asphyxiate and plaintiffs are concerned about a possible explosion and
illnesses associated with exposure to contaminants.
properties "have been banned and diminished in value." (Complaint ~ l 03( c)).
10
foregoing, upon knowledge and belief, Plaintiffs respond as follows: Plaintiffs' property has diminished
in value due to water contamination and discoloration that has resulted from defendants' activities.
Plaintiffs had a purchase offer dated September 15,2010 from real estate agent Michele M. Locey, 102
Lee Avenue, Horseheads NY, for $125,000- with no commission payable by Plaintiffs. This offer was
disapproved with suspicion that disapproval occurred due to methane contamination of the ground water
well. Home was eventually sold on March 12, 2011 for $117,000 through Realty USA, Carl Romans as
the agent.
of their property, and the quality of life they otherwise enjoyed." (Complaint
ambiguous, requires interpretation, seeks legal conclusions and seeks expert testimony. Fmthermore, this
foregoing, upon knowledge and belief, Plaintiffs respond as follows: Plaintiffs have lost enjoyment of
created emotional stress and economic burden.
11
prematurely seeks infonnation and documents relating to the subject matter and opinions of expe11
foregoing, upon knowledge and belief, Plaintiffs respond as follows: Plaintiffs believe the ground water
well became contaminated on or around July 2010 as this is when the gas bubbles first appeared.
Date: June 30, 2011
New York, New York
12
Attorneys for Plaintifjs
(212) 267-3700
NIXON PEABODY LLC
1300 Clinton Square
EVANS & FIGEL, PLLC
mguzman@khhte.com
HINMAN STRAUB PC
121 State Street
Attorneys for Defendant Conrad Geoscience Cmporation
502 Carnegie Center
13
Attorneys for Plaintiff.s . ) /. /
~ ~
(212) 267-3700
Vcrifkation
I ccrtil\' that the foregoing Answers and ()bjections to Defendants' First Set of
lnteJT)gatories are true and correct to my knowledge. I am aware that if any of the foregoing
resp<nses are willfully false, 1 am st1bject to punishment.
l further certify that certain facts and matters set in these responses are not within
my pnsona.l knmvledge, and that such facts and information have been assembled by my
attorneys, Napoli Bern Ripka & Associates, LLP based upon records .. documents and other
infornation collected by myself and my attorneys.
"') ,1 v . .. -. Ide
l-') _....,.._.1,;'1.'. I . !( /
_____ ,!l'-..,,tt::c::J:,,.,:J!!!'_/::.'Z. .. '!L . _, __ O(_.Ac .. _._ . .
. <I.,
NAME: f:>,t:.-o d!C:? L L If) l> !f:1Jff)
TITLE:
ADDRESS: /.'-"_--... -//
..1 l? !v'? o je) l D
Verification
lnterr)gatorics are true and correct to my knowledge. lam aware that if any of the foregoing
respn1.ses are willfrdly false, I am subject to punishment.
I further cerli fy that certain facts and matters set forth in these responses are not within
my p< knowledge, and that such facts and information have been assembled by my
attorreys, Napoli Bern Ripka & Associates, LLP based upon records, documents and other
infonnation collected by myself and my attorneys.

- ________ .
NAME: ,J'/(i-1,/(t" L. /l)t) .o9 12 ()
'ITfLE:
ADDRESS: i-5"11 RtA.iif:J( o t.-1!J ..
,....., 'I '}.
Chlh.t
0
1.1 [L. .. ct) S c. ..2 'i 3 L2,__
. j
-------------------------------------------------------------------)(
JOE TODD, BONNIE TODD, TOM WHIPPLE and PAULINE Case No. 11-CV -06119-CJS
WHIPPLE,
P laintifft, District Judge Charles J. Siragusa
-against-
ANSCHUTZE){PLORATION CORPORATION, CONRAD
D<fondants.
)(
PLAINTIFFS JAMES McDERMOTT AND HEIDI McDERMOTT RESPONSES TO
ANSCHUTZ E){PLORATION CORPORATION'S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES
Pursuant to Rule 33 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiffs James and Heidi
McDermott, by and through their attorneys, Napoli Bern Ripka & Associates LLP, make the following
Objections and Responses to Defendant Anschutz Exploration Corporation's First Set oflnterrogatories.
1. Plaintiffs object to the definitions and instructions set fmth in Defendant's discovery
2. Plaintiffs object to these discovery requests to the extent they seek infonnation outside
the restricted scope of discovery permissible under the Local Civil Rules of this Court.
3. Plaintiffs object to these discovery requests to the extent that they seek documents or
relinquishment of any part of the protections afforded by the attorney-client privilege, the work product
not pertain to or is beyond that in Plaintiffs possession, custody, or control, and/or information that is
cannot be located after a reasonable search of its records reasonably believed most likely to contain the
responsive infonnation on the grounds that any such requirement would be unduly burdensome and
oppressive.
ambiguous tenus as such requests are overbroad, unduly burdensome and oppressive, and not reasonably
8. Plaintiffs object to these discovery requests to the extent they request information beyond
the limitations and parameters agreed among the parties or imposed by the Court. Plaintiffs responses are
subject to all such limitations and parameters and incorporate by reference the discovery parameters
produced solely for the purpose of this action. Plaintiffs expressly reserves all objections to the
therein.
12. Plaintiffs' responses to these discovery requests are based on information available as a
right to supplement its responses consistent with its obligations under the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure.
13. Plaintiffs reserve the right to amend or supplement its responses as well as the right to
object to other discovery directed to the subject matter of Defendants' Discovery Requests.
INTERROGATORY N0.1: For each Plaintiff, identifY (i) the date that each Plaintiff purchased his or
each Plaintiffs ground water well was installed on the Plaintiffs property.
2
(i): On or about November 25, 2009
(ii): Approximately 19 months.
(iii): Upon infonnation and belief, the ground water well was installed in when the house was
constructed in 197 5.
