D.G. et al v. Henry et al
Filing
738
OPINION AND ORDER by Magistrate Judge Frank H McCarthy, setting/resetting deadline(s)/hearing(s): ( Miscellaneous Deadline set for 11/30/2011) (Re: 693 SEALED MOTION, 712 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
OKDHS Defendants’ Motion to Reconsider Opinion and Order [Dkt. 693] and Plaintiff
Children’s Motion to Compel Production of Jay Dee Chase’s Medical Records and the
Deposition of his Doctor [Dkt. 712] have been fully briefed and are before the Court for
decision. The motions are considered together because they are related.
In OKDHS’s motion [Dkt. 693], Defendants seek a protective order to prevent
Plaintiffs from deposing Jay Dee Chase because of his medical condition. Defendants
attached an affidavit from Mr. Chase’s doctor in support of the motion.
In Plaintiff
Children’s motion [Dkt. 712], Plaintiffs seek access to Mr. Chase’s medical records and a
deposition of the doctor who submitted the affidavit.
In their response, [Dkt. 726],
Defendants appear to suggest that a deposition of Mr. Chase under certain conditions
would be appropriate.
A protective order completely shielding a relevant witness from a deposition is not
to be entered without full consideration of all the facts and circumstances. In developing
those facts, the party opposing the protective order should be allowed reasonable
discovery. At the same time, Mr. Chase has a privacy interest in his medical condition
which deserves consideration. In this case, Defendants seek a protective order based on
Mr. Chase’s medical condition but object to Plaintiffs’ discovery regarding his medical
condition.
The Court finds that the affidavit of the doctor is sufficient to support an order placing
reasonable restrictions on Mr. Chase’s deposition but it is not sufficient to support
completely shielding Mr. Chase from any deposition without allowing Plaintiffs some
discovery. In this regard, the fact that Mr. Chase continues to serve as a Commissioner
despite his medical condition is significant to the Court’s decision. If Defendants persist in
seeking a protective order completely shielding Mr. Chase from a deposition, then Plaintiff
Children’s Motion to Compel Production of Jay Dee Chase’s Medical Records and the
Deposition of his Doctor [Dkt. 712] will be granted. If Mr. Chase would prefer to give his
deposition at the courthouse under the supervision of the undersigned and under
reasonable restrictions, including the attendance of Mr. Chase’s doctor, if desired,
Defendants may withdraw their motion for a protective order [Dkt. 693] and Plaintiff’s
motion to compel [Dkt. 712] will be denied.
Defendants shall file a notice of their position in response to this Order by November
30, 2011.
SO ORDERED this 23rd day of November, 2011.
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?