Background of the Dispute
Dixon v. State of Oklahoma (representing the Regional University System of the Oklahoma Board of Regents and Northeastern State University (NSU)), concerns a dispute arising from Dixon’s employment at NSU. Dixon filed her original complaint on November 15, 2019, and an amended complaint on February 4, 2020. The claims included gender and race discrimination, retaliation, and a hostile work environment, all in violation of Title VII, along with discrimination and retaliation in violation of the Rehabilitation Act. Additionally, a claim against Dr. Reif for retaliation in the use of FMLA leave was included.
The court had previously granted Dr. Reif’s Motion for Summary Judgment, thus dismissing him from the case. It also partially granted NSU’s Motion for Summary Judgment, leaving only Dixon’s hostile work environment claim under Title VII.
Arguments and Court Rulings
Subpoenas and Discovery Issues: The core issue before the court was the plaintiff’s motion to quash certain subpoenas duces tecum issued by the defendant to non-parties. The subpoenas were directed at two of Dixon’s subsequent employers to obtain her complete personnel files. These documents sought included accommodation requests, performance evaluations, leave requests, compensation details, and complaints made by or about Dixon.
Plaintiff’s Motion to Quash: Dixon objected to the subpoenas and requested a meeting to confer, which the defendant’s counsel ignored. Subsequently, the non-party institutions produced the requested documents. In response, Dixon moved to quash, challenging the subpoenas as irrelevant and exceeding the scope of appropriate discovery.
Court’s Analysis and Decision: The court found that subpoenas duces tecum issued to a third party constitute “discovery” within the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The court noted that discovery pursuant to a Rule 45 subpoena must conclude by the deadline specified in the court’s Scheduling Order. Those subpoenas were served well beyond the discovery cutoff date, making them improper attempts to obtain discovery beyond the discovery period. The court exercised its inherent authority to quash such untimely subpoenas.
The court also expressed concern over the defendant’s counsel’s approach in obtaining the requested documents, highlighting that they were aware of the dispute over the subpoenas but proceeded without notifying the subpoenaed entities. The court emphasized that discovery is controlled by the court and the parties cannot engage in discovery at their leisure.
Conclusion
The court granted the plaintiff’s Motion to Quash Subpoenas, ruling that any documents obtained via the quashed subpoenas must be segregated from other discovery materials. These documents are inadmissible as exhibits in the case without the court’s express permission. To obtain such permission, the defendant must provide justification for why the documents were not obtained during the allowed discovery period and show their relevance to any claim or defense in the case.
Schrag on Law 