Snyder Ranches, Inc. v. Oxy USA Inc.

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
SNYDER RANCHES, INC.,
Plaintiff,
v. Civ. No. 23-636 MLG/GBW
OXY USA INC.,
Defendant.
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL
THIS MATTER comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel (doc. 145)
(hereinafter “Motion”). Having considered the Motion, the attendant briefing (docs. 150,
151), and the relevant case law, the Court will GRANT IT.
I. BACKGROUND
This case arises from a dispute under New Mexico oil and gas law between
Plaintiff, the owner of three natural gas wells in Eddy County, New Mexico, and
Defendant, the operator of those wells. See doc. 35 at ¶¶ 1-4, 12-14. Plaintiff filed suit in
state court on June 26, 2023, see doc. 1-2, and Defendant removed the case on July 28,
2023, see doc. 1. Plaintiff’s operative Complaint asserts claims for negligence per se
(based on Defendant’s alleged violation of the New Mexico Oil and Gas Proceeds
Payment Act (“NMPPA”)), breach of duty to investigate and pay royalties, and fraud.
Case 2:23-cv-00636-MLG-GBW Document 159 Filed 01/23/26 Page 1 of 14

2
Doc. 35 at ¶¶ 38-67. Plaintiff seeks both compensatory and punitive damages as well as
equitable relief on behalf of itself and a putative class. Id. at ¶¶ 68-78.
Plaintiff filed its Motion on October 20, 2025. Doc. 145. The Motion sought to
compel Defendant to provide full and complete answers to Interrogatories 18 & 19 and
Requests for Production 32 & 33 in Plaintiff’s Fourth Set of Interrogatories and Third Set
of Requests for Production. Id. at 1. Defendant filed its Response on November 5, 2025.
Doc. 150. Briefing was complete with the filing of Plaintiff’s reply on November 19,
2025. Doc. 151.
II. LEGAL STANDARDS
a. Scope of Discovery
The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provide, generally:
Parties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is
relevant to any party’s claim or defense and proportional to the needs of
the case, considering the importance of the issues at stake in the action, the
amount in controversy, the parties’ relative access to relevant information,
the parties’ resources, the importance of the discovery in resolving the
issues, and whether the burden or expense of the proposed discovery
outweighs its likely benefit.
Fed R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). Evidence is relevant if it has any tendency to make a material
fact more or less probable. Fed. R. Evid. 401. Information “need not be admissible in
evidence to be discoverable,” Fed R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1), and discovery rules “are to be
accorded a broad and liberal treatment,” Herbert v. Lando, 441 U.S. 153, 177 (1979).
However, “Rule 26 vests the trial judge with broad discretion to tailor discovery
Case 2:23-cv-00636-MLG-GBW Document 159 Filed 01/23/26 Page 2 of 14

3
narrowly.” Murphy v. Deloitte & Touche Grp. Ins. Plan, 619 F.3d 1151, 1163 (10th Cir.
2010) (quoting Crawford-El v. Britton, 523 U.S. 574, 598 (1998)).
A Court must limit the frequency or extent of discovery if it determines that: “(i)
the discovery sought is unreasonably cumulative or duplicative, or can be obtained
from some other source that is more convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive; (ii)
the party seeking discovery has had ample opportunity to obtain the information by
discovery in the action; or (iii) the proposed discovery is outside the scope permitted by
Rule 26(b)(1).” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(C).
Where one party improperly fails to respond to another party’s discovery
requests, the requesting party may move to compel disclosure. Fed. R. Civ. P.
37(a)(3)(A).
b. Motions to Compel
Rule 37 provides the mechanism to compel discovery from a person or party
who “fails to answer an interrogatory submitted under Rule 33” or “fails to produce
documents … as requested under Rule 34.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(3)(B)(iii), (iv). “The
proponent of a motion to compel discovery bears the initial burden of proving that the
information sought is relevant.” Gruenbaum v. Werner Enters., Inc., 270 F.R.D. 298, 302
(S.D. Ohio 2010) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted); see also Moses v.
Halstead, 236 F.R.D. 667, 671 (D. Kan. 2006) (“[W]hen the relevancy of the discovery
request is not readily apparent on its face, the party seeking the discovery has the
Case 2:23-cv-00636-MLG-GBW Document 159 Filed 01/23/26 Page 3 of 14