Plaintiff possesses information. For each well, describe, with specificity, (i) the date the well was
installed, (ii) the installer, (iii) the depth of the well, (iv) whether well is lined, (v) the type of lining or
any other equipment or systems designed to filter, purifY or otherwise improve the quality of the well
water.
(i): Upon information and belief, the well was installed at the time of construction in 1975.
(ii): Unknown
(iii): Unknown.
(iv): Unknown.
(v):There is some sort of metal casing on the well.
(vi): The well is vented.
(vii): Unknown.
3
(viii): In April of 2011, a chlorination system, including an injection and retention tank, and a
Carbon Filtration System were professionally installed in an attempt to reduce the grey-water
contamination and bacteria content of the well, and to increase the overall water quality.
Subject to and without waiving the foregoing, upon knowledge and belief, Plaintiffs respond as follows:
(i): The well has been tested three times: on October 20, 2009, as part of closing procedures on
the purchase ofthe residence; on November 22, 2010; and again on December 6, 2010.
(ii): The October 20, 2009 testing was sampled by Water Wizard LLC, of Corning, New York
and analyzed by Benchmark Analytics, Inc. of Sayre, Pennsylvania. The November 22, 2010
testing was conducted by Benchmark Analytics, Inc. of Sayre, Pennsylvania. The December 6,
2010 testing was conducted by Gary Roll from Culligan Water.
(iii): The October 20, 2009 water sample was designated "in compliance." The November 22,
20 I 0 water sample was designated "not in compliance" due to the presence of excessive coliform
bacteria in the sample. The December 6, 20 10 water sample resulted in a proposal of abatement
measures to reduce the methane gas, clay, iron bacteria, and coliform bacteria in the water.
4
Properties, since 2000- especially problems such as contamination, discoloration, odors, or turbidity in
occuned, (iii) the resolution of the problem (if any), and (iv) the cause or suspected cause of the problem.
as or may entail. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing, upon knowledge and belief, plaintiff
responds as follows: (i) Water from the tap appears white and dirty. Inside of toilets are coated with
grey/black coating that requires daily scrubbing, and parts frequently become clogged. Inside of water
tanks are slimy and coated with bacteria growth and settled particles; (ii) problems were first noticed in
or around September 2010; (iii) no resolution ofthe issues has occuned; (iv) Plaintiffs have investigated
the causes of this and have included their findings and notes with their document production.
ambiguous, requires interpretation as to what "nature" would be defined as or may entail and seeks expett
5
testimony. Furthermore, this request is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible
without waiving the foregoing, upon knowledge and belief, Plaintiff responds as follows: After noticing,
in September 2010, that water was becoming discolored and/or contaminated, Plaintiffs contacted the
county Department of Health and the local water company, Pump Doctors. At this time, they learned that
the Anschutz Exploration Company had just capped a gas well proximate to their property, and that
several other area residents were experiencing similar problems. Plaintiffs consulted with Pump Doctors
and Culligan Water for advice as to the source of the problem. Drawing on opinions of these companies
based on their experience with similar situations arising from other energy companies operations,
Plaintiffs formulated the idea that Defendants' gas drilling activities was related to their water quality
problems. See also Response to Interrogatory No. 4 above.
including personal, mental, emotional, physical, prope1ty and punitive damages.
relating to the subject matter and opinions of expe1t witnesses, whose disclosure is governed by Fed. R.
6
in large pati. Plaintiff futiher objects to this request on the ground it asks Plaintiffs to summarize
infonnation contained in documents from Plaintiffs' files. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 33(d),
Plaintiffs are not required to summarize all responsive infonnation contained in business records which
Plaintiffs has previously produced or will produce in response to discovery demands. Subject to the
foregoing, Plaintiffs' damages include, but are not limited to:
Plaintiffs are unable to drink their water, so have installed a water cooler in their kitchen, which
requires them to purchase and transport five gallon containers of drinking water from a local store.
Plaintiffs, too, do not feel comfortable using this contaminated water for bathing, and have installed a
rented water filtration system to fulfill their daily residential water needs.
Plaintiffs' water supply has changed drastically since the time that they purchased their home;
this is well documented in water testing conducted before and after their purchase of the property. Now,
the water contains a visible amount of combustible gas and a great deal of particulate matter leading to
darkening and discoloration ofthe water and its containing appliances. Plaintiffs have been required to
install a water filtration system due to their water no longer meeting safety standards, and the value of
their home has been drastically reduced by the need to disclose these issues to any prospective buyers and
the dramatic change in water quality.
with patiicularity Plaintiffs' allegation for how the drilling activities of Anschutz Exploration Corporation
that has been requested is not limited in time or scope. Plaintiffs also object to this interrogatmy on the
7
document supporting a broad anay of facts. Furthermore, this request is not reasonably calculated to lead
contained in documents from Plaintiffs' files. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 33( d), Plaintiffs are not
required to summarize all responsive information contained in business records which Plaintiff has
without the objections, Plaintiffs claim that the drilling activities of Anschutz Exploration Corporation
caused the ground water well contamination because prior to purchasing their house, the water supply was
tested and revealed no contamination or other issues. Months later, after Anschutz Exploration Company
drilled in the area, their water supply became severely contaminated, discolored, and unsafe for
consumption. Plaintiffs' opinions are based in part on the statements of water professionals Pump
Doctors and Culligan Water.
physician; and ( 4) the outcome of the treatment.
Upon the advice of counsel, Plaintiffs object to this request because it seeks irrelevant
information that will not lead to the discovery of relevant information and improperly and unduly invades
8
the Plaintiffs' privacy because the Plaintiffs have not knowingly sustained personal injuries that have
manifested, have been treated by medical professionals, nor that are personally known to the Plaintiffs.
