Monroe objects to Request No. 1 on the grounds that the request is overbroad and burdensome. Monroe states that the request seeks information that would require Monroe to perform a Monroe also objects to Request No. 1 on the grounds that “time consuming analysis.” it did not purchase the of and did not begin production until Trainer refinery until “June 2012” of Monroe states that it will provide data in its possession that is response “September 2012.” from January 1, 2015 through February 1, 2017. In its Motion to Compel, Laurel argues that it is reasonable to expect that an entity that participates in the petroleum products transportation market would possess readily- available, easily-produced information about products lifted from its terminals, in the area where it operates. Motion to Compel, ¶ 12. Such data is an essential business metric that refiners monitor and record, and it is exceedingly likely that Monroe records, analyzes and retains the requested information as part of its routine business records. Id. After carefully considering and positions I shall grant, in part, Laurel’s Monroe’s and deny, in part, Motion to Compel a response to Laurel Set I, Request No. 1. The Laurel’s – discovery request shall be modified to request information from September 1, 2012 through February 1, 2017. Laurel Set I, Request No. 2 provides as follows: – 2. With reference to claim in paragraph 16 of its Monroe’s protest that there exists a of service alternatives for “lack Laurel’s current shippers” a. Please provide records showing by month and by product type, the quantity of refined petroleum produced by Monroe and delivered to a terminal in Pennsylvania from January 1, 2012 to February 1, 2017. b. Please ensure that all information provided in response to subpart (a) identifies the terminal to which the product was delivered, and method of transportation used for the shipment.
Monroe objects to Request No. 1 on the grounds that the request is overbroad and burdensome. Monroe states that the request seeks information that would require Monroe to perform a “time consuming analysis.” Monroe also objects to Request No. 1 on the grounds that it did not purchase the Trainer refinery until “June of 2012” and did not begin production until “September of 2012.” Monroe states that it will provide data in its possession that is response from January 1, 2015 through February 1, 2017. In its Motion to Compel, Laurel argues that it is reasonable to expect that an entity that participates in the petroleum products transportation market would possess readily- available, easily-produced information about products lifted from its terminals, in the area where it operates. Motion to Compel, ¶ 12. Such data is an essential business metric that refiners monitor and record, and it is exceedingly likely that Monroe records, analyzes and retains the requested information as part of its routine business records. Id. After carefully considering Laurel’s and Monroe’s positions I shall grant, in part, and deny, in part, Laurel’s Motion to Compel a response to Laurel – Set I, Request No. 1. The discovery request shall be modified to request information from September 1, 2012 through February 1, 2017. Laurel – Set I, Request No. 2 provides as follows: 2. With reference to Monroe’s claim in paragraph 16 of its protest that there exists a “lack of service alternatives for Laurel’s current shippers” a. Please provide records showing by month and by product type, the quantity of refined petroleum produced by Monroe and delivered to a terminal in Pennsylvania from January 1, 2012 to February 1, 2017. b. Please ensure that all information provided in response to subpart (a) identifies the terminal to which the product was delivered, and method of transportation used for the shipment.