Case: 23-20350 Document: 32-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/24/2023
`
`
`No. 23-20350
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
`FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
`
`IN RE ANADARKO PETROLEUM
`CORPORATION, R.A. WALKER, ROBERT G.
`GWIN, ROBERT P. DANIELS AND ERNEST A.
`LEYENDECKER,
`
`Petitioners.
`
`On Petition for a Writ of Mandamus to
` the United States District Court
`for the Southern District of Texas,
`Docket No. 4:20-CV-576.
`Honorable Charles R. Eskridge, III
`
`MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE REPLY IN SUPPORT OF
`PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS
`
`Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP
`Kevin J. Orsini
`Lauren M. Rosenberg
`825 Eighth Avenue
`New York, NY 10019
`
`Shipley Snell Montgomery LLP
`George T. Shipley
`712 Main Street, Suite 1400
`Houston, TX 77002
`
`Counsel for Petitioners
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case: 23-20350 Document: 32-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/24/2023
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF INTERESTED PERSONS
`In re Anadarko Petroleum Corporation Securities Litigation, No. 23-20350.
`
`The undersigned counsel of record certifies that the following listed persons
`
`and entities as described in the fourth sentence of Rule 28.2.1 have an interest in
`
`the outcome of this case. These representations are made in order that the judges
`
`of this Court may evaluate possible disqualification or recusal.
`
`1.
`
`Plaintiffs-Respondents and Class: All persons or entities that
`
`purchased or otherwise acquired Anadarko Petroleum Corporation’s publicly
`
`traded common stock between February 20, 2015 and May 2, 2017, inclusive, and
`
`were damaged thereby; Norfolk County Council as Administering Authority of the
`
`Norfolk Pension Fund; Iron Workers Local #580 Joint Funds; Building Trades
`
`United Pension Trust Fund.
`
`2.
`
`Counsel for Plaintiffs-Respondents: Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd
`
`LLP, 655 West Broadway, Suite 1900, San Diego, California 92101 (Mark
`
`Solomon, Daniel Drosman, Rachel Jensen, Luke Brooks, Hillary Stakem, Joseph
`
`David Daley); Kendall Law Group, PLLC, 3811 Turtle Creek Blvd., Suite 1450,
`
`Dallas, Texas 75219 (Joe Kendall).
`
`3.
`
`Defendants-Petitioners: Anadarko Petroleum Corporation, an indirect
`
`wholly owned subsidiary of Occidental Petroleum Corporation; R.A. Walker;
`
`Robert G. Gwin; Robert P. Daniels; Ernest A. Leyendecker, III.
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`Case: 23-20350 Document: 32-1 Page: 3 Date Filed: 08/24/2023
`
`
`4.
`
`Counsel for Defendants-Petitioners: Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP,
`
`825 Eighth Avenue, New York, New York 10019 (Kevin Orsini, Lauren
`
`Rosenberg); Shipley Snell Montgomery LLP, 712 Main Street, Suite 1400,
`
`Houston, Texas 77002 (George Shipley).
`
`5.
`
`Other Entities: Insurers of Defendants-Petitioners (National Union
`
`Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, Pa., XL Specialty Insurance Company,
`
`Zurich American Insurance Company, U.S. Specialty Insurance Company, ACE
`
`American Insurance Company, American International Reinsurance Company,
`
`LTD., Freedom Specialty Insurance Company, RSUI Indemnity Company,
`
`Navigators Insurance Company, AXIS Insurance Company, QBE Insurance
`
`Corporation, Continental Casualty Company, Berkley Insurance Company,
`
`Beazley Insurance Company, Westchester Fire Insurance Company, Illinois
`
`National Insurance Company); Occidental Petroleum Corporation, a publicly held
`
`corporation that has no parent corporation. Berkshire Hathaway Inc. indirectly
`
`owns 10% or more of the issued and outstanding shares of common stock of
`
`Occidental Petroleum Corporation. No other publicly traded company owns more
`
`than 10% of the common stock of Occidental Petroleum Corporation.
`
`6.
`
`District Court Judge: Hon. Charles R. Eskridge, III, U.S. District
`
`Judge, Southern District of Texas.
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case: 23-20350 Document: 32-1 Page: 4 Date Filed: 08/24/2023
`
`
`Dated: August 24, 2023
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Kevin J. Orsini
`Kevin J. Orsini
`Counsel for Defendants-Petitioners
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case: 23-20350 Document: 32-1 Page: 5 Date Filed: 08/24/2023
`
`
`Defendants-Petitioners Anadarko Petroleum Corporation
`
`(“Anadarko”), R.A. Walker, Robert G. Gwin, Robert P. Daniels and Ernest A.
