Billingsley v. Department of Human Services et al

Filing 39

ORDER denying Joint Motion to Consolidate for Discovery Purposes filed in CIV-13-676-D re 38 Notice by All Defendants of Filing Joint Motion to Consolidate for Discovery Purposes, filed by Linda Voth, Department of Human Services. Signed by Honorable Timothy D. DeGiusti on 5/20/2014. (mb)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
HELENE MYLES,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff,
vs.
THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA, ex rel.
DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES,
et al.,
Defendants.

Case No. CIV-13-676-D

ORDER
Before the Court is the parties’ Joint Motion to Consolidate for Discovery Purposes [Doc. No.
40].

Pursuant to Rule 42(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the parties seek to

consolidate with this action, for purposes of pretrial discovery only, the following actions
currently pending in this judicial district: Billingsley v. State of Oklahoma, ex rel. Department of
Human Services, Case No. CIV-13-777-HE; and Reed v. State of Oklahoma, ex rel. Department
of Human Services, Case No. CIV-13-881-W.
Rule 42(a) provides for consolidation where actions involve “a common question of law or
fact.” The Court has broad discretion in determining whether consolidation is proper. Shump v.
Balka, 574 F.2d 1341, 1344 (10th Cir. 1978).
In support of the request for consolidation, the parties state that the “cases share common
issues of fact and law although there are some differences in the factual allegations by the
individual Plaintiffs.” The parties offer no further explanation of those factual allegations, do
not identify the nature of the claims alleged in each of the actions, or discuss the procedural
posture of the respective actions. The parties seek consolidation for “efficiency” and contend
that consolidation will allow only one deposition of each witness. But the parties do not identify

the common witnesses to be deposed. The parties also state that consolidation “will permit
sequenced completion of cooperative document production and e-discovery (including emails) in
a manner consistent with Sedona Conference principles.” Again, the parties do not elaborate.
The Court has reviewed the Amended Complaints in each of the actions. The Court has also
reviewed recent orders entered in this case and Case No. CIV-13-881-W, granting, in part,
Defendants’ motions to dismiss. In addition, the Court notes that a Scheduling Order has been
entered in Case No. CIV-13-777-HE, while no similar orders have been entered in the other two
actions. Although the claims at issue in the respective actions involve similar occurrences of
alleged retaliatory employment actions, the respective actions involve different personnel
employed by the Oklahoma Department of Human Services and different factual circumstances.
And, as noted, the cases are currently in different procedural stages from one another.
Primarily, the parties cite as grounds for consolidation the ability to prevent duplicative
depositions, without any specific information as to the number of witnesses who would overlap
in the respective cases. The parties can agree among themselves to proceed in cooperative
fashion regarding depositions and avoiding duplicative efforts without the need for consolidation
of this action. Although the Court values the goals to be achieved through consolidation as sated
by the parties, based on the cursory grounds upon which consolidation is sought, the Court finds
the parties request should be DENIED at this time.
This Order shall be filed in Case Nos. CIV-13-676-D, CIV-13-777-HE, and CIV-13-881-W.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 20th day of May, 2014.

2