The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
JOHN RANDOLPH IV, )
an individual, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) Case No. CIV-18-319-RAW
)
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS )
OF CARTER COUNTY, an Oklahoma )
subdivision; and )
SHERIFF CHRIS BRYANT, in his )
official and individual )
capacity, )
)
Defendants. )
O R D E R
This matter comes before the Court on Defendants’ Motion to
Quash Plaintiff’s Subpoena Duces Tecum to the OSBI (Docket Entry
#84). This Motion was referred to the undersigned by United States
District Judge Ronald White, the presiding judge in this case.
In this employment case based in 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and state
law claims, Plaintiff served a subpoena upon the Oklahoma State
Bureau of Investigation (“OSBI”) seeking (1) the “OSBI Final
Investigation Report (Prosecution Report) and attachements (sic)
investigating Carter County and City of Wilson use of force in
June 2019 on Jared Wayne Lake”; and (2) “Final Reports of any OSBI
investigation concerning any Carter County Sherriff (sic) Office
1
use of force in the past 6 years.” See Plaintiff’s Notice of
Subpoena Duces Tecum to Non-Parties, attachment, Exhibit 1 to
Defendants’ Motion to Quash (Docket Entry #84).
Defendants challenge this subpoena, contending that the case
is based in the alleged wrongful termination of Plaintiff after an
incident where Plaintiff employed force upon an inmate of the
Carter County Jail. As a result, Defendants assert that the
investigative reports Plaintiff seeks are not relevant to the
claims in this case. Moreover, any investigative reports from six
years prior to this incident are irrelevant because Defendant
Bryant only became the Sheriff of Carter County four days prior to
the incident involving Plaintiff.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(d)(3)(B) sets forth the circumstances
warranting a motion to quash in providing, in pertinent part:
(3) Quashing or Modifying a Subpoena.
(A) When Required. On timely motion, the
court for the district where compliance
is required must quash or modify a
subpoena that:
(i) fails to allow a reasonable time to
comply;
(ii) requires a person to comply beyond the
geographical limits specified in Rule
45(c);
(iii) requires disclosure of privileged or
other protected matter, if no
2
exception or waiver applies; or
(iv) subjects a person to undue burden.
(B) When Permitted. To protect a person
subject to or affected by a subpoena, the
court for the district where compliance
is required may, on motion, quash or
modify the subpoena if it requires:
(i) disclosing a trade secret or other
confidential research, development, or
commercial information; or
(ii) disclosing an unretained expert's
opinion or information that does not
describe specific occurrences in
dispute and results from the expert's
study that was not requested by a
party.
Generally, absent a claim of privilege, personal interest or
proprietary interest, a party lacks standing to quash a subpoena
served on a third party. Howard v. Segway, Inc., 2012 WL 2923230,
at *2 (N.D. Okla. July 18, 2012) citing Washington v. Thurgood
Marshall Academy, 230 F.R.D. 18 (D.D.C. 2005); Smith v. Midland
Brake, Inc., 162 F.R.D. 683, 685 (D.Kan. 1995). Plaintiff served
the subpoena upon the OSBI and it is that entity which is entitled
to challenge the subpoena, unless Defendants can show that they
have a personal right to be protected or that the documents are
subject to privilege – the burden to show which lies with
Defendants. Id. citing Washington, 230 F.R.D. at 21. Defendants’
challenge to the subpoena rests primarily upon relevancy. They
3
have not attempted to make a showing of personal interest or
privilege. Indeed, they did not reply to Plaintiff’s response to
the Motion to Quash after Plaintiff raised the issue of standing.
Accordingly, Defendants lack standing to challenge the subpoena
issued by Plaintiff upon the OSBI.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Quash
Plaintiff’s Subpoena Duces Tecum to the OSBI (Docket Entry #84) is
hereby DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 10th day of April, 2020.
_____________________________
KIMBERLY E. WEST
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
4