`
`Leyendecker (“Defendants”) respectfully request leave to file a reply to Plaintiff-
`
`Respondent’s Opposition to Petition for Writ of Mandamus (ECF 30). While the
`
`Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure and this Court’s rules do not expressly
`
`permit or prohibit such a reply, this Court has repeatedly granted leave to file
`
`replies in support of petitions for writs of mandamus. See, e.g., In re JPMorgan
`
`Chase & Co., No. 18-20825 (5th Cir. Jan. 3, 2019) (granting motion for leave to
`
`file reply); In re Itron, Inc., No. 17-60733 (5th Cir. Nov. 28, 2017) (same); In re
`
`DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc., 870 F.3d 345, 347 (5th Cir. 2017) (noting consideration
`
`of reply in support of writ of mandamus); In re 2920 ER, L.L.C., 607 F. App’x 349,
`
`357 n.2 (5th Cir. 2015) (discussing argument from petitioners’ reply brief); In re
`
`Ramirez, 605 F. App’x 361, 365 (5th Cir. 2015) (noting petitioner’s failure to
`
`address argument in its reply brief).
`
`Granting leave to file a short reply is warranted here. Defendants’
`
`proposed reply (1) corrects Plaintiffs’ mischaracterization of critical record
`
`evidence and proceedings before the District Court, (2) addresses Plaintiffs’ lack of
`
`authority to support the District Court’s clearly erroneous application of sword-
`
`and-shield waiver principles, including its ruling compelling production of opinion
`
`work product, and (3) explains why mandamus review is appropriate—despite
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case: 23-20350 Document: 32-1 Page: 6 Date Filed: 08/24/2023
`
`
`Plaintiffs’ arguments to the contrary—to prevent improper disclosure of privileged
`
`communications and to provide guidance to lower courts regarding the appropriate
`
`standards of “at issue” or sword-and-shield waiver. Defendants’ proposed reply is
`
`consistent with the length limits for replies in support of motions and appeals in
`
`that it is less than half the length authorized for a mandamus petition and response
`
`under Fed. R. App. P. 21(d).
`
`Defendants’ counsel contacted Plaintiffs’ counsel, who stated that
`
`Plaintiffs intend to oppose this motion.
`
`Defendants therefore respectfully request that the Court authorize it to
`
`file Exhibit A as a reply in support of their Petition for Writ of Mandamus.
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: August 24, 2023
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Kevin J. Orsini
`CRAVATH, SWAINE & MOORE LLP
`Kevin J. Orsini
`Lauren Rosenberg
`Worldwide Plaza
`825 Eighth Avenue
`New York, NY 10019
`Telephone: (212) 474-1000
`Facsimile: (212) 474-3700
`korsini@cravath.com
`lrosenberg@cravath.com
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case: 23-20350 Document: 32-1 Page: 7 Date Filed: 08/24/2023
`
`
`
`SHIPLEY SNELL MONTGOMERY LLP
`George T. Shipley
`State Bar No. 18267100
`Federal ID No. 02118
`712 Main Street, Suite 1400
`Houston, TX 77002
`Telephone: (713) 652-5920
`Facsimile: (713) 652-3057
`gshipley@shipleysnell.com
`
`Counsel for Defendants-Petitioners
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case: 23-20350 Document: 32-1 Page: 8 Date Filed: 08/24/2023
`
`
`CERTIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE
`
`I hereby certify that this document complies with Federal Rule of
`
`Appellate Procedure 27(d)(2)(A) because this document contains 340 words. This
`
`document complies with the typeface requirements of Federal Rule of Appellate
`
`Procedure 32(a)(5) and the type-style requirements of Federal Rule of Appellate
`
`Procedure 32(a)(6) because this document has been prepared in a proportionally
`
`spaced typeface using Microsoft Office Version 2208 in Times New Roman size
`
`
`Dated: August 24, 2023
`
`
`
`
`14.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Kevin J. Orsini
`Kevin J. Orsini
`Counsel for Defendants-Petitioners
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`Case: 23-20350 Document: 32-1 Page: 9 Date Filed: 08/24/2023
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk
`
`of the Court for the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit by using
`
`the Court’s CM/ECF on August 24, 2023. I further certify that a copy of the
`
`foregoing was served on August 24, 2023 via email on the following counsel for
`
`Plaintiffs, who consented to such service in writing. A copy of the foregoing is
`
`being sent to the chambers of the Hon. Charles R. Eskridge, III, via email and
`
`FedEx at the address below.
`
`Mark Solomon
`Daniel Drosman
`Rachel Jensen
`Luke Brooks
`Hillary Stakem
`ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
`655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
`San Diego, California 92101
`(619) 231-1058
`marks@rgrdlaw.com
`dand@rgrdlaw.com
`rjensen@rgrdlaw.com
`lukeb@rgrdlaw.com
`hstakem@rgrdlaw.com
`
`Joe Kendall
`KENDALL LAW GROUP, PLLC
`3811 Turtle Creek Blvd., Suite 1450
`Dallas, Texas 75219
`(214) 744-3000
`jkendall@kendalllawgroup.com
`
`Counsel for Plaintiffs-Respondents
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`Case: 23-20350 Document: 32-1 Page: 10 Date Filed: 08/24/2023
`
`
`Jennelle Gonzalez
`Case Manager to Hon. Charles Eskridge
`515 Rusk Street, Room 9015
`Houston, Texas 77002
`(713) 250-5257
`Jennelle_Gonzalez@txs.uscourts.gov
`
`Chambers of the Hon. Charles Eskridge, III
`
`
`Dated: August 24, 2023
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Kevin J. Orsini
`Kevin J. Orsini
`Counsel for Defendants-Petitioners
`
`
`
`
`9
`
`