Plaintiffs further object on the grounds that no physician or other medical provider's examination of
plaintiff is properly the subject of this litigation or interrogatories or other discovery connected therewith
unless said examination, treatment or diagnosis was related to the subject matter of this litigation, as
Plaintiffs have not placed her health or physical condition at issue in this litigation in any other manner
and her medical condition(s), diagnoses and treatment for unrelated issues is privileged and said privilege
has not been waived. Upon the further advice of counsel, Plaintiffs are only asserting damage claims
requiring medical monitoring, including fear of cancer.
INTERROGATORY NO. 9: Identify whether any Plaintiff has ever installed any venting equipment on
any ground water well(s) located on any of the Properties. For any venting equipment that has been
installed, identify (i) on which Plaintiffs property the equipment or device was installed; (ii) a description
respond as follows: (i): Upon information and belief the Plaintiffs are not in possession of any venting
equipment; (ii): Upon infonnation and belief the Plaintiffs are not in possession of any venting
equipment; (iii): Upon information and belief the Plaintiffs are not in possession of any venting
equipment; (iv): Upon information and belief the Plaintiffs are not in possession of any venting
9
equipment; (v): Plaintiffs, not being experts in hydrogeology or well drilling cannot respond as to if or
why a well cap was or would be installed.
since the alleged contamination in approximately September 2010. If not, state the alternative source of
ambiguous and requires interpretation. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing, Plaintiffs have
purchase their drinking and cooking water, even after the installation of a water filtration system on their
property. They have no choice but to use their well water for washing, bathing, laundry and other similar
residential uses.
muds and fluids," and "diesel fuel." For each Plaintiff, state which of the alleged contaminants are present
in his/her well.
seeks information and documents relating to the subject matter and opinions of expert witnesses, whose
10
knowledge and belief, Plaintiffs respond as follows: See Responses to Interrogatories Nos. 3 through 7.
from the well, etc.
ambiguous, requires interpretation and seeks expet1 testimony. Subject to and without waiving the
foregoing, Plaintiffs respond as follows: In April, 2011, a chlorination system, including an injection and
retention tank, as well as a Carbon Filtration System was professionally installed on the property in an
attempt to lessen the grey-water contamination, presence of bacteria, and to improve the water.
properties "have been harmed and diminished in value." (Complaint ~ 1 03( c)).
prematurely seeks information and documents relating to the subject matter and opinions of expet1
foregoing, upon knowledge and belief, plaintiff responds as follows: Plaintiffs' property has diminished
11
in value due to their well water problems, the installation of a necessary water filtration system due to
their water not meeting codes, disclosures that will have to be made to prospective buyers on the presence
of combustible gas in the water, and other detriments to the value of the home due to the water
contamination and discoloration that have resulted from defendants' activities. Plaintiffs currently have
no alternative but to live with their poor water quality because the cost of installing gas vent equipment
and the amount of waste water that would be produced from the process makes it financially and
physically impractical.
of their property, and the quality oflife they otherwise enjoyed." (Complaint
ambiguous, requires interpretation, seeks legal conclusions and seeks expert testimony. Furthennore, this
foregoing, upon knowledge and belief, plaintiffs respond as follows: Plaintiffs have lost enjoyment of
created emotional stress and economic burden. Prior to the discovery of water contamination, Plaintiffs
used their well water for drinking, washing, and bathing, as they would have in any other residence.
Plaintiffs and their children drank directly from the taps, a practice that has since ceased with the change
in water quality. Plaintiffs are concerned about the inevitable continued decrease in the value of their
home, and anxious that disclosure of these water quality issues will deter prospective buyers.
12
ambiguous, requires interpretation, seeks legal conclusions and seeks expert testimony. Furthennore, this
foregoing, upon knowledge and belief, Plaintiffs respond as follows: Plaintiffs noticed well water became
contaminated in or around September 2010 and it is believed that Anschutz Exploration Corporation gas
drilling activities were the direct and proximate cause. See also Response to InteiTogatory No. 4 above.
Date: June 30, 2011
New York, New York
13
(212) 267-3700
NIXON PEABODY LLC
1300 Clinton Square
EVANS & FIGEL, PLLC
mguzman@khhte.com
HINMAN STRAUB PC
121 State Street
502 Carnegie Center
14
Attorneys for Plaintiffs . ) / ~
~ ~
(212) 267-3700
Verification
DATE:
Verification
DATE: b2'6'- i\
NAME: /11 {.))cray_,-f-f-
TITLE:
ADDRESS: f'f,t-flLTl:A"'fe<_<:e.
/lf5rl{5
-------------------------------------------------------------------)(
-against-
ANSCHUTZ EJ{PLORATION CORPORATION, CONRAD
Defondants.
------------------------------------------------------------------------)(
PLAINTIFFS DO NETTA D. MOREY AND PAUL MOREY RESPONSES TO
ANSCHUTZ EXPLORATION CORPORATION'S FIRST SET OF
INTERROGATORIES
Pursuant to Rule 33 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiffs Donetta and Paul
Morey, by and through their attorneys, Napoli Bern Ripka & Associates LLP, make the
following Objections and Responses to Defendant Anschutz Exploration Corporation's First Set
of Interrogatories.
1. Plaintiffs object to the definitions and instructions set forth in Defendant's
2. Plaintiffs object to these discovery requests to the extent they seek information
3. Plaintiffs object to these discovery requests to the extent that they seek documents
that does not pertain to or is beyond that in Plaintiff's possession, custody, or control, and/or
6. Plaintiffs object to these discovery requests to the extent they are unrelated to any
7. Plaintiffs object to these discovery requests to the extent that they contain vague
8. Plaintiffs object to these discovery requests to the extent they request information
9. The information Plaintiffs produce in response to these discovery requests, if any,
is produced solely for the purpose of this action. Plaintiffs expressly reserve all objections to the
10. Plaintiffs' decision to provide information notwithstanding the objectionable
information is relevant nor a waiver of Plaintiffs' general or specific objections.
full therein.
12. Plaintiffs' responses to these discovery requests are based on information
13. Plaintiffs reserve the right to amend or supplement its responses as well as the
Requests.
