Blackburn v. Oklahoma City VA Health Center

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
TYEASHIA M. BLACKBURN, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) Case No. CIV-22-983-G
)
UNITED STATES, )
)
Defendant. )
ORDER
Now before the Court are Plaintiff Tyeashia M. Blackburn’s Motion for Protective
Order (Doc. No. 65) and a Motion to Compel (Doc. No. 101) filed by Defendant United
States. Both Motions are fully briefed and at issue. See Doc. Nos. 78, 80, 103, 109.
I. Background
Plaintiff, appearing pro se, alleges that she received negligent medical treatment at
the Oklahoma City VA Medical Center on or about November 15, 2020. See Second Am.
Compl. (Doc. No. 31). Plaintiff herein seeks relief against the United States pursuant to
the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1346 et al. See id. at 1.
The Court’s Amended Scheduling Order (Doc. No. 36) prescribed that the parties’
deadline to complete discovery in this matter was September 2, 2025. See id. at 2. On or
about June 2, 2025, Defendant served written discovery upon Plaintiff: 11 interrogatories;
19 requests for production; and 25 requests for admission. See Def.’s Mot. to Compel at
1; id. Ex. 1, Def.’s Disc. Reqs. (Doc. No. 101-1). Plaintiff has not provided responses to
Defendant as to any of the discovery requests. See Def.’s Mot. to Compel at 1-2.
Case 5:22-cv-00983-G Document 129 Filed 11/20/25 Page 1 of 6

2
II. Relevant Standards
A. Applicable Discovery Rules
Rule 26(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure prescribes:
Unless otherwise limited by court order, . . . [p]arties may obtain discovery
regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or
defense and proportional to the needs of the case, considering the importance
of the issues at stake in the action, the amount in controversy, the parties’
relative access to relevant information, the parties’ resources, the importance
of the discovery in resolving the issues, and whether the burden or expense
of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit. Information within
this scope of discovery need not be admissible in evidence to be discoverable.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). “Generally, control of discovery is entrusted to the sound
discretion of the trial courts.” Murphy v. Deloitte & Touche Grp. Ins. Plan, 619 F.3d 1151,
1164 (10th Cir. 2010) (internal quotation marks omitted).
Rules 33, 34, and 36 authorize specific discovery methods: written interrogatories,
requests for production of documents (“RFPs”), and requests for admissions (“RFAs”).
• Rule 33 permits a party to serve written interrogatories upon any other party
“relat[ing] to any matter that may be inquired into under Rule 26(b).” Fed. R. Civ.
P. 33(a)(2). “Each interrogatory must, to the extent it is not objected to, be answered
separately and fully in writing under oath.” Id. R. 33(b)(3).
• Rule 34 prescribes that a party may serve on any other party a request to produce,
subject to the scope of Rule 26(b), “any designated documents” “in the responding
party’s possession, custody, or control.” Id. R. 34(a)(1). The responding party must
then either produce the documents or “state with specificity the grounds for
objecting to the request, including the reasons.” Id. R. 34(b)(2)(B).
Case 5:22-cv-00983-G Document 129 Filed 11/20/25 Page 2 of 6

3
• Rule 36 provides that “[a] party may serve on any other party a written request to
admit, for purposes of the pending action only, the truth of any matters within the
scope of Rule 26(b)(1) relating to . . . facts, the application of law to fact, or opinions
about either.” Id. R. 36(a)(1). “A matter is admitted unless, within 30 days after
being served, the party to whom the request is directed serves on the requesting
party a written answer or objection addressed to the matter and signed by the party
or its attorney.” Id. R. 36(a)(3).
B. Requests for Discovery Relief
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c)(1), a party or person “from whom
discovery is sought may move for a protective order in the court where the action is
pending.” Id. R. 26(c)(1). The Court “may, for good cause,” issue an order to protect the
movant “from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense.” Id.
Under Rule 37(a), “a party may move for an order compelling . . . discovery.” Id.
R. 37(a)(1). As relevant here, a party seeking discovery may request that the Court compel
“an answer, . . . production, or inspection” if another party fails to answer an interrogatory
submitted under Rule 33 or fails to produce documents or respond that inspection will be
permitted as requested under Rule 34. Id. R. 37(a)(3)(B)(iii), (iv).
III. Discussion
A. The Parties’ Meet-and-Confer Requirement
Discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is designed to proceed at the
direction of the parties and without day-to-day involvement of the Court. When a party
seeks relief from the Court on a motion or objection relating to discovery, that party is
Case 5:22-cv-00983-G Document 129 Filed 11/20/25 Page 3 of 6

