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)

Download PDF
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?