Banuelos v. Acadia Healthcare Company, Inc. et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
EASTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
DEBORAH GRAY, as Next Friend of 	)
REBECAH BANUELOS, 	)
)
Plaintiffs, 	)
)
v. 	) 	Case No. CIV-19-338-JFH
)
ACADIA HEALTHCARE COMPANY, INC., 	)
ROLLING HILLS HOSPITAL, LLC, 	)
)
Defendants. 	)
O R D E R
This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion for
Order Permitting Depositions of DHS Employees (Docket Entry #180).
Plaintiff 	seeks 	authority 	to 	conduct 	the 	depositions 	of 	certain
employees 	of 	the 	Oklahoma 	Department 	of 	Human 	Services 	(“DHS”)
identified 	as 	Jennifer 	Flint, 	Amy 	Bateman, 	and 	Brian 	Maloy.
Plaintiff 	contends 	that 	the 	depositions 	of 	these 	individuals 	is
necessary because of their involvement in the DHS investigation of
one 	of 	the 	incidents 	giving 	rise 	to 	this 	case. 	DHS 	has 	declined
Plaintiff’s 	request 	to 	accept 	service 	of 	subpoenas 	for 	the
depositions of these individuals without an express order of this
Court permitting the depositions, citing Okla. Stat. tit. 10A § 1-
6-102(C) which provides:
C. Except as authorized by Section 620.6 of Title 10 of
the 	Oklahoma 	Statutes 	and 	this 	chapter 	and 	except 	as
otherwise 	specifically 	provided 	by 	state 	and 	federal
laws 	pertaining 	to 	education 	records, 	medical 	records,
drug 	or 	alcohol 	treatment 	records, 	law 	enforcement, 	or
social service records, the records listed in subsection
6:19-cv-00338-GLJ Document 227 Filed in ED/OK on 12/14/21 Page 1 of 3

2
A 	of 	this 	section 	shall 	be 	confidential 	and 	shall 	be
inspected, 	released, 	disclosed, 	corrected 	or 	expunged
only 	pursuant 	to 	an 	order 	of 	the 	court. 	A 	subpoena 	or
subpoena 	duces 	tecum 	purporting 	to 	compel 	testimony 	or
disclosure 	of 	such 	information 	or 	record 	shall 	be
invalid.
Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 10A, § 1-6-102(C) (West)(emphasis
added by this Court).
Plaintiff 	has 	demonstrated 	that 	the 	depositions 	of 	the
referenced 	employees 	of 	DHS 	is 	required 	in 	order 	to 	clarify 	and
expand 	upon 	the 	investigation 	represented 	in 	DHS 	records 	already
produced 	to 	Plaintiff’s 	counsel. 	Federal 	common 	law 	governs 	a
claim of privilege or confidentiality in a case involving federal
law. 	Fed. R. Evid. 501; Aramburu v. Boeing Co., 885 F.Supp. 1434,
1438 	n.2 	(D. 	Kans. 	1995) 	citing 	Coughlin 	v. 	Lee, 	946 	F.2d 	1152,
1159 	(5th 	Cir. 	1991); 	Everitt 	v. 	Brezzel, 	750 	F.Supp. 	1063, 	1066
(D. 	Colo. 	1990). 	Consequently, 	while 	this 	Court 	does 	not 	ignore
the spirit behind the state protections, it is not bound by it in
this action based primarily in federal law.
IT 	IS 	THEREFORE 	ORDERED 	that 	Plaintiff’s 	Motion 	for 	Order
Permitting 	Depositions 	of 	DHS 	Employees 	(Docket 	Entry 	#180) 	is
hereby 	GRANTED. 	Plaintiff 	is 	authorized 	to 	take 	the 	depositions
of 	the 	DHS 	employees 	designated 	in 	the 	Motion. 	Plaintiff 	shall
make every effort to schedule the depositions at mutually agreeable
dates 	and 	times 	with 	the 	deponents. 	However, 	in 	the 	end, 	the
deponents 	shall 	abide 	by 	the 	subpoenas 	served 	upon 	them 	by
Plaintiff and appear for the depositions
6:19-cv-00338-GLJ Document 227 Filed in ED/OK on 12/14/21 Page 2 of 3

3
IT IS SO ORDERED this 14 th day of December, 2021.
_____________________________
KIMBERLY E. WEST
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
6:19-cv-00338-GLJ Document 227 Filed in ED/OK on 12/14/21 Page 3 of 3