2
the date that each Plaintiff's ground water well was installed on the Plaintiff's property.
Upon the advice of counsel, Plaintiffs object to this request on the grounds that it is
foregoing, upon knowledge and belief, Plaintiffs respond as follows:
(i): On or about July 17, 1987
(iii): Unknown.
3
(i): Unknown;
(ii): Unknown
(iii): Approximately 100 feet.
(iv): The well is lined with a steel casing.
(v): The well is lined with a steel casing.
(vi): The well is not vented
(vii): Unknown.
(viii): Water Softener installed in early 1990s; sediment filter installed October 2, 2010.
testing performed.
may entail. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing, upon knowledge and belief, Plaintiffs
(i): A new pump was installed on June 9, 2009 by Pump Doctors; a water test was
conducted on November 16,2010 by Chemung County Health Department; a water test was
again conducted on December 8, 201 0 by Chemung County Health Department.
4
(ii): Pump Doctors, 76 Brown Road, Horseheads NY 14845
(iii): See testing results attached to responses to defendant's demand for documents.
nature ofthe problem, (ii) when the problem occurred, (iii) the resolution ofthe problem (if any),
vague, ambiguous, calls for expert testimony and requires interpretation as to what "problems"
would be defined as or may entail. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing, upon
knowledge and belief, Plaintiffs respond as follows: (i): Banging of pipes and moments of
forceful water pressure dispensing was cause by the high level of methane in the water. Heavy
toxic sediment causing water to appear brownish-black and leaving a sediment residue in sinks,
toilet and tub. Turbidity of water in well could be heard at the top of the well. A metallic smell
in water with a cloudy appearance occurred as well. Methane bubbles could be seen and heard
when a glass of water was poured. Sediment clogged up washing machine and made the
refrigerator produce gray ice cubes; (ii): noticed problems around September 4, 201 0; (iii): no
resolution of the issues has occurred. Plaintiffs have stopped using water except to shower; (iv):
Plaintiffs are not experts of hydrogeology or any science related to ground water and thus cannot
5
answer this part of the question. Plaintiffs reserve the right to supplement this response up to and
and belief, Plaintiffs respond as follows: (i): a water test was conducted on November 16, 2010
by Chemung County Health Department; a water test was again conducted on December 8, 201 0
by Chemung County Health Department. See also Response to Interrogatory No. 4 above.
6
Upon the advice of counsel, Plaintiffs object to this request on the grounds that the
information that has been requested is not limited in time or scope. Plaintiffs also object to this
Without waiving the general objections and prior objections, Plaintiffs also object in that
created by the Defendants in large part. Plaintiffs further object to this request on the ground it
asks plaintiffs to summarize information contained in documents from Plaintiffs' files. Pursuant
to Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 33(d), Plaintiffs are not required to summarize all responsive information
contained in business records which Plaintiffs has previously produced or will produce in
response to discovery demands. Subject to the foregoing, Plaintiffs' damages include, but are
not limited to:
(i): Physical: When Plaintiffs first noticed the water was bad plaintiffs asked brother-in-
law and sister-in-law to come observe water. A neighbor could light on fire his kitchen faucet
with a lighter so plaintiff attempted to duplicate. The kitchen faucet did not light on fire, so
plaintiffs and brother-in-law went to observe well. While observing well a lighter was used for
light and as plaintiffs leaned over well opening with lit lighter and flames shot up about 15-20
7
feet high. Plaintiff Don etta Morey experienced singed eyebrows and hair caught on fire.
Plaintiff Don etta also experienced a rash on her back as a result from showering in contaminated
water. When Plaintiff Don etta went for a hair appointment it was noticed by the normal
hairdresser that hair was damaged and smelled like chemicals.
(ii): Emotional/Mental: Plaintiffs live in constant fear of house exploding from gases.
Plaintiffs have had high levels of stress as a result frustration, which set in after placing calls to
the Health Department for help with water issues. Lindsay Brown stated that no one else in the
area reported any problems with water, which was known to be false because Plaintiffs'
neighbor, Joseph Todd, also contacted Mr. Brown about water issues. Mr. Brown acknowledged
he had seen on television Mr. Todd's kitchen sink on fire. Plaintiffs then stated upon their
knowledge and belief that Mr. Todd had contacted health department for assistance as well.
Plaintiffs continued to describe the issues experienced with water such as a metallic smell, to
which Mr. Brown claimed he had never heard of something like that occurring previously. Mr.
Brown's recommendation was to "not smoke in the shower" a comment that deeply hurt
Plaintiffs. Mr. Brown passed the issue to the Department of Environmental Conservation. Mr.
Joe Yarosz from DEC called and asked for Plaintiffs' email address so he could send information
regarding water situations. Plaintiffs also have to deal with immense stress from interactions
with local government officials. Plaintiffs attempted to contact Big Flats Superintendent Theresa
Dean and left a message, which was never returned. When finally granted a meeting with local
town officials to discuss water issues the meeting was brief and plaintiffs left with the impression
that nothing can or would be done to remedy the water contamination issues. A town official,
Mr. Santulli, agreed for the county to provide water testing. Weeks went by and Plaintiffs saw
Mr. Santulli at a local Sam's Club where they questioned him about water testing results Mr.
8
Santulli said they were waiting for them to come in. In truthfulness the water testing was never
started. It has been draining to have to keep jugs of water filled and keep track of going to get
them filled because they are heavy. Plaintiffs argue with each other about whose tum it is to
refill the water jugs, creating a marital hostility that would not be present if water contamination
had not occurred. Plaintiffs feel as though they are camping out. Plaintiff Don etta Morey went
into a depression and sought out medical attention. During that time Plaintiff has had husband,
Plaintiff Paul Morey, co-workers, and friends acting differently. Such differences include, but
are not limited to, Christmas shopping, choir practice, mood swings, insomnia, and leading a
hermit lifestyle. Plaintiffs have also had to worry about appliances being damaged from the
water contamination, such as a new dishwasher and washing machine. Plaintiffs also have had
to worry about pets drinking contaminated water. Finally, Plaintiffs have stress from not being
able to have their children come and visit, as water contamination does not allow for guests to
stay overnight.
