Parker v. Southcrest Hospital
Filing
38
OPINION AND ORDER by Magistrate Judge Paul J Cleary ; granting 35 Motion to Quash; granting 36 Motion to Quash; granting 37 Motion for Protective Order (PJC1, Chambers)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
ESTELLA PARKER,
Plaintiff,
v.
SOUTHCREST HOSPITAL,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
) Case No. 08-CV-631-GKF-PJC
)
)
)
)
ORDER
Before the Court are Defendant Southcrest Hospital’s (“Southcrest”) Motion to Quash
Plaintiff’s Subpoena to Testify at a Deposition in a Civil Action (Dkt. #36) and Non-Party
EEOC’s Motion to Quash Subpoena and for Protective Order (Dkt. ## 35 and 37).
Plaintiff Estella Parker (“Parker”) issued a subpoena to testify at a deposition to Sherri
Anderson Beasley (“Beasley”) an investigator with the EEOC who lives and works in Oklahoma
City, Oklahoma, on July 13, 2011. (Dkt. #35-3). The deposition was to take place at 3115 North
Garrison Avenue, Tulsa, Oklahoma on July 28, 2011 at 2:00 PM. Id. The subpoena states that
Beasley’s deposition was sought regarding Parker’s EEOC claim against Southcrest that she had
been discriminated against, the EEOC’s finding that the charges were true and a violation had
occurred, and a subsequent award settlement that was granted in February 2008. Id. The
subpoena also seeks:
any and all paper and electronic records, facsimile, including February, 2008
settlement agreement relevant to the matter of the above case, and all other
documents concerning Estella Parker v. Southcrest Hospital from January, 2007
though July, 2008.
Id.
The EEOC moves to quash the subpoena because it does not comply with Rule 45 of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure as Beasley’s residence and workplace are outside 100 miles of
the place specified for her deposition, is in conflict with EEOC’s statutory duty to maintain
confidentiality, contravenes the EEOC’s deliberative process privilege and is unduly
burdensome.
Southcrest moves to quash the subpoena as it did not receive reasonable written notice of
the subpoena as required by Rule 30(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local
Civil Rule 30.1(a)(2) (“reasonable notice . . . shall be seven (7) days”); rather, its only notice of
the subpoena was its attachment to EEOC’s motion to quash which was filed on July 27, 2011.
Southcrest further objects that the subpoena seeking documents from non-party Beasley violates
Rule 45(b)(1) which provides “[i]f the subpoena commands the production of documents, . . .
then before it is served, a notice must be served on each party.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 45(b)(1)(emphasis
added).
As the Court finds that Parker failed to comply with Rules 30(b)(1) and 45(b)(1) and (2)
of the Federal Rules and Rule 30.1(a)(2) of the Local Rules, the Court grants both motions to
quash and the motion for protective order.
IT IS SO ORDERED, this 28th day of July, 2011.
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?