Cox v. Verizon Business Network Services, Inc.

Filing 40

OPINION AND ORDER by Magistrate Judge Frank H McCarthy ; denying 35 Motion to Quash; denying 36 Motion for Protective Order (tjc, Dpty Clk)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
MORGAN COX,
Plaintiff,
vs.

Case No.14-CV-127-JHP-FHM

VERISON BUSINESS NETWORK
SERVICES, INC.,
Defendants.
OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiff’s Motion to Quash Subpoenas and For Protective Order, [Dkt. 35], is before
the undersigned United States Magistrate Judge for decision. The matter has been fully
briefed and is ripe for decision.
Plaintiff, a former employee of Defendant, alleges Defendant failed to pay wages,
including overtime compensation, retaliatory termination, and retaliatory failure to rehire
after she lodged complaints under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Oklahoma
Protection of Labor Act. Defendant has issued subpoenas to employers for whom Plaintiff
worked after she left Defendant’s employ. The subpoenas seek production of all personnel
and payroll records for Plaintiff from these subsequent employers. Plaintiff seeks to quash
these subpoenas claiming that the information is beyond the scope of discovery and
discovery of the information by Defendant would be improperly invasive and harassing.
Relevancy is broadly defined for discovery purposes. Fed.R.Civ.P. 26. Indeed,
Plaintiff recognizes that discovery of some information from her subsequent employers is
appropriate and that wage and benefit documents are relevant to a claim of mitigation.
[Dkt. 35, pp. 2, 9]. The court finds that personnel and payroll records from Plaintiff’s
subsequent employers are relevant for discovery in this action.

Plaintiff complains that the subpoenas are facially overbroad in that they seek all
personnel information without any limitation. While that objection might be appropriately
asserted in a different case, it is not appropriate here. Plaintiff has three subsequent
employers. She worked for one for two days, another for eight days, and the third one for
nineteen days. The assertion that Defendant has engaged in a wide ranging oppressive
fishing expedition does not fit the circumstances presented. As a result, there is no basis
for quashing the subpoenas.
Plaintiff’s Motion to Quash Subpoenas and For Protective Order, [Dkt. 35], is
DENIED.
SO ORDERED this 7th day of April, 2015.

2