4
obligated to first “confer[] in good faith” with the opposing party in “a sincere attempt to
resolve differences.” LCvR 37.1 (W.D. Okla.); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(1).
Defendant represents that Plaintiff did not confer or attempt to confer with
Defendant prior to filing her Motion for Protective Order. See Def.’s Resp. (Doc. No. 78)
at 2 n.2. Plaintiff does not deny Defendant’s contention but argues that Defendant’s
counsel has behaved improperly in other contexts. See Pl.’s Reply (Doc. No. 80) at 1.
Plaintiff’s contentions as to unrelated alleged conduct of Defendant’s counsel do
not excuse Plaintiff’s failure to meet and confer as required by the Federal and Local Rules.
Nor may Plaintiff avoid this requirement by filing a “Notice” stating that Plaintiff will no
longer “participate in informal correspondence and will communicate solely through
proper court filings and formal service channels.” Pl.’s Notice (Doc. No. 95) at 2; cf. Yang
v. Archuleta, 525 F.3d 925, 927 n.1 (10th Cir. 2008) (“Although [the Court] liberally
construe[s] pro se filings, we do not assume the role of advocate. Pro se status does not
excuse the obligation of any litigant to comply with the fundamental requirements of the
Federal Rules of Civil . . . Procedure.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).
Plaintiff’s Motion for Protective Order is therefore subject to denial based upon
Plaintiff’s failure to confer with Defendant’s counsel in “a sincere attempt to resolve
differences.” LCvR 37.1. In light of Plaintiff’s pro se status, however, the Court will
excuse Plaintiff’s lack of compliance and consider Plaintiff’s Motion on its merits.
B. Defendant’s Discovery Requests
Plaintiff asks that she be entirely excused from responding to Defendant’s discovery
requests because the requests were untimely served and “abusive” in nature. Pl.’s Mot.
Case 5:22-cv-00983-G Document 129 Filed 11/20/25 Page 4 of 6

5
Protective Order at 1-6. Defendant disputes Plaintiff’s contentions and requests that
Plaintiff be compelled to answer the interrogatories and RFPs. See Def.’s Mot. to Compel
at 1-6.
First, the Court rejects Plaintiff’s proposition that the timing of Defendant’s
discovery requests rendered them harassing or “retaliatory.” Defendant served the
requests well before the discovery cutoff established by the Court’s Amended Scheduling
Order. Plaintiff’s speculative accusations do not establish any untoward motive or
violation of the Federal or Local Rules on the part of Defendant or Defendant’s counsel.
Second, Plaintiff fails to show that entry of a protective order is needed due to any
unduly burdensome or oppressive discovery requests. Plaintiff broadly complains that
Defendant’s inquiries regarding her alleged injuries, “causation, and credibility” are
improper and “retaliatory” because “the Government [has not] offer[ed] any medical denial
or defense of its own” and has not “provide[d] an expert-supported defense.” Pl.’s Reply
at 3; Pl.’s Mot. Protective Order at 6. Plaintiff also requests that the Court terminate or
limit Defendant’s ability to engage in discovery because Defendant allegedly has
“admi[tted] . . . fault.” Pl.’s Mot. Protective Order at 6.
Plaintiff here misunderstands the nature of party discovery. By commencing this
civil lawsuit, Plaintiff has put her factual allegations at issue and has assented to being
served with relevant and proportional discovery regarding those allegations and related
matters. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1); see also Oppenheimer Fund, Inc. v. Sanders, 437
U.S. 340, 351 (1978) (explaining that “discovery is not limited to issues raised by the
pleadings” or “to the merits of a case”). Such discovery is contemplated regardless of
Case 5:22-cv-00983-G Document 129 Filed 11/20/25 Page 5 of 6

6
Plaintiff’s belief in the merits of her legal claims. And Defendant is entitled to have
Plaintiff respond to such discovery, with no need for any additional showing or offer of
proof made to Plaintiff. See id. R. 26(b)(1), 33(a), 34(a), 36(a).
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s Motion for Protective Order (Doc. No. 65) is
DENIED.
Defendant’s Motion to Compel (Doc. No. 101) is GRANTED. Plaintiff shall serve
the requested discovery responses upon Defendant within twenty-one (21) days of the date
of this Order.
No expenses shall be awarded.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 20th day of November, 2025.
Case 5:22-cv-00983-G Document 129 Filed 11/20/25 Page 6 of 6