Jan 14, 2015 3 min read

Attorneys representing Range Resources in an ongoing court case surrounding an Amwell Township well site want a judge to limit or temporarily halt a subpoena served to a Pittsburgh-based company that performed air quality tests at several Range sites last year.

The plaintiffs, who live or used to live below the Yeager drilling site, are Stacey Haney and her two children; Beth and John Voyles and their daughter; and Loren and Grace Kiskadden. They claimed their health was affected by Range’s drilling operations and served a subpoena Jan. 2 to URS Corp., which conducted air quality tests near Range’s Yeager, Day, Carter and Lowry impoundments in Washington County.

Range attorneys argued in a Washington County Court motion that some of the data requested in the “overly broad” subpoena is confidential and protected by attorney-client privilege. Range’s counsel suggested the parties could avoid an appeal to Superior Court if Range instead were permitted to acquire the data from URS and then provide the non-privileged information to the court.

The plaintiffs asked Range in 2013 for the results of all air-quality tests that had been performed at Range’s natural gas sites. They allege Range “had and currently has air testing data for various sites that it failed to produce or acknowledge to plaintiffs despite the discovery request.”

Range attorneys said the company answered their requests “fully and completely” in regard to the Yeager site.

Range spokesman Matt Pitzarella said both Range and the state Department of Environmental Protection have conducted air quality tests over the years at the Yeager site, and “each time the air quality was within safe, regulated levels that do not pose any risk to the environment, health or safety.”

He said extensive air quality tests were conducted in spring 2014 when the wells were being completed, and they were also monitored for odors, wind direction, sound and vibrations.

Range’s motion, filed last week with Judge Katherine Emery, requests a reconsideration of retired Judge Debbie O’Dell Seneca’s decision to authorize the subpoena.

John and Kendra Smith, who are representing the families, wrote in a response to Range’s motion that the company was violating the “coordinate jurisdiction rule” by asking another judge of the same court in the same case to reconsider a pre-trial determination.

“Range seeks to inappropriately capitalize on the retirement of Judge O’Dell Seneca and has engaged in an improper form of forum shopping,” read the plaintiffs’ response.

Range requested a stay be placed on the subpoena until the company can file an appeal if a judge will not limit the subpoena to only allow nonprivileged information to be disclosed.