Douglas v. Miller et al

Filing 175

ORDER Denying the Motion but the subpoena to the Oklahoma County District Attorney is Modified to allow a reasonable time for production of the documents on or before 7/5/2017 re 165 Defendants' Motion to Quash Subpoena Duces Tecum. Signed by Honorable Timothy D. DeGiusti on 6/22/2017. (mb)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA

YANCEY LYNDELL DOUGLAS,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
ROBERT BRADLEY MILLER, et al., )
)
Defendants.
)

Case No. CIV-10-1295-D

ORDER REGARDING MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENA
Before the Court is Defendants’ Motion to Quash Subpoena Duces Tecum [Doc.
No. 165], filed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(d).

Defendants ask the Court to quash a

subpoena issued by Plaintiff on June 1, 2017, to the Oklahoma County District Attorney
requiring the production on June 9, 2017, of files regarding five criminal cases.
Defendants’ primary objections are that Plaintiff failed to provide prior notice to the parties
before service of the subpoena, as required by Rule 45(a)(4) and LCvR45.1(a), and failed
to allow a reasonable time for the District Attorney’s office to comply with the subpoena.
See Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(d)(3)(A)(i).

Defendants also make general objections of relevance

and undue burden on the District Attorney’s office.
In response, Plaintiff concedes his noncompliance with Rule 45 and LCvR45.1, but
explains his efforts to obtain the case files earlier through an Open Records Act request
and his attempt to meet the discovery cut-off, which was June 19, 2017.

Shortly after

filing his response, Plaintiff moved to extend the deadline to complete discovery; his

motion will be addressed by a separate order.

Defendants’ Motion is fully briefed and

ready for decision.
Upon consideration of the issues presented by the parties, the Court finds that the
subpoena should not be quashed but, instead, should be modified to provide a reasonable
amount of time for compliance.

While not condoning Plaintiff’s failure to comply with

Rule 45(a)(4), the Court finds that Defendants received actual notice of the subpoena and,
as demonstrated by their Motion, an opportunity to object to Plaintiff’s request for the
District Attorney’s records before any document production had occurred.
The Court further finds that Defendants’ substantive objection is not well taken.
The scope of discovery extends to “any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party’s
claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case.”

See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1).

The concept of proportionality allows discovery to be limited based on a consideration of
enumerated factors in Rule 26(b)(1), and a district court may also limit discovery under
certain circumstances set out in Rule 26(b)(2)(C).

Here, Defendants do not present any

particular circumstance for consideration by the Court.

They expressly acknowledge that

information “need not be admissible in evidence to be discoverable.”
P. 26(b)(1); Defs.’ Mot Quash [Doc. No. 165] at 4.

See Fed. R. Civ.

It appears that Plaintiff is reasonably

seeking to review the District Attorney’s criminal case files related to potential witnesses
in this case.

The Court is confident that any undue burden on the District Attorney’s

office can be avoided through reasonably cooperative efforts of counsel.

2

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Quash Subpoena
Duces Tecum [Doc. No. 165] is DENIED but the subpoena to the Oklahoma County
District Attorney [Doc. No. 165-2] is MODIFIED to allow a reasonable time for production
of the requested documents on a date on or before July 5, 2017, that is mutually agreeable
to counsel for the parties and the District Attorney’s office.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 22nd day of June, 2017.

3