(iii): Property: Plaintiffs' refrigerator icemaker has been damaged due to sediment from
water contamination. Plaintiffs front-loading washing machine could not go through a full cycle
because of sediment clogging the filter. The dishwasher and toilet have been stained with no
amount of cleaning able to remedy the discoloration. Plaintiffs have disconnected a water
softener due to fear of damaging a rented piece of equipment.
above, state with particularity Plaintiffs' allegation for how the drilling activities of Anschutz
9
this request have long been in the possession of the Defendants and the Defendants have created
indeed many in large part. Plaintiffs further objects to this request on the ground it asks plaintiffs
to summarize information contained in documents from plaintiffs' files. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ.
P. Rule 33(d), Plaintiffs are not required to summarize all responsive information contained in
business records which Plaintiffs have previously produced or will produce in response to
discovery demands. Subject to the foregoing and without the objections, Plaintiffs claim that the
drilling activities of Anschutz Exploration Corporation caused the ground water well
water was not experiencing any of the issues now present. Plaintiffs reserve the right to
10
Upon the advice of counsel, Plaintiff Paul Morey objects to this request because it seeks
irrelevant information that will not lead to the discovery of relevant information and improperly
and unduly invades the Plaintiff's privacy because the Plaintiff has not knowingly sustained
personal injuries that have manifested, have been treated by medical professionals, nor that are
personally known to the Plaintiff. Plaintiff further objects on the grounds that no physician or
other medical provider's examination of Plaintiff is properly the subject ofthis litigation or
interrogatories or other discovery connected therewith unless said examination, treatment or
diagnosis was related to the subject matter of this litigation, as Plaintiff has not placed his health
\
or physical condition at issue in this litigation in any other manner and her medical condition(s),
diagnoses and treatment for unrelated issues is privileged and said privilege has not been waived.
Upon the further advice of counsel, Plaintiff is only asserting damage claims requiring medical
monitoring, including fear of cancer.
Plaintiff Donetta Morey objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is vague,
ambiguous and requires interpretation. Subject to the foregoing general and specific objections,
she answers as follows as support of her claim for emotional distress and mental anguish: (i):
Tina Burt, NP, (ii): Arnot Medical Service 100 John Roemmelt Dr., Suite 301, Horseheads NY,
14845, (iii): Plaintiffwent into depression. Suffered from insomnia, mood swings, a change in
personality, apathetic towards life and activities once enjoyed, loss of energy even when rested,
11
(iv): Tina Burt, NP prescribed an antidepressant, which helped with depression symptoms and
allowed for a normal course of life.
Plaintiffs reserve the right to supplement this response up to and including the time of
trial.
was installed.
belief, plaintiffs respond as follows: (i): Upon information and belief the Plaintiffs are not in
possession of any venting equipment; (ii): Upon information and belief the Plaintiffs are not in
possession of any venting equipment; (iii): Upon information and belief the Plaintiffs are not in
possession of any venting equipment; (iv): Upon information and beliefthe Plaintiffs are not in
possession of any venting equipment; (v): The Plaintiffs, not being experts in hydrogeology or
well drilling cannot respond as to if or why a well cap was or would be installed. Plaintiffs
reserve the right to supplement this response up to and including the time of trial.
12
Upon the advice of counsel, Plaintiffs objects to this request on the grounds that it is
Plaintiffs obtain drinking water, cooking water, water for pets and plaints, and cleaning of dental
apparatus from friends, relatives, or it is purchased. Plaintiffs have no choice but to use well
water for washing and bathing. Plaintiffs reserve the right to supplement this response up to and
13
waiving the foregoing, upon knowledge and belief, Plaintiff responds as follows: Plaintiffs'
contaminates that include but are not limited to, elevated methane levels and sediment of
unknown makeup. According to County Executive Thomas Santulli, Isotech Laboratories Inc.
found that there are 3 different sources of gas contamination currently in the private water wells.
waiving the foregoing, plaintiffs claim at this time is the imminent threat of such fires and
about a possible explosion and illnesses associated with contaminates. Plaintiffs have lifted the
well cap leaving it askew so ventilation can occur. Plaintiffs disconnected the water softener so
as not to damage the equipment. See also Response to Interrogatory No. 6 above. Plaintiffs
14
Upon the advice of counsel, Plaintiffs objects to this request on the grounds that it is
follows: Plaintiffs' property has diminished in value due to water contamination that has
trial.
enjoyment oftheir property, and the quality oflife they otherwise enjoyed." (Complaint

15
Subject to and without waiving the foregoing, upon knowledge and belief, plaintiffs respond as
follows: Plaintiffs have lost enjoyment of property and quality of life through the diminished
quality of water and this diminished water quality has created emotional stress and economic
burden.
trial.
Subject to and without waiving the foregoing, upon knowledge and belief, Plaintiffs respond as
follows: Plaintiffs noticed well water became contaminated on or around September 4, 2010 and
it is believed that Anschutz Exploration Corporation gas drilling activities were the direct and
proximate cause.
trial.
Date: June 30, 2011
New York, New York
16
17
~ ~
(212) 267-3700
I certify that on June 30, 2011, I caused a copy ofthe foregoing document to be served on
NIXON PEABODY LLC
1300 Clinton Square
EvANS & FIGEL, PLLC
mguzman@khhte.com
HINMAN STRAUB PC
121 State Street
502 Carnegie Center
18

(212) 267-3700
Verification
DATE:
TITLE:
ADDRESS: 5
tJ-1
I Yt')Lt 5
Verification
DATE:
TITLE:
ADDRESS: s- !YJEJ-f//1'/S J-A-JIIE
HDPSE'HG'f}s; I'IY JLfJI/.5
-------------------------------------------------------------------)(
Plaintifft, District Judge Charles J. Siragusa
-against-
ANSCHUTZ ETILORATION CORPORATION, CONRAD
Defendants.