4
burden to show the relevancy of the request.”).1 Once the moving party has met the
initial burden, or “[w]hen the discovery sought appears relevant on its face, the party
resisting discovery has the burden to establish that the requested discovery does not
come within the scope of relevance as defined under Rule 26(b)(1), or is of such
marginal relevance that the potential harm occasioned by the discovery would
outweigh the ordinary presumption in favor of broad disclosure.” Moses, 236 F.R.D. at
671; see also Mirror Worlds Techs., LLC v. Apple Inc., 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 163118, at *3
(E.D. Tex. Mar. 17, 2016) (“Once the moving party establishes that the materials
requested are within the scope of permissible discovery, the burden shifts to the party
resisting discovery to show why the discovery is irrelevant, overly broad or unduly
burdensome or oppressive, and thus should not be permitted.” (citation omitted)).
III. ANALYSIS
a. Crawford Interest Plus Pack (“Crawford IPP”)
As a threshold matter, the Court will briefly describe the tool at the center of the
parties’ discovery dispute: the Crawford Interest Plus Pack. Crawford IPP is a software
program that is part of Defendant Oxy’s revenue system. Crawford IPP is an “overlay”
or “bolt-on” to Oxy’s accounting system which can be used to identify potentially late
payments and calculate interest on those flagged payments using a manually selected
1 Additionally, the party moving to compel discovery must certify that he “has in good faith conferred or
attempted to confer with the person or party failing to make disclosure or discovery in an effort to obtain
it without court action.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(1). Plaintiff has met this prerequisite. See doc. 145 at 5.
Case 2:23-cv-00636-MLG-GBW Document 159 Filed 01/23/26 Page 4 of 14

5
interest rate. Doc. 150-3 at 3; see also doc. 150-1 at 4-6, 9; doc. 150-5 at 6-7. The program
does not have the ability to determine which potentially late payments are actually late
under a relevant statute or determine which interest rate is applicable. Doc. 150 at 4;
doc. 150-4 at 3.
b. Interrogatories 18 & 19 and Requests for Production 32 & 33
(“Disputed Requests”)
Interrogatory Nos. 18 & 19 ask Defendant:
No. 18: Using the interest rate provided in § 70-10-4 of the Act, state the
total amount of interest calculated for payments made to Owners in New
Mexico Wells utilizing the Crawford “Interest Payment Plus Pack” (IPP)
as described by Oxy’s corporate representative Cory Crow during his
deposition on August 12, 2025.
No. 19: Using the interest rate provided in § 70-10-5 of the Act, state the
total amount of interest calculated for payments made to Owners in New
Mexico Wells utilizing the Crawford “Interest Payment Plus Pack” (IPP)
as described by Oxy’s corporate representative Cory Crow during his
deposition on August 12, 2025.
Doc. 145-1 at 3-4.
Requests for Production Nos. 32 & 33 ask Defendant to:
No. 32: Please produce all documents utilized in answering
Interrogatories 18 and 19.
No. 33: Please provide the reports generated as a result of the Crawford
IPP process performed in response to Interrogatories 18 and 19, showing
the inputs and parameters used to perform such calculations and
identifying the potentially late payments flagged and interest calculated
per transaction.
Id. at 4.
Case 2:23-cv-00636-MLG-GBW Document 159 Filed 01/23/26 Page 5 of 14

