Beck et al v. Oklahoma Gas & Electric Company

Filing 49

ORDER granting 44 defendant's Motion to Compel Production of Documents (as more fully set out). Signed by Honorable Vicki Miles-LaGrange on 6/27/2016. (ks)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
JOHN BECK,
DANNY JACKSON,
LARRY MUCK,
JAMES HARMON, and
JIM BEAVERS,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiffs,
vs.
OKLAHOMA GAS AND ELECTRIC
COMPANY,
Defendant.

Case No. CIV-14-770-M

ORDER
Before the Court is defendant’s Motion to Compel Production of Documents, filed May 20,
2016. On June 10, 2016, plaintiffs filed their response, and on June 17, 2016, defendant filed its
reply. Based upon the parties’ submissions, the Court makes its determination.
Plaintiffs are former employees of defendant who worked as area service linemen. Plaintiffs
allege that defendant violated the Fair Labor Standards Act by failing to pay plaintiffs overtime
compensation for time they spent on-call. Specifically, plaintiffs allege that they were required to
work 7:00 am - 3:30 pm every Monday through Friday and were paid straight time but then were
required to be on call 24 hours, 7 days a week for 365 days after their regular work time. Plaintiffs
further allege that when they were on-call, they were engaged to be waiting and, thus, should be
compensated for the time they spent on-call.
On February 13, 2015, defendant served its First Set of Requests for Production of
Documents to plaintiffs Beck, Muck, Jackson, and Harmon, and served identical requests on plaintiff
Beavers on April 3, 2015. Each set of requests for production contained the following request:

Please produce all bank statements and credit card statements for the
time period between July 2011 and December 2013 [for plaintiffs
Jackson and Beck], July 2011 and July 2014 [for plaintiff Muck],
October 2011 and July 2014 [for plaintiff Harmon], and March 2012
and November 2014 [for plaintiff Beavers].
Plaintiffs responded to the request as follows: “Objection. The request is irrelevant and not
reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.”
Defendant now moves this Court to compel plaintiffs to produce their bank statements and
credit and/or debit card statements for the dates relevant to this litigation. Defendant asserts that
plaintiffs have put their private lives at issue by claiming that defendant significantly restricted their
activities during time they spent on-call outside of their normal working hours. Defendant further
asserts that whether plaintiffs’ personal activities were indeed restricted such that they are entitled
to compensation requires an analysis of plaintiffs’ day-to-day activities during the relevant time.
Defendant contends the purpose of the above request for production was to see when and where
plaintiffs made purchases, which could either corroborate or contradict plaintiffs’ contention that
they lacked the freedom to engage in normal activities, such as dining out or shopping. Finally,
defendant asserts that plaintiffs’ bank and credit card records are not protected by any claim of
privilege under federal law and that plaintiffs’ bank and credit card records are covered by the
Stipulated Protective Order in this case, which governs the use and dissemination of documents
deemed “confidential” in this litigation.
Plaintiffs contend that defendant’s motion to compel seeks information that is not
discoverable because it contains highly sensitive personal financial information, much of which
relates to individuals, plaintiffs’ spouses, who are not parties to this case. Plaintiffs further contend
that the request for production is overly broad, not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of

2

admissible evidence, and entirely too speculative. Plaintiffs assert that these records will not
distinguish who was activating bank or credit transactions and will not reflect the time of day at
which the transaction occurred and that defendant’s request ignores the ability to make purchases
online from a laptop. Additionally, plaintiffs contend that the intrusiveness of the request
completely outweighs any probative value that this information might have to the claims in the
lawsuit.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1) provides:
Unless otherwise limited by court order, the scope of discovery is as
follows: Parties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged
matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or defense and
proportional to the needs of the case, considering the importance of
the issues at stake in the action, the amount in controversy, the
parties’ relative access to relevant information, the parties’ resources,
the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues, and whether
the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely
benefit. Information within this scope of discovery need not be
admissible in evidence to be discoverable.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1).
Having carefully reviewed the parties’ submissions, the Court finds that plaintiffs’ bank
statements and credit and debit card statements are relevant and are likely to contain evidence
regarding whether plaintiffs were engaged to be waiting during the time they were on-call – a crucial
issue in this case. Specifically, the Court finds that plaintiffs’ bank statements and credit and debit
card statements are likely to contain information regarding plaintiffs’ personal activities while they
were on-call.1 The Court further finds that defendant’s request for production is proportional to the
needs of this case. Additionally, to allay plaintiffs’ privacy concerns, the Court finds that prior to

1

The Court further finds that through deposition testimony, or other discovery device, it is
likely that it can be determined whether it was a plaintiff or his spouse who made the transaction.
3

producing the statements to defendant, plaintiffs shall redact all information other than the date,
time, and location of such transactions, and, further, these bank statements and credit and debit card
statements are covered by the Stipulated Protective Order that has already been entered in this case.
Accordingly, the Court GRANTS defendant’s Motion to Compel Production of Documents
[docket no. 44] and ORDERS plaintiffs to produce redacted copies of their bank statements and
credit and debit card statements for the specific time periods referenced in the requests for
production. Plaintiffs shall produce said copies within twenty (20) days of the date of this Order.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 27th day of June, 2016.

4