Opinion ID: 59587
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Limitation on Discovery

Text: Plaintiffs also contend that the district court erred when it determined that the Agreement prohibited Plaintiffs from pursuing, through discovery, 12 No. 06-20624 Defendants’ well log inventory to see if any violations of the Agreement existed. The district court based this decision on its conclusion that “the language of the Agreement does not envision either party exploring the well log inventory of the other party in pursuit of potential violations.” While we offer no opinion on whether Plaintiffs are entitled to the discovery they seek, we do agree with Plaintiffs that the district court’s legal reasoning was erroneous, and therefore we reverse its decision on this point. The question of whether a party is entitled to discovery is not determined solely by reference to any preexisting agreements between the parties. Instead, the question is answered by reference to the applicable Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and case law on point. See, e.g., FED. R. CIV. P. 26(b). Therefore, by denying discovery based solely on the fact that there was no preexisting agreement between the parties that would permit discovery, the district court erred. On remand, the district court should reexamine the issue with reference to the Rules and pertinent case law.