Owen v. Tulsa, City of et al, No. 4:2008cv00153 - Document 77 (N.D. Okla. 2009)
Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER by Magistrate Judge Frank H McCarthy ; denying 70 Motion to Quash; granting in part and denying in part 71 Motion for Protective Order (jcm, Dpty Clk)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA This Protective Order in no way diminishes counsel s obligation to comply with LCvR 79.1 and PATRICK BRIAN OWEN, G.O. 08-11. Plaintiff, vs. Case No. 08-CV-153-GKF-FHM CITY OF TULSA, et al., Defendants. OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiff s Motion to Quash Subpoena Duces Tecum [Dkt. 70] or in the Alternative, Motion for Protective Order [Dkt. 71] is before the undersigned United States Magistrate Judge. A response brief has been received, no reply was filed. Plaintiff s Motion to Quash Subpoena Duces Tecum [Dkt. 70] is DENIED. The undersigned finds that the financial records sought are subject to discovery under 26(b)(1) because they are relevant to Plaintiff s claim of lost income and they are not protected by a privilege. Plaintiff s Motion for Protective Order [Dkt. 71] is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. The Court finds that the issuance of a protective order is appropriate, given the confidential and possibly proprietary nature of the financial information sought by the subpoena. However, the scope of the protective order sought by Plaintiff is too restrictive. The Court hereby ORDERS that use of the materials and information obtained through the subpoenas duces tecum issued to Wylie J. Neal, First Bank of Owasso, and Bank of America is limited solely to use in this case. SO ORDERED this 1st day of April, 2009.
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
