United States of America v. Southeastern Oklahoma State University et al
ORDER denying 67 Defendant Regional University System of Oklahoma's Motion to Compel Discovery Responses. Signed by Honorable Robin J. Cauthron on 8/10/16. (lg)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA and
DR. RACHEL TUDOR,
STATE UNIVERSITY and
THE REGIONAL UNIVERSITY
SYSTEM OF OKLAHOMA,
Case No. CIV-15-324-C
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Dissatisfied with certain discovery responses provided by Plaintiff United States,
Defendant Regional University System of Oklahoma has filed a Motion to Compel. The
Motion seeks an Order compelling supplemental responses to numerous Interrogatories and
Requests for Production. The request for additional responses can be grouped into three
categories: (1) that the Plaintiff’s claims of privilege should fail; (2) that Plaintiff should be
required to respond to requests for medical records; and (3) that a response to request for
non-privileged discovery should be provided. Plaintiff filed a response, arguing that its
claims of privilege were properly asserted; that the medical records sought were irrelevant;
and that a proper response had been provided to the other discovery matters. After review
of Defendant’s Motion, Plaintiff’s Response, and the Reply brief, the Court finds that
Defendant’s Motion should be denied.
Considering first the challenge to the claims of privilege raised by Plaintiff, the Court
notes that Defendant has failed to offer any valid argument or evidence to overcome the
assertion of privilege. Initially the Court notes that Defendant’s challenge to the privilege
log provided by Plaintiff is based on an improper document. Defendant attached as an
exhibit and made its argument based on the first privilege log provided by Plaintiff.
However, some time before Defendant filed its Motion, Plaintiff provided an amended
privilege log. The Court has reviewed the amended privilege log attached to Plaintiff’s
Response and finds that it is adequate to meet the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 26.
Defendant’s arguments related to Plaintiff’s claims of work product, attorney-client
privilege, and deliberative process privilege are overly broad and conclusory. Consequently,
those arguments fail to offer any basis on which the Court should set aside Plaintiff’s
assertion of those privileges.
Defendant next challenges Plaintiff’s refusal to provide responses to Interrogatory No.
10 and Request for Production No. 13. In those discovery requests, Defendant sought
discovery of all facts and records supporting Plaintiff’s claim that Intervenor “is a male-tofemale transgender.” Defendant has failed to demonstrate any relevance for those discovery
First, Defendant’s Answer to Plaintiff’s Complaint in this matter contains sufficient
admissions regarding Intervenor’s transition status to overcome Defendant’s current
suggestion that it is unaware of Intervenor’s transition from male to female. Further,
Defendant has at no time raised or suggested as a defense to Plaintiff’s claims in this matter
that Intervenor was not, in fact, undergoing a transition in her gender. Thus, there is no basis
to find that the documentation sought by Defendant has some tendency to either prove or
disprove a fact in dispute. Nor is it likely to lead to information relevant to a matter in
dispute. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1).
As to Defendant’s complaints regarding specific Interrogatory responses, concerning
Interrogatory No. 2 the Court finds little merit in Defendant’s position. As Plaintiff notes,
Defendant’s only argument is that Plaintiff provided too much information. Certainly
Defendant is capable of discarding any information which it feels is non-responsive to its
interrogatory. With regard to Interrogatory No. 3, Defendant again complains about the
quality of Plaintiff’s response. However, after reviewing the response, the Court finds no
support for Defendant’s complaint. In Interrogatory No. 6, Plaintiff responds that it has
provided all responsive information and Defendant offers no evidence to the contrary. For
Interrogatory Nos. 8, 11, and 12, the parties are in dispute regarding Plaintiff’s obligation to
set forth full details in support of its position. However, as noted by Plaintiff in its response,
interrogatories requesting “all details” are routinely considered to be overly burdensome and
indeed the additional information Defendant demands exceeds the scope of permissible
discovery in this case. See Williams v. Sprint/United Mgmt. Co., 235 F.R.D. 494, 502-03
(D. Kan. 2006). Interrogatory Nos. 16 and 17 and Request for Production No. 15 request that
Plaintiff produce or explain certain policies, practices, and programs that Defendant should
institute and carry out, relying upon paragraphs of Plaintiff-Intervenor’s prayer for relief in
her Complaint, wherein she indicates that she would seek that type of relief from the Court.
As Plaintiff notes in its Response, the information sought by Defendant in these
interrogatories is simply unavailable at this time. Until such time as Plaintiff has obtained
and evaluated Defendant’s current policies, it would be impossible to explain what changes
should be made. Request for Production No. 5 seeks public information that is equally
available to Defendant as to Plaintiff and therefore is not proper discovery. See Snowden By
& Through Victor v. Connaught Labs., Inc., 137 F.R.D. 325, 333 (D.Kan.1991). In Request
for Production Nos. 7, 23, 24, and 25, Plaintiff responds it offered no objection to these
requests and has produced all documents in its possession. Requests for Production Nos. 28
and 29 are overly broad as they request more documentation than necessary for the claims
in this matter. Further, Plaintiff notes that it has produced all responsive documents in its
possession, custody, and control. Request for Production No. 31 requests copies of all
documents showing the amount of attorney’s fees, court costs, costs of litigation, and other
fees occurred by Plaintiff in this litigation. As Plaintiff notes, it is not permitted to recover
attorney’s fees, and to the extent it may seek reimbursement for litigation costs, those matters
are not yet ripe for consideration or discovery. Therefore, Defendant’s Motion will be
For the reasons set forth more fully herein, Defendant Regional University System of
Oklahoma’s Motion to Compel Discovery Responses (Dkt. No. 67) is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 10th day of August, 2016.
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?