------------------------------------------------------------------------)(
PLAINTIFFS JOSEPH AND BONNIE TODD RESPONSES TO ANSCHUTZ
Pursuant to Rule 33 ofthe Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiffs Joseph and Bonnie
Todd, by and through their attorneys, Napoli Bern Ripka & Associates LLP, make the following
Interrogatories.
2. Plaintiffs objects to these discovery requests to the extent they seek information
reference the discovery parameters imposed by the Comi.
9. The information plaintiffs produce in response to these discovery requests, if any,
is produced solely for the purpose ofthis action. Plaintiffs expressly reserves all objections to
the admissibility of such information at trial, including all objections regarding relevance,
full therein.
Requests.
2
foregoing, upon knowledge and belief, plaintiffs respond as follows:
(i): On or about April 4, 1988
(iii): Upon information and belief the water well located at 9 Melvins Lane, Horseheads
NY was installed approximately the year the house was built, 1964.
INTERROGATORY NO. 2: For each Plaintiff, describe with specificity the Plaintiffs ground
3
foregoing, upon knowledge and belief, plaintiffs respond as follows:
(i): Upon information and belief the water well located at 9 Melvins Lane, Horseheads
NY was installed approximately the year the house was built, 1964.
(ii): Unknown
(iii): Approximately 96 feet.
(iv): The well is lined with a steel casing.
(v): The well is lined with a steel casing.
(vi): The well is vented
(vii): The well was vented when Plaintiffs became aware of water contamination with
methane gas on approximately September 13, 2010.
(viii): A sediment filter was installed on or about September 9, 2010 after sediment
contamination caused by defendants' activities was discovered by Plaintiffs. A Culligan
Charcoal Filter System to remove sulfur odor was installed before Plaintiffs assumed control of
the property in 1988.
testing performed.
4
may entail. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing, upon knowledge and belief, plaintiffs
March 12, 2006- Had well pump replaced and extended well casing. Project done
by Hughsons Well Drilling.
September 13, 2010- Installed inline valve to help reduce vapor lock in water line.
Vapor lock created by high levels of methane. Project done by Pump Doctors.
September 14,2010- Well tested for methane levels. Project done by Chemung
County Health Department- Lindsay Brown, and Department of Environmental
Conservation- Joseph Yarosz.
October 6, 2010- Used test kit provided by Chemung County Health Department
to test water. Sample ID # 10101212-001
November 10, 2010- Microbac Laboratories tested water due to high turbidity.
Ernest Spencer completed a Tier 1 and Tier 2 test. MNY Work Order # 1 0 11 2 5 4
February 17, 2011- Isotope test on water well by Chemung County Health
Department. Tests were sent to Isotech Inc. Tests conducted by Lindsay Brown (of
Chemung County Health Department) and Joseph Yarosz (ofD.E.C.) Isotech Inc. Job#
14763.
5
property near Plaintiffs' Properties, since 2000 - especially problems such as contamination,
nature ofthe problem, (ii) when the problem occurred, (iii) the resolution ofthe problem (if any),
and (iv) the cause or suspected cause ofthe problem.
knowledge and belief, plaintiff responds as follows: (i) high methane levels causing our water
pump to lock; black pressurized water fizzing in washing, toilet bowl, and sink; pipes and
plumbing fixtures clogged with sediment, unable to use water as a result of these issues. (ii) The
dates when the aforementioned issues were first noticed were on or about September 9, 2010 and
September 11, 2010. (iii) There has been no resolution of the aforementioned problems. (iv)
Plaintiffs are not experts of hydrogeology or any science related to ground water and thus cannot
answer this part of the question. Plaintiffs reserve the right to supplement this response up to and
6
and belief, plaintiff responds as follows: (i): methane gas migration, turbidity, and sediment. See
also Response to Interrogatory No. 4 above. Plaintiffs reserve the right to supplement this
response up to and including the time of trial.
7
Without waiving the general objections and prior objections, plaintiffs also object in that
asks plaintiffs to summarize information contained in documents from plaintiffs' files. Pursuant
to Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 33(d), plaintiffs are not required to summarize all responsive information
response to discovery demands. Subject to the foregoing, plaintiffs' damages include, but are
not limited to: Contamination of ground well water, water pump vapor locking for long periods
of time due to high methane gas levels, disrupting water usage for washing and drinking-
creating unsanitary conditions, sediment clogging plumbing fixtures such as the hot water tank,
mental and emotional stress due to contaminated water and as a result of water contamination the
inability to access clean water when needed, costs for new plumbing fixtures, filter systems,
bottled water, and laundry facility usage.
Plaintiffs reserve their right to supplement this response up to and including the time of
trial.
8
Without waiving the general objections and prior objections, plaintiffs also object in that
this request have long been in the possession of the defendants and the defendants have created
indeed many in large part. Plaintiffs further objects to this request on the ground it asks plaintiffs
to summarize information contained in documents from plaintiffs' files. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ.
P. Rule 33(d), plaintiffs are not required to summarize all responsive information contained in
business records which Plaintiff has previously produced or will produce in response to
discovery demands. Subject to the foregoing and without the objections, plaintiffs claims that
the drilling activities of Anschutz Exploration Corporation caused the ground water well
water was not experiencing any of the issues now present. Plaintiffs reserve the right to
9
Upon the advice of counsel, Plaintiffs Thomas and Pauline Whipple objects to this
request because it seeks irrelevant information that will not lead to the discovery of relevant
information and improperly and unduly invades the Plaintiffs privacy because the Plaintiff has
not knowingly sustained personal injuries that have manifested, have been treated by medical
professionals, nor that are personally known to the Plaintiff. Plaintiff further objects on the
grounds that no physician or other medical provider's examination of plaintiff is properly the
subject of this litigation or interrogatories or other discovery connected therewith unless said
examination, treatment or diagnosis was related to the subject matter of this litigation, as plaintiff
has not placed her health or physical condition at issue in this litigation in any other manner and
her medical condition(s), diagnoses and treatment for unrelated issues is privileged and said
privilege has not been waived. Upon the further advice of counsel, Plaintiff is only asserting
trial.
