The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
LORENA SANCHEZ, as Special )
Administrator for the Estate of )
Bo Michael Guthrie, deceased, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) Case No. CIV-21-306-JFH-GLJ
)
MUSKOGEE COUNTY SHERIFF, )
in his official capacity; KAROLINA )
BOULET; LACY ROSSON; )
CHIEF DEPUTY MICHAEL )
MAHAN; DEPUTY )
BRIAN REYES; GARRETT BOYD; )
LISA HOPE; EMMEY CAPPS; )
AUTUMN OWENS-SQUIRREL; )
SAMANTHA WEISENFELS; and )
KELSEY HALL, )
)
Defendants. )
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART
DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO QUASH
DEPOSITION AND FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on Defendant Muskogee County Sheriff’s
[“MCS”] Motion to Quash Deposition and for Protective Order [Docket No. 137]. The
case has been referred to the undersigned Magistrate Judge for all further proceedings
pursuant to jurisdiction arising under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) [Docket No. 44], and the
undersigned Magistrate Judge now finds that the motion should be GRANTED IN PART
and DENIED IN PART:
1. Defendant MCS’s request to quash the 30(b)(6) Representative
deposition is denied to the extent that the video deposition may be taken on or before
Thursday, Nov. 21, 2023. The motion is granted to the extent certain examination
topics, as outlined below, have been stricken pursuant to, inter alia, Burke v. Glanz,
2013 WL 4521172 (N.D. Okla. Aug. 26, 2013) and LabXpress, LLC v. Laboratory
Corp. of America, 2011 WL 1099283 (W.D. Okla. March 22, 2011).
2. Defendant MCS’s request for protective order from all or some of the
examination topics, as outlined in Plaintiff’s Notice of Video Deposition [Docket
No. 136], is GRANTED as to the following examination topics: 1-3, 14-15, 22-24,
29-32, 34-37, 39-43.
3. Defendant MCS’s request for protective order from all or some of the
examination topics, as outlined in Plaintiff’s Notice of Video Deposition [Docket
No. 136], is DENIED as to the following examination topics: 4-11, 13, 16-21, 25-
28, 33, 38.
4. Defendant MCS’s request for protective order from all or some of the
examination topics, as outlined in Plaintiff’s Notice of Video Deposition [Docket
No. 136], is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART as to examination topic
12. The motion to granted as to the language in the parenthetical beginning
“including without limitation”, and denied as to the language preceding the
parenthetical. In other words, the surviving portion of the topic is as follows: “As
of January 1, 2020, standards MCS/MCJ followed for the classification,
segregation, supervision, and medical care of people in its custody.”
As mentioned above, Plaintiff is hereby granted a limited extension of the discovery
cutoff deadline, solely for the purpose of conducting the relevant Rule 30(b)(6)
Representative deposition(s), to Thursday, November 21, 2023. Additionally, the
dispositive deadline is extended to Thursday, December 5, 2023. A Fifth Amended
Scheduling Order shall follow.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 30th day of October, 2023.
_______________________________________
GERALD L. JACKSON
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE