Cox v. Glanz et al
Filing
280
OPINION AND ORDER by Magistrate Judge Frank H McCarthy ; denying 226 Motion for Protective Order (tjc, Dpty Clk)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR
THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
CAROLYN COX, as the Special Administrator )
of the Estate of Charles Jernegan, Deceased, )
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
STANLEY GLANZ, SHERIFF OF TULSA
)
COUNTY, in His Individual and Official
)
Capacities, et al.,
)
)
Defendant.
)
Case No. 11-CV-457-JED-FHM
OPINION AND ORDER
Defendants’ Correctional Healthcare Management of Oklahoma, Inc., Correctional
Healthcare Companies, Inc., Correctional Healthcare Management, Inc., Faye Taylor and
Sara Sampson’s and Non-Parties, Pam Hoisington and Christina Rogers’ Motion for a
Protective Order [Dkt. 226] is before the court for decision. Plaintiff has filed a Response
[Dkt. 253], and Defendants have filed a Reply [Dkt. 264].
Defendants seek a protective order based upon Plaintiff’s communication with
former employees of Defendants’ without Defendants’ permission which Defendants
contend violates Rule 4.2 of the Oklahoma Rules of Professional Conduct. Defendants
assert that the Tenth Circuit in Weeks v. Independent School Dist. No. I-89 of Oklahoma
County, OK., Bd. of Educ., 230 F.3d 1201 (10th Cir. 2000) clearly extended the protection
from ex parte communications with current employees to include former employees in
federal cases.
Plaintiff responds that ex parte communications with Defendants’ former employees
does not violate Rule 4.2. Fulton v. Lane, 829 P.2d 959, 960-61 (Okla. 1992). See also
Goodeagle v. United States, 2010 WL 3081520 (W.D. Okla., 2010), Aiken v. Business and
Industry Health Group, Inc., 885 F.Supp.1474 (D.Kan., 1995)
The Oklahoma Supreme Court clearly held in Fulton that Rule 4.2 does not prohibit
ex parte communications with former employees. Contrary to Defendants’ argument,
Weeks did not alter the rule concerning former employees in federal cases.
Defendant’s Motion for a Protective Order [Dkt. 226] is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 23rd day of May, 2013.
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?