Price et al v. Public Service Company of Oklahoma
Filing
77
OPINION AND ORDER by Magistrate Judge Frank H McCarthy ; denying 60 Motion for Protective Order (tjc, Dpty Clk)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
STEVE A. PRICE, et al.,
Plaintiff,
v.
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF
OKLAHOMA, an Oklahoma
Corporation,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. 13-CV-514-GKF-FHM
OPINION AND ORDER
Defendant’s Motion for Protective Order as to Subpoena Duces Tecum Served Upon
IBEW Local 1002, [Dkt. #60], is before the court for decision. Plaintiff filed a Response,
[Dkt. #64], and Defendant filed a Reply, [Dkt. 71].
Defendant seeks an order forbidding and/or limiting the discovery which Plaintiff
initiated by issuing a subpoena to a non-party. Defendant contends that the subpoena
requires the production of information that is not relevant to this case. Plaintiff responds
that the non-party does not object to complying with the subpoena; that Defendant does
not have standing to object to a subpoena to a non-party; and that in any event, the
information subpoenaed is relevant to the case.
Generally, a party does not have standing to object to a subpoena to a non-party.
Howard v. Segway, Inc., 2012 WL 2923230 (N.D. Okla. 2012). There is an exception if the
party claims a personal right or privilege in the information, but Defendant does not claim
the exception applies in this case. Instead, Defendant seeks to avoid the general rule by
basing its motion on Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(c)(1).
Rule 26(c)(1) permits the court to issue a protective order upon a showing of good
cause to protect a party from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden
or expense. Defendant has not articulated how any of these basis for a protective order
apply to the subpoena in this case.
The court is persuaded by Plaintiff’s arguments that the subpoena seeks information
relevant to the claims and defenses in the case for discovery purposes. Prior to the policy
change in the Tulsa area all of the areas in the state had the same policy. Communications
and information about the other areas may lead to admissible evidence concerning the
Tulsa area. Accordingly, to the extent some showing of relevancy is required, that showing
has been made.
Defendant’s Motion for Protective Order as to Subpoena Duces Tecum Served Upon
IBEW Local 1002, [Dkt. #60], is DENIED.
SO ORDERED this 8th day of July, 2014.
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?