VENVER, S.A. and Americas Coil Tubing, LLC, Plaintiffs, v. GEFCO, INC. and Astec Industries, Inc., Defendants Case No. CIV-18-790-SLP United States District Court, W.D. Oklahoma Signed March 08, 2023 Counsel Bradley A. Gungoll, Vance T. Nye, Gungoll Jackson Box & Devoll, Oklahoma City, OK, Reagan Pratt, Paul D. Flack, Pratt & Flack LLP, Houston, TX, Byron Charles Keeling, Keeling & Downes PC, Houston, TX, for Plaintiffs. Anthony A. Jackson, Nathan L. Kinard, Pro Hac Vice, William R. Dearing, Chambliss Bahner & Stophel PC, Chattanooga, TN, Joel W. Harmon, Paige A. Masters, Crowe & Dunlevy, Oklahoma City, OK, for Defendant GEFCO Inc. Clint A. Claypole, Long Claypole & Blakley PLC, Enid, OK, for Defendant Astec Industries Inc. Palk, Scott L., United States District Judge ORDER *1 Before the Court are the following discovery-related motions: (1) Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel the Production of Documents [Doc. No. 132]; and (2) Defendant GEFCO'S Motion to Compel and Brief in Support [Doc. No. 170]. As directed by the Court, see Order [Doc. No. 2442], the parties have filed a Joint Notice Regarding Pending Discovery Issues [Doc. No. 250]. Based on the parties’ representations, the Court makes the following findings. With respect to Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel, the parties represent that GEFCO has agreed to withdraw all of its objections to Plaintiffs’ Fourth Request for Production [Doc. No. 132-2] except for two objections argued in sections IV and V of its Response to the Motion to Compel [Doc. No. 136]. The first objection raised in section IV is that GEFCO should not have to produce documents in the possession of its parent company, Astec Industries Inc. (Astec). At the time Plaintiff moved to compel these documents, Astec was not a party to this action. But Plaintiff was granted leave to amend to add Astec and it is now a party to the action. In the Joint Notice, Plaintiff Venver, S.A. (Venver) states that “Defendant Astec Industries has yet to respond to similar discovery served on it shortly after its joinder.” Id. at 3. In light of this outstanding discovery directed to Astec, which appears to request the same documents as those at issue in Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel, this issue may become moot. Under these circumstances and in the interest of judicial efficiency, the Court denies Plaintiffs’ Motion without prejudice to refiling it should Plaintiffs fail to obtain the discovery as requested from Astec. In section V of the Response, GEFCO argues that if Plaintiffs’ motion were granted, the Court should order Plaintiffs to reimburse GEFCO for seventy-five percent of the cost of any e-discovery efforts. See Resp. at 13. As Plaintiffs note, GEFCO impermissibly seeks affirmative relief in a response brief. Therefore, the issue is not appropriately before the Court. Moreover, GEFCO raises the issue in a most conclusory manner without sufficient context for the Court to make a meaningful review of its request for reimbursement. Accordingly, even if the matter were permissibly raised, the Court would deny the requested relief. As to GEFCO's Motion to Compel, GEFCO withdraws its request to compel responses to its Fourth Request for Production to Venver and its Third Request for Production to Americas Coil Tubing LLC. GEFCO's Motion to Compel otherwise remains at issue. The Court, therefore, sets the Motion for hearing. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion to Compel [Doc. No. 132] is DENIED in part as MOOT and in part WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO REFILING. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant GEFCO's Motion to Compel [Doc. No. 170] is DENIED in part as MOOT to the extent GEFCO withdraws its request to compel the matters set forth above. As to the issues that remain, the matter is set for hearing on March 21, 2023 @ 1:30 p.m., in Courtroom 304 *2 Counsel for the parties are directed to meet in the conference room of the chambers of Judge Scott L. Palk one (1) hour prior to the hearing to make further effort to resolve this matter by agreement. Any matters not resolved at the conference shall be heard by the Court at 1:30 p.m. If the issues presented by the Motion are resolved by agreement in advance of the hearing date, counsel shall immediately so notify the Court. IT IS SO ORDERED this 8th day of March, 2023.