D.G. et al v. Henry et al

Filing 614

OPINION AND ORDER by Magistrate Judge Frank H McCarthy ; denying 525 Sealed Motion (jcm, Dpty Clk)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
D.G., by Next Friend G., Gail Stricklin, et
al.,
Plaintiffs,
vs.

Case No. 08-CV-74-GKF-FHM

C. BRAD HENRY, in his official capacity
as Governor of the State of Oklahoma,
et al.,
Defendants.
OPINION AND ORDER
Defendants Jay Dee Chase’s, Ronald L. Mercer’s and Robert Rawlings’ Motion for
Protective Order [Dkt. 525] is before the Court for decision. Plaintiffs have filed a response
[Dkt. 546] and Defendants have filed a reply [Dkt. 564].
Defendants Mercer and Rawlings seek a protective order precluding Plaintiffs from
taking their depositions under any conditions. Defendant Chase seeks a protective order
limiting his deposition to one hour per day. In support, each witness presented a letter from
his doctor which briefly described his chronic health problems and gave the opinion that the
witness’s health would be harmed by the stress of a deposition.
A party seeking a protective order bears the burden of establishing good cause.
Based upon the evidence presented, Defendants Mercer, Rawlings and Chase have not
established good cause for the requested protective order.
Although the doctors’ letters briefly describe the witnesses’ ongoing health problems
and state that the stress of a deposition would be detrimental to the witnesses’ health, the
doctors’ letters provide no further information to support this conclusion. In particular, no
information is provided about the witnesses’ current level of functioning or any restrictions

the doctors have placed on the witnesses’s activities. This information would be especially
relevant because the Court understands that Mr. Chase and Mr. Rawlings are currently
serving as commissioners and Mr. Mercer only recently stopped serving as a
commissioner. If the witnesses can perform these activities, it is unclear why depositions
would impair their health.
Additionally, the doctors letters assume a high level of stress will be involved in the
depositions. The letters contain descriptions such as “intense deposition,” “argumentative”
and “confrontational.” The Court sees no reason why the attorneys could not conduct the
depositions in a manner to limit the stress level. As a further precaution, the doctors could
attend the depositions and monitor the witnesses during their testimony.
Based upon the evidence presented, Defendants have not established good cause
for the requested protective orders. Defendants Jay Dee Chase’s, Ronald L. Mercer’s and
Robert Rawlings’ Motion for Protective Order [Dkt. 525] is DENIED.
SO ORDERED this 9th day of August, 2011.

2