Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Motions
Judges
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Motions
Judges

PATRICK BRIAN OWEN, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF TULSA, et al., Defendants.

OPINION AND ORDER

F. McCARTHY, Magistrate Judge

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.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

OWEN v. CITY OF TULSA
(Apr 1, 2009)