6
Oxy objected to the interrogatories stating that they (1) were overly vague and
ambiguous, (2) sought to compel Oxy to create documents that did not already exist
and thus force obligations beyond those imposed by the rules of discovery, and (3) were
disproportionate to the needs of the case because the interrogatories requested that Oxy
calculate Plaintiff’s claimed damages. Doc. 145-2 at 4-7. In its response to Plaintiff’s
Motion, Oxy also argued that responding to the interrogatories would be unduly
burdensome. See doc. 150 at 10. When responding to Requests for Production Nos. 32 &
33, Oxy incorporated its objections to Interrogatories 18 & 19 and again objected that the
requests for production sought to impose obligations and requirements beyond the
applicable discovery rules by forcing Oxy to create documents. Doc. 145-2 at 8-9.
Because the objections to the interrogatories and the requests for production are
functionally equivalent, the Court will address them together.
1. Whether the Requests are Vague and Ambiguous
In its response to the interrogatories, Defendant stated that Interrogatories 18
and 19 “can be read in multiple ways, leaving Oxy to speculate as to what is being
requested, and [are] thus vague and ambiguous.” Doc. 145-2 at 5-6. More specifically,
Oxy took issue with the use of the past tense verb “calculated,” arguing that as written,
the interrogatory requested previously calculated statutory interest payments which
were already provided to Plaintiff. Id.
Case 2:23-cv-00636-MLG-GBW Document 159 Filed 01/23/26 Page 6 of 14

7
In its response to Plaintiff’s motion, Oxy reaffirmed its assertion that the
interrogatories as written ask about interest that has been calculated previously,2
whereas Plaintiff’s Motion asks for Oxy to use the Crawford IPP system to calculate
(present tense) potential late payments and interest for New Mexico Owners as a whole
based on Oxy’s current revenue history data. Doc. 150 at 5. Because this is not what the
discovery requests sought, Defendant argued, Plaintiff’s Motion should be denied. Id.
Defendant’s position borders on deliberately obtuse, and the Court finds it
unavailing. Plaintiff asked about previously performed calculations in Request for
Production No. 31, in which it sought “a report from the data Oxy maintains in the
ordinary course of business that identifies all of the Owners to whom Oxy has paid
interest on proceeds from New Mexico Wells and the amount of such interest paid to
each Owner.” Doc. 145-1 at 4. Further, the parties met and conferred over several
weeks before Plaintiffs filed their Motion, see doc. 145 at 5. The language of Plaintiff’s
discovery requests clarified by the meet-and-confer process is sufficiently clear
regarding the information requested.
2 Oxy states that “[i]n the normal course of business, Oxy has used Crawford IPP to calculate interest to
individual New Mexico owners, and has produced to Plaintiff the relevant information for those
calculations and payments.” Doc. 150 at 5.
Case 2:23-cv-00636-MLG-GBW Document 159 Filed 01/23/26 Page 7 of 14

8
2. Whether the Requests Compel Oxy to Create New Documents
Oxy next argues that Plaintiff’s motion requires Oxy to create new information
and data to respond to the interrogatories and requests for production, exceeding the
bounds of permissible discovery. Doc. 150 at 6.
A party is generally not required to create new documents under Rule 34. See
Lerblance v. Calyx Energy III, LLC, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 116407, at *8 (E.D. Okla. July 2,
2024) (“It is well-settled that a responding party’s obligations under Fed. R. Civ. P. 34
do not extend to nonexistent materials.”) (citation omitted); Seed Research Equip. Sols.,
LLC v. Gary W. Clem, Inc., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 99087, at *4 (D. Kan. Sept. 1, 2011)
(“[T]he rules of discovery do ‘not require a party to create or generate responsive
materials (in this case, documents) but only to produce and allow inspection of ‘items in
the responding parties’ possession, custody, or control.’”) (internal citation omitted).
However, several courts have found a distinction between creating new documents and
“requiring a party to query an existing database to produce reports for opposing
parties.” Mervyn v. Atlas Van Lines, Inc., 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 144376, at *6 (N.D. Ill. Oct
23, 2015) (citing Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 116493, at *3 (N.D.
Cal. Aug. 14, 2013). As stated in Apple Inc., supra,
[A] party should not be required to create completely new documents,
[but] that is not the same as requiring a party to query an existing
dynamic database for relevant information. Courts regularly require
parties to produce reports from dynamic databases, holding ‘the technical
burden…of creating a new dataset for the instant litigation does not
excuse compelling production’” (internal quotations omitted)).
Case 2:23-cv-00636-MLG-GBW Document 159 Filed 01/23/26 Page 8 of 14

9
2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 116493, at *34.
The Court finds this distinction persuasive and will apply it here. See Gonzales v. Google,
Inc., 234 F.R.D. 674, 683 (N.D. Cal. 2006) (holding that Google had to comply with a
third-party subpoena and provide data sought by the government despite the fact that
it would require Google to create new code to format and extract query and URL data
from many computer banks); Humphrey v. Leblanc, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 151129, at *8
(M.D. La. Aug. 11, 2021) (“Case law makes clear that simply searching a database and
providing the results therefrom does not require creation of a new document beyond
the scope of Rule 34.”); Crocs, Inc. v. Effervescent, Inc., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 184498, at
*11 (D. Colo. Feb. 8, 2017) (“[I]f information is stored in a database, requiring that
reports be run from the database is not the creation of new evidence or discovery.”); In
re eBay Seller Antitrust Litig., 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 132817, at *7 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 28, 2009)
(finding that the magistrate judge did not clearly err in compelling production of new
dataset of records from a database, noting that “[t]he Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
clearly contemplate the production of information from dynamic databases”).
Under the facts of this case, the Court concludes that using the Crawford IPP to
query an existing database within Oxy’s custody and control does not amount to
creating new information under Rule 33 or 34. As such, Plaintiff’s interrogatories and
requests for production which seek Crawford IPP results are not improper on that basis.
As stated in Mervyn, “requiring a party to query an existing database to produce reports
Case 2:23-cv-00636-MLG-GBW Document 159 Filed 01/23/26 Page 9 of 14

10
for opposing parties is not the same as requiring the creation of a new document.” 2015
U.S. Dist. LEXIS 144376, at *21 (citing Apple Inc., 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 116493, at *3).
The Court acknowledges that Crawford IPP itself is not a database to be queried, but
rather an overlay to Oxy’s accounting system, SAP. Doc. 150-4 at ¶ 3. However, SAP is
a database (see id. at ¶ 5) from which Crawford IPP pulls owner payment information.
Id. at ¶¶ 3, 5; see also doc. 150 at 9. The fact that Crawford IPP itself does not store data is
a distinction without a difference given that it is the tool used to query an existing
dataset.
Defendant asserts that they have already produced multiple extracts of Oxy’s
SAP data, including “existing data identifying statutory interest calculated in the normal
course of business using Crawford IPP for specific New Mexico Owners.” Doc. 150 at 9.
Therefore, Defendant argues, Plaintiff can perform the same calculations that Crawford
IPP would without the requested reports. While Plaintiff may use data that has been
provided to determine its own interest calculations, that is not the same as knowing
what Defendant’s own software would flag as potential late payments. Reports
produced by Crawford IPP would help show what Defendant could have, and perhaps
should have, known about delinquent payments. Given this distinct basis of relevance,
the requested reports and information are not duplicative of the discovery already
provided.
Case 2:23-cv-00636-MLG-GBW Document 159 Filed 01/23/26 Page 10 of 14

11
3. Whether the Requests are Overly Broad, Unduly Burdensome, or
Disproportionate to the Needs of the Case
In its response to Interrogatories 18 and 19, Oxy objects that the requests are
disproportionate to the needs of the case because they demand that Oxy improperly
calculate Plaintiff’s claimed damages. Doc. 145-2 at 6-7. The Court finds no evidence
that this is accurate. Further, Oxy did not restate this objection in its response to
Plaintiff’s Motion. As such, the Court finds that it does not require further analysis.
Oxy’s final argument against Plaintiff’s Motion is that responding to Plaintiff’s
interrogatories and requests for production would be unduly burdensome. See doc. 150
at 10. Based on the testimony of Oxy representatives and the exact parameters of
Plaintiff’s requests, the Court finds this argument unpersuasive.
It is incontrovertible that the information Plaintiff seeks can be produced by Oxy.
See doc. 145-4 at 6 (“It could flag potentially late payments… You could run it at the
state level.”); doc. 150-5 at 6 (“I could run the program to generate the interest for New
Mexico.”). Further, Oxy has already done this sort of calculation for other states such as
Wyoming and Utah. Doc. 145-5 at 6. The question is whether its production would be
so burdensome to Oxy that it outweighs the likely benefit. See Fed. R. Civ. P.
26(b)(2)(C)(iii).
To run the program, an Oxy employee would enter the set-up prompts into
Crawford and the Crawford system would calculate the interest. Doc. 150-1 at 5; see also
id. at 6. Different interest levels would have to be inputted manually. Doc. 150-5 at 7;
Case 2:23-cv-00636-MLG-GBW Document 159 Filed 01/23/26 Page 11 of 14

