Miller v. University of Oklahoma Board of Regents

Filing 54

ORDER granting in part and denying in part 29 Defendant's Motion to Compel as more fully set out. Signed by Honorable David L. Russell on 7/29/16. (jw)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
KIMBERLY R. MILLER,
Plaintiff,
v.
STATE OF OKLAHOMA ex rel.
THE BOARD OF REGENTS OF
THE UNIVERSITY OF OKLAHOMA,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CIV-15-482-R

ORDER
Defendant has filed a Motion to Compel (Doc. No. 29) to which Plaintiff objects. Having
considered the parties’ submissions, the Court finds as follows.
Defendant issued Interrogatories and Requests for Production to Plaintiff and Plaintiff
objected to the scope of certain of the requests as overly broad. Specifically Defendant seeks a
medical authorization and responses related to medical treatment sought by Plaintiff both before and
during her tenure at the University, and authorization for the release of information by Plaintiff’s
prior employers. The University also seeks discovery related to prior claims of discrimination
Plaintiff might have filed and documents related to any lawsuits, criminal actions, or administrative
proceedings.
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). In light of this standard, the Court turns to Defendant’s specific requests.

As noted by Defendant Plaintiff’s requested relief includes damages for emotional distress,
placing her emotional health and well-being at issue. As s result, Defendant is entitled to information
regarding her mental health prior to her employment with the University. Furthermore, the Court
cannot state with certainty that only specialized mental health providers offer treatment and
medications for persons suffering from mental disorders or mental conditions, rendering the records
from any of Plaintiff’s health care providers discoverable. Although there is the potential that
irrelevant records may be produced pursuant to a broad authorization, the goal of discovery is to
uncover relevant evidence, which in this case could come from the treatment notes of any of
Plaintiff’s medical providers at any type of appointment. The Court concurs, however, with
Plaintiff’s contention that the medical records request should have covered a more limited time
frame. Accordingly, the Court hereby orders Plaintiff, within ten days of entry of this Order, to
execute the necessary authorizations for the release of medical records from the period beginning
on January 1, 2007 through the present. Plaintiff should also within that time period identify and
provide documents in her possession concerning all medical treatment, counseling, or other health
care services provided to her since January 1, 2007.
With regard to Plaintiff’s prior employment, the Court agrees with Defendant that certain
of the information sought is relevant. Again, however, the Court agrees with Plaintiff that the scope
of discovery, with regard to both duration and information sought, it too broad. Plaintiff is hereby
ordered to provide to Defendant, within ten days of entry of this Order, the requested authorization
for release of employment records, limited to records from January 1, 2007 to the present, and
limited to a record of all positions held, performance evaluations and reports, any information
contained in her personnel file regarding Plaintiff’s workplace interactions, and any records

2

pertaining to claims made by Plaintiff related to her health, disability or accidents in which she was
involved, including correspondence, reports, claim forms and questionnaires. Plaintiff should also
provide to the University documents in her possession related to any claims, charges or complaints
levied by Plaintiff against prior or subsequent employers for this same time period.
With regard to Defendant’s request for claims in which Plaintiff has been involved as a party,
Plaintiff cites to a 2013 deposition from Plaintiff’s lawsuit against her prior employer as providing
Defendant with the information it seeks. She contends any documents from her personal injury case,
her bankruptcy and her divorce are wholly irrelevant but that the relevant information is contained
in the deposition. The Court hereby orders Plaintiff to identify all lawsuits, criminal actions,
administrative proceedings and other legal proceedings wherein Plaintiff was a party and to describe
the nature of the proceedings. Plaintiff shall not be required at this juncture to provide documents
responsive to this request. Rather, Defendant may seek the production in less broad terms following
receipt of information from Plaintiff regarding the particular claims.
Finally, the parties are ordered to endeavor to craft an appropriate protective order with
regard to the settlement agreement between Plaintiff and the Oklahoma State Bureau of Investigation
so that it can be produced without delay in accordance with Plaintiff’s prior agreement.
For the reasons set forth herein, the Defendant’s Motion to Compel is granted in part and
denied in part.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 29th day of July, 2016.

3