Herndon v. City of Clinton
Herndon v. City of Clinton
2024 WL 1242492 (W.D. Okla. 2024)
March 22, 2024
Friot, Stephen P., United States District Judge
Summary
The defendant filed a motion for protective order without including the required certification under LCvR37.1, which resulted in the court striking the motion. The court also reminded the plaintiff's counsel to craft reasonable discovery requests and stated that it is not obligated to pare down overbroad requests.
Imogene HERNDON, as Special Administrator of the Estate of Butch Thomas Herndon, deceased, Plaintiff,
v.
CITY OF CLINTON, OKLAHOMA, et al., Defendants
v.
CITY OF CLINTON, OKLAHOMA, et al., Defendants
Case No. CIV-23-86-F
United States District Court, W.D. Oklahoma
Signed March 22, 2024
Counsel
Chris J. Hammons, Jason Michael Hicks, Laird Hammons Laird PLLC, Oklahoma City, OK, Jonathan R. Ortwein, Mansell & Engel, Oklahoma City, OK, for Plaintiff.Jessica L. Dark, Robert S. Lafferrandre, Sheila G. Jessee, Pierce Couch Hendrickson Baysinger & Green, Oklahoma City, OK, for Defendants Clinton Oklahoma, City of, Paul Rinkel, Shane Harrelson, Lacey Hulett, Carter Scott.
Jessica L. Dark, Robert S. Lafferrandre, Sheila G. Jessee, Pierce Couch Hendrickson Baysinger & Green, Oklahoma City, OK, Stephen L. Geries, Collins Zorn Jones & Wagner PC, Oklahoma City, OK, for Defendant Peter Porcher.
A. Wayne Billings, Bryan N.B. King, Fellers Snider Blankenship Bailey & Tippens, Oklahoma City, OK, for Defendants Sinor Emergency Medical Service Inc., Raven Lankford, Michelle Addington, Jessica Huber, Richard Taylor.
Friot, Stephen P., United States District Judge
ORDER
*1 Defendant Peter Porcher filed a motion for protective order on March 21, 2024, doc. no. 88. The motion lacks a certification required by LCvR37.1 that “counsel personally have met and conferred in good faith and, after a sincere attempt to resolve differences, have been unable to reach an accord.”
This is no mere formality. Counsel on both sides of this case are experienced practitioners in this court and with cases like this one. The court has no doubt that experienced counsel, dealing with each other (and the court) professionally and in good faith, will be able, with the benefit of a face-to-face conference, to substantially narrow or eliminate the issues presented in the pending motion to compel. For example (but without deciding anything), the matters addressed in the motion would seem to present fertile ground for negotiation on such matters as narrowing the discovery sought, for the purpose of eliminating production of obviously irrelevant and sensitive materials commonly found in a personnel file, such as pay records, insurance documents, information about dependents and similar matters.[1]
The motion is accordingly STRICKEN for failure to comply with the requirements of LCvR37.1.
Footnotes
Counsel for plaintiff would do well to note that the court has no obligation to pare down an overbroad discovery request. Crafting requests that recognize common-sense limitations on discovery is the job of counsel, not the court. A discovery motion that seeks to enforce an obviously overbroad discovery request can be denied out of hand, with no re-writing of the request by the court. See, e.g., Punt v. Kelly Servs., 862 F.3d 1040, 1047 (10th Cir. 2017) and Regan-Touhy v. Walgreen Co., 526 F.3d 641, 648-50 and n.6 (10th Cir. 2008).