12
see also doc. 150-6 at ¶ 5 (“Oxy’s Crawford IPP contains two available interest rates for
New Mexico – the default 18% simple interest rate and the discount rate charged by the
federal reserve bank of Dallas plus 1.5 percent, which must be manually selected. To
calculate interest at the lower interest rate, calculations must first be performed at the
default 18% interest rate and then recalculated within Crawford IPP at the lower rate.”).
This process would flag potentially late payments and calculate the assumed interest
thereon. Then the information related to statutory interest calculations could be
exported out of Crawford into an Excel sheet or another common format. Doc. 145-4 at
10. Running the program in this manner would not be burdensome according to Oxy’s
own statements. See id. at 7.
Oxy notes that the reports generated by Crawford IPP would not identify late
payments bearing interest under the NMPPA. Doc. 150 at 9; see also doc. 150-5 at 10 (“If
there were exceptions or exemptions outside of the normal interest calculation…it
wouldn’t account for them.”); id. at 15 (“[I]t wouldn’t take into account the
exemptions.”). Therefore, to determine whether a potential late payment identified by
Crawford is an actual interest-bearing late payment requires individualized analysis.
Performing this analysis to determine actual late payments would be a significant
burden according to Oxy. See doc. 150 at 10; doc. 145-4 at 7.
Assuming, arguendo, that calculating actual late payments under the NMPPA
would impose a significant burden on Oxy, that is not what Plaintiff is asking for.
Case 2:23-cv-00636-MLG-GBW Document 159 Filed 01/23/26 Page 12 of 14

13
Plaintiff asked Oxy to use the Crawford tool on checks processed during a specific
period and tell them: (1) which payments Crawford IPP identified as potentially late
and (2) how much interest Crawford calculated on those payments using each of the
rates identified in the Act. Doc. 151 at 2. Plaintiff is not asking Defendant to take on the
burden that Defendant describes. Nonetheless, Defendant contends that, without
undertaking the individualized analysis, the data provided would be inaccurate or
misleading. Even accepting that proposition, it does not mean that the discovery
request is per se improper. See N. Shore-Long Island Jewish Health Sys., Inc. v. MultiPlan,
Inc., 325 F.R.D. 36, 52 (E.D.N.Y. 2018) (“[Defendant’s] argument in opposition is instead
founded on the purported unreliability and incompleteness of data it could
produce…[w]hile [Defendant] can challenge the conclusions [Plaintiff] draws from the
raw data, it cannot raise these challenges to avoid disclosure in the first instance.”). The
Court does agree that the lack of an individualized analysis reduces the relevance of the
requested information. The lower relevance impacts the broader proportionality
analysis demanded under Rule 26. Nonetheless, given the relatively low burden of
running the initial Crawford IPP analysis and the relevance described above, the Court
finds that Oxy has failed to establish that producing the reports requested by the
Disputed Requests would be so burdensome to Oxy that it outweighs the likely benefit.
See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(C)(iii).
Case 2:23-cv-00636-MLG-GBW Document 159 Filed 01/23/26 Page 13 of 14

14
IV. CONCLUSION
Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel (doc. 145) is hereby GRANTED. Oxy shall produce
full responses to Interrogatory Nos. 18 & 19 and Requests for Production Nos. 32 & 33
within a reasonable time.
The Court declines to impose costs or sanctions under Rule 37 at this time
because Plaintiff did not request such relief and Defendant’s objections were
substantially justified. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(5)(A)(ii).
_____________________________________________
GREGORY B. WORMUTH
CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 2:23-cv-00636-MLG-GBW Document 159 Filed 01/23/26 Page 14 of 14