ORDER

CHARLES B. GOODWIN, District Judge.

Now before the Court is Plaintiff's Motion to Compel (Doc. No. 226), seeking an order compelling Defendant to provide new responses to Plaintiff's requests for production of documents. Defendant has responded (Doc. No. 230). The Motion is hereby GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART, as outlined below.

The Court first notes deficiencies in both parties' briefing. First, Defendant states that he objects to Plaintiff's Motion on grounds including that the requested documents "will not aid [Plaintiff] in trial." Def.'s Resp. at 2. Defendant cites no authority supporting such an objection, and it is not well founded. See Lachney v. Target Corp., No. CIV-06-1389-HE, 2008 WL 11420069, at *1 (W.D. Okla. Aug. 20, 2008) (noting that discovery is not limited to the issues raised by the pleadings and "is not restricted to evidence that would be admissible at trial").

Next, to demonstrate Defendant's allegedly "evasive or incomplete" discovery responses, Plaintiff simply attaches all of his initial requests and all of Defendant's initial responses. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(4); see Doc. Nos. 226-1, 226-2.1 Plaintiff provides focused discussion regarding only one of his requests. Relatedly, Defendant addresses only two of the numerous requests submitted by Plaintiff. The end result is that even with liberal construction of Plaintiff's Motion, see Doc. No. 230-2, Plaintiff fails to present a meaningful argument that the Court should compel responses to any discovery requests other than the two that are highlighted by Defendant: Requests for Production Nos. 1 and 3. The Court therefore examines these two Requests, bearing in mind the late stage of these proceedings and the relevant standards of the Federal and Local Civil Rules.

• Request for Production No. 1

In Request for Production ("RFP") No. 1, Plaintiff asks for the address, phone number, and e-mail address for multiple "past and present employees of ODOC," including "all the individuals you have on your religious board that deals with the Islamic issues," as well as for multiple other individuals. Doc. No. 226-1, at 1.

Defendant objects (1) that the information pertaining to ODOC employees is "confidential pursuant to State statute" and (2) that Defendant does not possess contact information for any of the other individuals "that has not already been provided to Plaintiff." Doc. No. 230-2, at 3; see also Def.'s Resp. at 3 (citing Okla. Stat. tit. 51, § 24A.7).

The Court agrees that Defendant, in his official capacity as the Interim Director of ODOC, is required by state statute to keep contact information of current and former ODOC employees confidential. See Okla. Stat. tit. 51, § 24A.7(D). Therefore, to the extent Plaintiff is seeking contact information for current and former "employees" of ODOC (i.e., Jones, Morton, McCoy, May, Blackmon, Redpath, members of the "religious board"), the Motion to Compel is denied.

The other individuals listed do not appear to be employed by ODOC, and so the confidentiality of their contact information is not addressed by the state statute. Defendant represents that as for all the other individuals listed, any contact information possessed by Defendant has already been provided to Plaintiff. Doc. No. 230-2, at 3. The Court directs that, to the extent that Defendant has any contact information within its possession, custody, or control as to Enchassi, Caldwell, Johns, Dawson, Danley, and Gibson, Defendant must submit that information to Plaintiff within seven days of this Order. If Defendant has no such information, he must notify Plaintiff of that fact within seven days of this Order but need take no further action.

• Request for Production No. 3

In RFP No. 3, Plaintiff asks Defendant:

Doc. No. 226-1, at 2. Defendant's response reflects that he provided copies of OP-140117, OP-140119, and OP-140121 to Plaintiff. Id. Because such copies would allow Plaintiff to locate the presence or absence of the requested language, Plaintiff's Motion is denied as to RFP No. 3.

IT IS SO ORDERED.