VICKI MILES-LaGRANGE, District Judge.
Before the Court is Plaintiff EEOC's Motion to Quash and for Protective Order Regarding Defendant's Subpoenas to Pre-MRMC and Post-MRMC Employers of Janice Withers and for Attorney Fee and Brief in Support ("Motion to Quash and Protective Order"), filed February 25, 2014. On March 17, 2014, defendant responded, and on March 24, 2014, plaintiff replied. Based on the parties' submissions, the Court makes its determination.
On February 18, 2014, defendant served plaintiff with notice of eight subpoenas deuces tecum being served on current and former employers of Janice Withers ("Withers"). Withers was employed with six of these employers
Notice of Subpoena Duces Tecum (Multiple), attached as Exhibit 1 to Plaintiff's Motion to Quash and Protective Order.
Plaintiff now moves the Court to quash the eight subpoenas or, alternatively, seeks a protective order modifying the subpoenas to prevent further abuses of the discovery process. Plaintiff asserts that the subpoenas are overbroad on their face and defendant cannot meet its burden to show that the subpoenas are reasonably calculated to lead to relevant information. Plaintiff's Motion to Quash and Protective Order at 1. Plaintiff also requests this Court issue a protective order barring defendant from taking a deposition of a scheduler at OU Medical Center.
Plaintiff contends that defendant's subpoenas of Withers' employment records are impermissibly overbroad and seek irrelevant information. Defendant asserts that the employment records requested are relevant to show whether Withers (1) had a history of unexcused absences with other employers and (2) mitigated damages. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1) provides, in pertinent part:
Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1).
Having reviewed the parties' submissions, the Court finds that defendant has failed to show how Withers' current and past employment records are relevant to the issues in this case, other than to show Withers mitigated damages. The Court specifically finds that the subpoenas requesting Withers' employment records prior to her working for defendant are irrelevant to the issue of whether defendant terminated Withers because of her disability, and the subpoenas to Withers' post-defendant employers should be limited only to dates of employment, wages and benefits received, and the reason for separation of employment. Accordingly, the Court finds defendant's six subpoenas for Withers' employment records from Community Health (S.W. 89th, OKC), Community Health (N. Santa Fe, OKC), HIS Acquisition No. 127, Inc., Bellevue Northwest Nursing, Windsor Hills Nursing Center, and Moore Nursing Home should be quashed, and the subpoenas to St. Anthony Hospital and OU Medical Center should be limited to the production of documents indicating dates of employment, wages and benefits received, and the reason for separation of employment.
Defendant seeks to depose a scheduler at OU Medical Center, Withers' current employer, as to Withers' schedule in 2013. Plaintiff asserts that "a deposition of Withers' current employer by MRMC is excessive, amounts to undue harassment and oppression which could jeopardize her existing employment relationship, and should not be allowed." Motion to Quash and Protective Order at 18. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c) provides, in pertinent part:
Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c). The party seeking to quash a deposition notice or seeking a protective order bears the burden to show good cause for it. Sentry Ins. v. Shivers, 164 F.R.D. 255, 256 (D. Kan. 1996).
Having carefully reviewed the parties' submissions, the Court finds that plaintiff has shown good cause as to why defendant should not depose the scheduler at OU Medical Center. The Court finds that defendant can seek this information by different means such as a written discovery request and/or through deposing Withers. Further, the Court finds that deposing Withers' current employer, OU Medical Center, could cause annoyance and embarrassment. Accordingly, the Court finds that defendant must obtain Withers' scheduling information with her current employer, OU Medical Center, through less intrusive means than a deposition of the scheduler.
Plaintiff requests the Court to award attorney fees against defendant for the time and labor necessary to file this motion. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a)(5)(A):
Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(5)(A). The Court finds that attorney fees against defendant are not warranted, since the Court is only partially granting plaintiff's motion.
Accordingly, for the reasons set forth above, the Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART Plaintiff EEOC's Motion to Quash and For Protective Order Regarding Defendant's Subpoenas to Pre-MRMC and Post-MRMC Employers of Janice Withers and for Attorney Fee and Brief in Support [docket no. 20] as follows:
3. Defendant is prohibited from deposing Ms. Withers' current employer OU Medical Center; and
