USA v. Runnels

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
v.
TIMMIE LEE RUNNELS, JR.,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
) 	Case No. CR-21-00176-PRW
)
)
)
)
ORDER
Before the Court is Defendant Runnels’ Petition for Disclosure of Confidential
Records (Dkt. 42), which was filed ex parte and under seal. Defendant seeks judicial review
and subsequent disclosure of certain records maintain by an Oklahoma governmental
agency. Defendant relies on Okla. Stat. tit. 10A, §§ 1-6-102(C), (E) and proffers that
Defendant has a “compelling reason” to obtain the records, namely: “the Defendant’s
presumption of innocence throughout the criminal prosecution” and “the need for the
Defendant and the Court to address sentencing issues . . . should the Defendant be
convicted of the alleged offenses.”
Okla. Stat. tit. 10, § 1-6-102 provides that certain records kept by state agencies are
confidential. Subsection 1-6-102(C) provides that such records may be released or
disclosed only pursuant to an order of the court, and subsection 1-6-102(E) describes a
procedure for the disclosure of confidential records. Of relevance here is paragraph (E)(1):
A petition or motion shall be filed with the court describing with specificity the
confidential records being sought and setting forth in detail the compelling reason
6:21-cr-00176-RAW Document 43 Filed in ED/OK on 10/15/21 Page 1 of 3

2
why the inspection, release, disclosure, correction, or expungement of confidential
records should be ordered by the court. A petition or motion that does not contain
the required specificity or detail may be subject to dismissal by the court[.]
Paragraph (E)(1) does not explicitly contemplate that a party seeking section 1-6-102
disclosure may file its petition ex parte. When considering motions or petitions under this
state statute, federal courts have consistently permitted or required participation by both
parties.1 Since an “ex parte proceeding” is an extreme measure reserved for “extraordinary
cases,”2 this Court will not entertain a petition for disclosure under section 1-6-102 filed
ex parte and under seal where the statutory procedure does not contemplate ex parte filings
and where no good reason has been given for the need to treat this as an extraordinary case
that ought to proceed ex parte.3
Additionally, Defendant’s petition fails to sufficiently articulate why the records
sought should be disclosed. Paragraph (E)(1) states that a petition or motion seeking
1 See, e.g., Shelter Mut. Ins. Co. v. Swigart, 2014 WL 4678392, at *1 (W.D. Okla. Sept. 18, 2014)
(noting where plaintiff sought records under section 1-6-102, defendants “filed a response
objecting to the motion”); Moore v. Am. Honda Motor Co., 2013 WL 12073443, at *1 (W.D. Okla.
June 4, 2013) (noting that defendants “provided notice of [the section 1-6-102] motion to
Plaintiff’s counsel” and recorded that plaintiff “does not object”); Minton v. Okla. ex rel. Okla.
Dept. of Human Servs., 2009 WL 3334923, at *1 (noting that defendant DHS filed brief in
opposition to plaintiffs’ section 1-6-102 motion); Evans v. City of Tulsa, 2009 WL 3254907 (N.D.
Okla. Oct. 7, 2009) (reflecting two briefs in opposition filed against plaintiff’s motion seeking
section 1-6-102 disclosure); Legates v. Okla. ex rel. Rogers Cty. Dept. of Human Services, 2009
WL 3104677, at *1 (N.D. Okla. Sept. 18, 2009) (“Plaintiff seeks an order directing the Oklahoma
Department of Human Services (DHS) to deliver to the Court any and all agency records” and
“Defendants have filed a response.”).
2 United States v. Begay, 2018 WL 401265, at *6 (D.N.M. Jan. 12, 2018).
3 This conclusion does not diminish the potentially sensitive nature of the information Defendant
seeks, as the statute and prior decisions indicate the Court may conduct an in camera review of the
records or an ex parte order to produce the records after a hearing. However, simply because
potential sensitivity may warrant care with how records might ultimately be produced does not
mean Defendant may request the production of such ex parte and under seal.
6:21-cr-00176-RAW Document 43 Filed in ED/OK on 10/15/21 Page 2 of 3

3
confidential records must “set[] forth in detail the compelling reason why the inspection,
release, disclosure, [etc.] of confidential records should be ordered by the court.” Although
there is no standard rubric for what qualifies as a compelling reason, the sought records
must be “relevant” to the case and generally must demonstrate clear relationship to a party,
victim, claim, or trial strategy. Defendant’s two statements of compelling reasons—his
“presumption of innocence” and the need for the Court to consider the sought information
at sentencing “should the Defendant be convicted”—do not set forth in detail either
relevance or a compelling reason for disclosure of the confidential records Defendant seeks
about himself, much less the confidential records Defendant seeks about other individuals.
Accordingly, for improperly filing the petition ex parte and under seal and for
providing insufficient reasons for the sought confidential records, the Court DISMISSES
WITHOUT PREJUDICE Defendant’s Petition for Disclosure of Confidential Records
(Dkt. 42).4
IT IS SO ORDERED this 15th day of October 2021.
4 Should Defendant file a new petition that is not sealed and which offers more detailed reasons
for obtaining the sought records, the Court would encourage the parties to also address in their
briefing whether Okla. Stat. tit. 10A, § 1-6-102 is even the correct procedural vehicle to obtain the
sought records in a federal criminal case. See Swigart, 2014 WL 4678392, at *2 (Ҥ 1-6-102(E)
does not invoke substantive rights; it outlines the procedure for discovery of confidential
documents.”); Evans, 2009 WL 3254907, at *2 (noting that in a civil case, federal procedure, not
state procedure, governed the production of the sought records, since section 1-6-102 “does not
give the documents at issue any privileged status and [thus] Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 26 governs their
discoverability”).
6:21-cr-00176-RAW Document 43 Filed in ED/OK on 10/15/21 Page 3 of 3