CompSource Oklahoma et al v. BNY Mellon, N.A. et al, No. 6:2008cv00469 - Document 146 (E.D. Okla. 2010)
Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER by Mag. Judge Kimberly E. West DENYING (Docket No. 136 ) Plaintiff's Motion to Compel (neh, Deputy Clerk)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR EASTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA COMPSOURCE OKLAHOMA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, JUN 1 6 2010 WILLIAM B. GUTHRIE Clerk. U.S. District Court By----rOl':::e'::':pu';hty~c1l'l1;::;ert"k - - - Plaintiff, Case No. CIV-08-469-KEW v. BNY MELLON, N.A. and THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON CORPORATION, Defendants. OPINION AND ORDER This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff's Motion to Compel filed April 15, 2010 (Docket Entry #136). Plaintiff seeks to obtain certain documents from Defendant which were filed under seal in a case designated as Regence Blueshield, Mellon Bank, N.A., 09-CV-618 (W.D. Wash.). et al. In v. BNY particular, Plaintiff seeks to obtain a copy of a sealed Motion for Sanctions filed on April 8, 2010 in that case. Bye-mail dated April 9, 2010, Plaintiff's counsel requested the document from Defendant's counsel and Regence's counsel. Regence's counsel agreed to produce the document, subject to Defendant's counsel "weigh [ing] in" on the matter. [the Defendant's counsel responded, requesting the "basis for request] and why you believe you need it." Plaintiff responded but Defendant's counsel declined to produce the document, stating "[w]e do not believe any of the articulated support production of the filings." reasons you have Plaintiff has not served a formal discovery request upon either Defendant or the non-party plaintiff in the Regence case for the sealed sanctions motion. Clearly, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure contemplate such a request prior to seeking an order compelling the production of discovery. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37 (a) (3) (B) (iv) ("A party seeking discovery may move for an order compelling production. This motion may be made if: (iv) a party fails to respond that inspection will be permitted - or fails to permit inspection - was requested under Rule 34.") This Court will require Plaintiff to serve a formal request for the documents sought upon Defendant and Defendant will be required to object or otherwise respond to the request in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. of formality is two-fold - (1) The requirement for this degree this Court perceives Defendant is improperly shifting the burden to Plaintiff to justify its request when it is Defendant's burden to articulate a specific, objection; and (2) relevant part of Plaintiff's basis for requesting the "documents" from the Regence case is the attachments to the motion in that case have ostensibly been produced in this case subject to a confidential i ty agreement and protective order. Plaintiff's request, however, extends to the actual motion filed in that case in addition to the confidential attachments. While Plaintiff represents that the sole reason for sealing the motion in Regence was the presence of and reference to confidential documents, this 2 Court has nothing before it which, in fact, provides this as the basis for the sealing order of the Regence court. Consequently, this Court is reluctant to potentially thwart the sealing order of a sister court without having the basis for the ruling. After the objection has documents have been formally requested and an been articulated, additional motion to compel. Plaintiff is free to file an This Court recognizes that this issue may resolve itself, based upon the representations of the parties that the sealing order may be lifted in the Regence case or redacted copies of the filings may be inserted into the record in that case. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion to Compel filed April 15, 2010 (Docket Entry #136) is hereby DENIED at this time subject to re-filing under the terms stated herein. IT IS SO ORDERED this jle~ day of June, 2010. JUDGE 3
]]>
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.
