In re Estate of Jackson
Not available (2008)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When a trial court recognizes the necessity of limiting access to a deposition to protect the integrity of the discovery process, it must grant a protective order to fully exclude potentially influencing non-deponents, rather than merely limiting the number of such persons who may be present.
Facts:
- A legal dispute involved an entity, referred to as the real party in interest, which was governed by a board of members.
- During pretrial discovery, the petitioner sought to take the depositions of multiple members of this board.
- A controversy arose regarding whether board members who were not being deposed could be present during the depositions of their fellow board members.
- The petitioner expressed concern that the presence of other board members would improperly influence testimony and disrupt the orderly discovery process.
Procedural Posture:
- In the District Court of Oklahoma County, the petitioner filed a motion for a protective order.
- The motion sought to exclude non-testifying board members of the real party in interest from attending the depositions of other board members and from reading deposition transcripts before being deposed themselves.
- The trial judge, Hon. Vicki L. Robertson, denied the motion for a full protective order.
- On February 25, 2008, the trial judge issued a modified order that limited to three the number of board members who could be present at a fellow member's deposition.
- The petitioner filed an application for a writ of prohibition in the Oklahoma Supreme Court, asking it to assume original jurisdiction and stop the trial judge from enforcing her order.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a trial court's order that limits, but does not entirely exclude, non-deponent board members from attending each other's depositions constitute an impermissible and unwarranted intrusion on the pretrial discovery process that warrants reversal?
Opinions:
Majority - Edmondson, J.
Yes. A trial court's order that only limits, rather than fully excludes, non-deponent board members from each other's depositions is an impermissible and unwarranted intrusion upon the discovery process. The court reasoned that because the trial judge had already recognized the need to limit access to the depositions, the proper remedy was not a partial limitation but a full protective order under 12 O.S.Supp.2004 § 3226 (C)(1)(e). By acknowledging a risk to the discovery process, the trial court was obligated to provide a complete, rather than a partial, safeguard. The court therefore commanded the trial judge to issue a protective order excluding non-testifying board members from being present at other members' depositions and from reading the transcripts of those depositions before giving their own testimony.
Dissenting - Winchester, C.J.
The Chief Justice dissented without a written opinion.
Analysis:
This order clarifies the scope of a trial court's discretion in issuing protective orders for depositions in Oklahoma. It establishes that once a court identifies a threat to the integrity of discovery, such as potential witness collusion among members of a single organization, it cannot employ half-measures. The decision strongly favors full sequestration of witnesses in a deposition setting to protect the orderly process, setting a precedent that will guide trial courts to grant complete exclusion rather than numerical limitations in similar future discovery disputes. This strengthens the tool of protective orders for parties concerned about witness coaching or the tailoring of testimony.
Unlock the full brief for In re Estate of Jackson