`
`Exhibit E
`
`
`
`Case 1:16-cv-02690-AT Document 139-6 Filed 08/16/16 Page 2 of 4
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`TYLER DIVISION
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Civil Action No. 6:15-cv-907
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`
`
`
`SIPCO, LLC, and IP CO, LLC
`(d/b/a INTUS IQ),
`
`
`
` v.
`
`EMERSON ELECTRIC CO., EMERSON
`PROCESS MANAGEMENT LLLP, FISHER-
`ROSEMOUNT SYSTEMS, INC.,
`ROSEMOUNT INC., BP, p.l.c., BP
`AMERICA, INC., and BP AMERICA
`PRODUCTION COMPANY,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`
` OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES OF BP P.L.C,
`BP AMERICA, INC., AND BP AMERICA PRODUCTION COMPANY
`TO PLAINTIFFS’ REQUESTS FOR ENTRY UPON LAND
`
`Defendants BP p.l.c., appearing specially to submit this discovery response pursuant to
`
`local rule, BP America, Inc., and BP America Production Company (the “BP Defendants”) object
`
`and respond to the Plaintiffs’ Requests for Entry Upon Land under Rule 34(a)(2) of the Federal
`
`Rules of Civil Procedure as follows:
`
`1.
`
`The BP Defendants object to the use of the term “BP” as defined in the Notice as
`
`including any person or entity other than the “BP Defendants” as defined above. The BP
`
`Defendants further object to the extent that Plaintiffs’ Notice identifies properties and locations
`
`not owned or operated by the BP Defendants. The BP Defendants do not have authority to
`
`control access to the facilities vaguely identified in that Notice, other than those facilities owned
`
`and operated by BP America Production Company in East Texas;
`
`2.
`
`The BP Defendants object to the Notice because the facilities identified for entry
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:16-cv-02690-AT Document 139-6 Filed 08/16/16 Page 3 of 4
`
`and inspection lack specificity sufficient to determine their location.
`
`3.
`
`The BP Defendants object to the scope of the Notice as overly broad, unduly
`
`burdensome, and out of proportion to the value of what can be learned from such an inspection in
`
`several respects. First, even the facilities identified in Texas are in widely dispersed geographic
`
`locations and very few of the accused Emerson products are utilized at any such location. Nor is
`
`it clear that the same information is not available from an alternate source with much less effort;
`
`4.
`
`The BP Defendants object to the requested inspection as burdensome on the further
`
`grounds that the Texas facilities owned and operated by BP America Production Company
`
`impose safety restrictions in the field that require the use of, among other things, fire retardant
`
`clothing, steel toed safety boots, safety glasses, hearing protection and hard hats. Further, the use
`
`of electronic equipment, including photography and video recording equipment, is restricted at
`
`those facilities due to safety reasons; and
`
`5.
`
`The BP Defendants further object to the dates identified for the inspection. The
`
`inspection dates were unilaterally set by Plaintiffs without consultation as to scheduling.
`
`Dated: July 20, 2016 Respectfully Submitted,
`
`
`
`
`/s/ James D. Berquist
`Melissa R. Smith
`GILLAM & SMITH LLP
`303 South Washington Ave.
`Marshall, Texas 75670
`Telephone: (903) 934-8450
`Facsimile: (903) 934-9257
`Email: melissa@gillamsmithlaw.com
`
`Donald L. Jackson djackson@dbjg.com
`James D. Berquist jberquist@dbjg.com
`J. Scott Davidson sdavidson@dbjg.com
`DAVIDSON BERQUIST JACKSON
`& GOWDEY, LLP
`8300 Greensboro Dr., Suite 500
`McLean, Virginia 22102
`Telephone: (571) 765-7700
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:16-cv-02690-AT Document 139-6 Filed 08/16/16 Page 4 of 4
`
`(571) 765-7200
`
`Facsimile:
`
`
`Attorneys for Defendants BP p.l.c., BP America,
`Inc., and BP America Production Company
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I, James Berquist, hereby certify that on July 20, 2016 the foregoing document was
`served upon counsel of record for Defendants via first-class mail and electronic mail.
`
`/s/ James D. Berquist
`James Berquist
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