10
employer, who installed the equipment; and (4) a description ofwhy the equipment or device
was installed.
belief, plaintiffs respond as follows: (i): A gooseneck type vent was installed on Plaintiffs'
property located at 9 Melvins Lane, Horseheads NY; (ii): A gooseneck type vent; (iii):
September 15, 2010; (iv): Joseph Todd; (v): The Plaintiffs, not being an expert in hydrogeology
or well drilling cannot respond as to if or why a well cap was or would be installed. Plaintiffs
Plaintiffs obtain drinking water, cooking water, through water being purchased via Sam's Club-
Bottled water though Nestle. Plaintiff also obtains water from relatives when possible. Plaintiffs
have no choice but to use well water for washing and bathing, but only after a check for
11
turbidity. Plaintiffs reserve the right to supplement this response up to and including the time of
trial.
contaminated with "[p ]ollutants, including but not limited to toxic sediments, and industrial
and/or residual waste," "drilling muds and fluids," and "diesel fuel." For each Plaintiff, state
waiving the foregoing, upon knowledge and belief, plaintiff responds as follows: Plaintiffs
contaminates that include but are not limited to, elevated methane levels and toxic sediment of
unknown makeup. Plaintiffs reserve the right to supplement this response up to and including
the time of trial.
12
waiving the foregoing, plaintiff's claim at this time is the imminent threat of such fires and
about a possible explosion and illnesses associated with exposure to contaminates. Plaintiffs
have also installed an inline check valve to prevent pump from vapor locking. See also
Response to Interrogatory No. 6 above. Plaintiffs reserve the right to supplement this response
up to and including the time of trial.
Plaintiffs' properties "have been harmed and diminished in value." (Complaint ~ 1 03( c)).
follows: plaintiffs' property has diminished in value due to water contamination that has resulted
from defendants' activities.
13
trial.
enjoyment of their property, and the quality oflife they otherwise enjoyed." (Complaint

burden.
trial.
14
proximate cause.
trial.
Date: June 30, 2011
New York, New York
15
~ , b
(212) 267-3700
NIXON PEABODY LLC
1300 Clinton Square
EvANS & FIGEL, PLLC
mguzman@khhte.com
HINMAN STRAUB PC
121 State Street
MoRGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
502 Carnegie Center
16

(212) 267-3700
Verification
Verification
DATE: 6 ;i sj
1
;
NA -;](isG//1-( c.. To DV
TITLE: f't- /}I ;VI t ;::: ;.:::
ADDRESS: Cf ,M&'t-Ul/1/:J t-/9
l{Ol(SEH6'/l t:>S .A.J Y
l Lffrlf,:S
-------------------------------------------------------------------)(
P lainti.ffs, District Judge Charles J. Siragusa
-against-
ANSCHUTZ E}(PLORATION CORPORATION, CONRAD
Difendants.
------------------------------------------------------------------------)(
PLAINTIFFS THOMAS AND PAULINE WHIPPLE RESPONSES TO ANSCHUTZ
Pursuant to Rule 33 ofthe Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiffs Thomas and
Pauline Whipple, by and through their attorneys, Napoli Bern Ripka & Associates LLP, make
the following Objections and Responses to Defendant Anschutz Exploration Corporation's First
Set of Interrogatories.
discovery requests to the extent they deviate from or purpmi to impose requirements other than
construed as, a waiver or relinquishment of any pati of the protections afforded by the attorney-
that does not pertain to or is beyond that in Plaintiffs' possession, custody, or control, and/or
Plaintiffs' responses are subject to all such limitations and parameters and incorporate by
9. The information Plaintiffs produce in response to these discovery requests, if any,
is produced solely for the purpose of this action. Plaintiffs expressly reserves all objections to
the admissibility of such information at trial, including all objections regarding relevance,
full therein.
13. Plaintiffs reserve the right to amend or supplement its responses as well as the
Requests.
2
(i): Thomas and Pauline Whipple purchased the property located at 1169 Lewis Lane,
Horseheads NY, 14845 on September 2, 2010.
(ii): Thomas and Pauline Whipple have lived at the property located at 1169 Lewis Lane,
Horseheads, NY, 14845 full time since purchase- 9 months.
(iii): Approximately 1961.
3
(i): Approximately 1961
(ii): Unknown.
(iii): Approximately 132 Feet
(iv): Unknown.
(v): Unknown.
(vi): Yes
(vii): Unknown.
(viii): A water softener and green sand filter.
testing performed.
may entail. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing, upon knowledge and belief, Plaintiffs
(i): From the date of purchase of Plaintiffs' property on September 2, 2010- September 8,
2010 & Winter of2011.
(ii): Blake- Pump Doctors, 76 Brown Road, Horseheads NY
4
Kathy- Pump Doctors, 76 Brown Road, Horseheads NY
(iii): Subject to information and belief a tests were performed for methane gas and
floating clay. No results have been given to Plaintiffs.
and (iv) the cause or suspected cause ofthe problem.
knowledge and belief, Plaintiffs responds as follows: Since the purchase of the property by the
Plaintiffs on September 2, 2010: (i): Strong presents of methane gas, floating clay, sulfur odor,
and cloudiness; (ii): noticed problems around September 4, 2010; (iii): no resolution of the
issues has occurred. (iv): Plaintiffs are not experts of hydrogeology or any science related to
ground water and thus cannot answer this part of the question. Plaintiffs reserve the right to
5
and belief, Plaintiffs respond as follows: (i): a strong presents of methane gas, floating clay,
sulfur odor, and cloudiness. Pump Doctors (76 Brown Road, Horseheads NY) performed a
water test on September 8, 2010- invoice number 441489. See also Response to Interrogatory
No. 4 above. Plaintiffs reserve the right to supplement this response up to and including the time
of trial.
