Drilling company fights Judge’s order in lawsuit over deadly 2018 rig fire

Published reports show Patterson-UTI is fighting a court decision in the lawsuit filed over the January 2018 rig explosion and fire that killed five workers in Pittsburg County.

The McAlester News reported that attorneys for the company filed an appeal over a judge’s denial for a protective order to prevent depositions of two Patterson company executives.

Here is how the paper reported the filing:

The appeal was filed Monday in Pittsburg County District Court and states that the Feb. 6 decision made by a court-appointed discovery master made “numerous incorrect factual findings and rendered inappropriate conclusions of law.”

Court documents identified the discovery master as retired LeFlore County Associate District Judge Ted Knight. Knight retired from the bench in 2014 after 32 years. 

Knight wrote in the decision that the two Patterson executives — identified as Patterson-UTI Energy Chief Executive Officer and President William Andrew Hendricks and Patterson-UTI Drilling Company President James Michael Holcomb — should be “willing to volunteer and step forward and attempt to explain to these families how these events resulted in the tragic death of their loved ones, rather than try to hide behind their ‘I’m way too busy to be bothered by this.’”

“It is my opinion that this position is not only an insult to these families, but it is also an insult to the Court and defies the purpose of the discovery process,” Knight wrote.

In their appeal, attorneys for Patterson stated that “it is simply improper to suggest that, by seeking to enforce the laws and procedures of this court and the State of Oklahoma, Patterson is somehow being disrespectful to the men who died, their families or this court.”

Attorneys representing Dianna Waldridge, the wife of Parker Waldridge who was killed in the Jan. 2018 rig explosion near Quinton, filed notices of intent to take recorded depositions that were sent to Hendricks and Holcomb in October 2018.

Patterson attorneys claim in the appeal that neither Hendrix or Holcomb “possess personal knowledge concerning the allegations and defenses asserted in these lawsuits or the facts related to the incident.”

Attorneys for Patterson also object to the discovery master’s finding that Patterson “failed to present sufficient explanation and substantial facts and showings to establish good cause why a protective order should be issued” because Patterson’s objections relates to findings and conclusions of law and that the court should consider the objections de novo.

In legal terms, de novo means that a court decides the issues without reference to any legal conclusion or assumption made by the previous court to hear the case.

The appeal lists three main arguments for the court to consider:

• Plaintiff has no need for discovery by top-level deposition because Mr. Hendricks and Mr. Holcomb do not have unique personal knowledge concerning claims in this lawsuit. 

• Plaintiff has not pursued other methods of discovery or sought to obtain information from other witnesses.

• Depositions of Mr. Hendricks and Mr. Holcomb are unnecessary.

The attorneys for Patterson asked that the court enter an order granting the objection to the discovery master’s decision and reverse the decision with respect to a protective order prohibiting the depositions of Hendricks and Holcomb.

A hearing over Patterson’s appeal has not been scheduled.