ARTICLE
11 September 2013

Colorado Supreme Court Asked To Address Whether "Lone Pine" Orders Are Allowed In Toxic Tort Case Involving Hydraulic Fracturing

B
BakerHostetler

Contributor

Recognized as one of the top firms for client service, BakerHostetler is a leading national law firm that helps clients around the world address their most complex and critical business and regulatory issues. With five core national practice groups — Business, Labor and Employment, Intellectual Property, Litigation, and Tax — the firm has more than 970 lawyers located in 14 offices coast to coast. BakerHostetler is widely regarded as having one of the country’s top 10 tax practices, a nationally recognized litigation practice, an award-winning data privacy practice and an industry-leading business practice. The firm is also recognized internationally for its groundbreaking work recovering more than $13 billion in the Madoff Recovery Initiative, representing the SIPA Trustee for the liquidation of Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC. Visit bakerlaw.com
On August 29, 2013, Antero Resources asked the Colorado Supreme Court to review the Colorado Court of Appeal’s decision in Strudley v. Antero Resources Corp., a decision by the Colorado Court of Appeals that reversed a trial court's order dismissing a toxic court case involving alleged injuries relating to hydraulic fracturing.
United States Energy and Natural Resources

On August 29, 2013, Antero Resources asked the Colorado Supreme Court to review the Colorado Court of Appeal's decision in Strudley v. Antero Resources Corp., a decision by the Colorado Court of Appeals that reversed a trial court's order dismissing a toxic court case involving alleged injuries relating to hydraulic fracturing.

In Strudley, the plaintiffs claim that they were injured as a result of drilling operations, including hydraulic fracturing, near their home in Silt, Colorado.  The trial court entered a "Lone Pine" order that required plaintiffs to present prima facie evidence in support of their claims before the plaintiffs could proceed with full discovery.  When they failed to do so, the trial court dismissed the case.  The Court of Appeals, however, reversed the trial court holding that under Colorado law, Lone Pine orders are not authorized as a matter of law.

In its petition, Antero has asked the Colorado Supreme Court to review and reverse the Court of Appeal's decision because the Court of Appeal's decision is inconsistent with existing Colorado precedent and the stated goals for the Colorado court system—to ensure the just, speedy and inexpensive resolution of disputes.  Given that the Colorado Supreme Court recently adopted a pilot program entitled the Civil Access Pilot Project to streamline access to the courts and ensure active case management by trial court judges, the Colorado Supreme Court may use the Strudley case as an opportunity to further define the role that trial court judges should having in proactively managing discovery in complex cases.

The Colorado Petroleum Association, the Colorado Defense League and the Colorado Civil Justice League have all filed briefs with the Colorado Supreme Court urging the Court to hear the case.  We will continue to follow developments in this case and report them on the North American Shale Blog.

Prior coverage of the Strudley decision can be found here.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Learn More