6
prematurely seeks infonnation and documents relating to the subject matter and opinions of
created by the Defendants in large part. Plaintiffs further object to this request on the ground it
asks plaintiffs to summarize information contained in documents from plaintiffs' files. Pursuant
to Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 33(d), Plaintiffs are not required to summarize all responsive information
response to discovery demands. Subject to the foregoing, Plaintiffs' damages include, but are
not limited to: A loss in property value as a result of a contaminated water well, which includes
but is not limited to: the inability to drink well water, the inability to cook or consume food that
comes in contact with the contaminated well water, the inability to wash clothing because of fear
of contaminated water destroying clothes, the inability to run the washing machine due to clay
deposits clogging components, the inability to bathe with the contaminated well water.
7
Plaintiffs reserve their right to supplement this response up to and including the time of
trial.
this request have long been in the possession of the defendants and the defendants have created
indeed many in large part. Plaintiffs further object to this request on the ground it asks plaintiffs
to summarize information contained in documents from Plaintiffs' files. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ.
P. Rule 33(d), plaintiffs are not required to summarize all responsive information contained in
business records that Plaintiffs had previously produced or will produce in response to discovery
demands. Plaintiffs reserve the right to supplement this response up to and including the time of
trial.
8
reason that Plaintiff visited the physician; and (4) the outcome of the treatment.
Upon the advice of counsel, Plaintiff Thomas Whipple objects to this request because it
seeks irrelevant information that will not lead to the discovery of relevant information and
improperly and unduly invades the Plaintiffs privacy because the Plaintiff has not knowingly
sustained personal injuries that have manifested, have been treated by medical professionals, nor
that are personally known to the Plaintiff. Plaintiff further objects on the grounds that no
physician or other medical provider's examination of plaintiff is properly the subject of this
litigation or interrogatories or other discovery connected therewith unless said examination,
treatment or diagnosis was related to the subject matter of this litigation, as plaintiff has not
placed his health or physical condition at issue in this litigation in any other manner and her
medical condition(s), diagnoses and treatment for unrelated issues is privileged and said
privilege has not been waived. Upon the further advice of counsel, Plaintiff is only asserting
Plaintiff Pauline Whipple objects to this request because it seeks irrelevant information
that will not lead to the discovery of relevant information and improperly and unduly invades the
Plaintiffs privacy because the Plaintiff has not knowingly sustained personal injuries that have
manifested, have been treated by medical professionals, nor that are personally known to the
Plaintiff. Plaintiff further objects on the grounds that no physician or other medical provider's
9
examination of plaintiff is properly the subject of this litigation or intenogatories or other
discovery connected therewith unless said examination, treatment or diagnosis was related to the
subject matter ofthis litigation, as plaintiff has not placed her health or physical condition at
issue in this litigation in any other manner and her medical condition(s), diagnoses and treatment
for unrelated issues is privileged and said privilege has not been waived. Upon the further advice
of counsel, Plaintiff is only asserting damage claims requiring medical monitoring, including fear
of cancer.
trial.
was installed.
belief, Plaintiffs respond as follows: (i): venting equipment was installed on the Whipple
property, 1169 Lewis Lane, Horseheads NY; (ii): Rager; (iii): September 14, 2010; (iv): Wilcox
10
Well Drilling, 1158 Pleasant Street, Horseheads NY; (v): The Plaintiffs, not being expetis in
hydrogeology or well drilling cannot respond as to if or why a well cap was or would be
installed. Plaintiffs reserve the right to supplement this response up to and including the time of
trial.
Plaintiffs obtain drinking water and cooking water by purchasing Culligan Water. Plaintiffs have
no choice but to use well water for washing and bathing, but only after checking daily the water
clarity. Plaintiffs reserve the right to supplement this response up to and including the time of
trial.
11
waiving the foregoing, upon knowledge and belief, Plaintiffs respond as follows: Plaintiffs'
contaminates that include but are not limited to, elevated methane levels and sediment of
unknown makeup.
trial.
threatened fires or explosions - e.g., moving out of the house, venting the well, disconnecting the
waiving the foregoing, Plaintiffs claim at this time is the imminent threat of such fires and
explosion. Methane is known as a combustible gas and asphyxiate and Plaintiffs are concerned
about a possible explosion and illnesses associated with contaminates. See also Response to
12
Interrogatory No. 6 above. Plaintiffs reserve the right to supplement this response up to and
Plaintiffs' properties "have been harmed and diminished in value." (Complaint ,-ri03(c)).
follows: Plaintiffs' propetiy has diminished in value due to water contamination that has
trial.
enjoyment of their property, and the quality of life they otherwise enjoyed." (Complaint
,-rl03(d)).
13
burden.
trial.
proximate cause.
14
trial.
Date: June 30, 2011
New York, New York
15
~ ~
(212) 267-3700
NIXON PEABODY LLC
1300 Clinton Square
EvANS & FIGEL, PLLC
mguzman@khhte.com
Attorneys for Defendant Anschutz Exploration Cmporation
HINMAN STRAUB PC
121 State Street
502 Carnegie Center
16

(212) 267-3700
Verification
DATE: /13/d)_ d II
NAME:
TITLE:
ADDRESS:
II Ia 1 of
Nt/"i<:U. ) 71 !J I(/ i"
Verification
TITLE:
ADDRESS:
I/ 6 tj; L /... /J tV 1:
l../orc<>HHfi'VO{[)S)

Anschutz Filings 12-28-11

Încărcat de

Informații document

Descriere originală:

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Anschutz Filings 12-28-11

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

S-ar putea să vă placă și