Jarrell et al v. Haaji et al

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
LYNN JARRELL, LINDA JARRELL,
DUSTIN CHANCE, and DUSTIN
CHANCE, as father and next friend of
T.C., a minor,
Plaintiffs,
v.
AHMED IBRAHIM HAAJI,
U.S. ROADWAYS ENTERPRISES, INC.,
and CSAA GENERAL INSURANCE
COMPANY,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
) 	Case No. CIV-23-37-PRW
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ORDER
Before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Second Motion to Compel Supplemental Discovery
Responses from Defendants (Dkt. 66). This matter has been fully briefed and is ripe for
decision. For the reasons that follow, the Motion (Dkt. 66) is GRANTED IN PART and
DENIED IN PART.
Background
This case arises from the December 9, 2020 collision of a tractor-trailer driven by
Defendant Haaji and owned by Defendant U.S. Roadways Enterprises, Inc., and a truck
driven by Plaintiff Lynn Jarrell, which contained Plaintiffs Linda Jarrell, Dustin Chance,
and T.C. as passengers. Plaintiffs allege that Haaji made a negligent U-turn onto westbound
US-412, blocking the roadway on which Plaintiffs were traveling and resulting in an
Case 5:23-cv-00037-PRW Document 114 Filed 03/04/26 Page 1 of 5

2
unavoidable accident. Plaintiffs further allege that Haaji first attempted to flee the scene of
the accident and failed to render aid to Plaintiffs.
Plaintiffs filed this action in state court, and Defendants removed it to this Court on
January 11, 2023. On May 8, 2025, Plaintiffs were granted leave to file an amended
complaint. 	The 	Amended 	Complaint 	asserts 	claims 	against 	Defendant 	Haaji 	for
(1) negligence and (2) punitive damages, and against Defendant Roadways for (1) vicarious
liability via the doctrine of respondeat superior, (2) negligent entrustment, and (3) punitive
damages. Plaintiffs Lynn and Linda Jarrell now seek to compel Roadways and Haaji to
supplement their responses to various interrogatories and requests for production.
Legal Standard
The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure authorize parties to obtain discovery of “any
nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or defense and proportional to the
needs to the case.”1 “Information within this scope . . . need not be admissible in evidence
to be discoverable.”2 Rule 37(a) provides that a party may move to compel discovery so
long as that party certifies “that the movant has in good faith conferred or attempted to
confer with the person or party failing to make disclosures or discovery in an effort to
obtain it without court action.”3
1 Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1).
2 Id.
3 Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(1); see also LCvR37.1.
Case 5:23-cv-00037-PRW Document 114 Filed 03/04/26 Page 2 of 5

3
Analysis
Plaintiffs seek two broad tranches of information in this Motion, (1) information
related to Haaji’s cell phone usage and (2) Haaji’s driver’s logs. Defendants object to the
requests for production on the basis that such discovery requests are overbroad, not
relevant, and are excessive and not proportional to the needs of the case.
I. 	Request for Production No. 1.
Plaintiffs first request that Defendants “[p]roduce all records in [their] possession,
custody or control evidencing any and all calls attempted, originated or received by US
Roadways, or its representatives (excluding its attorneys of records in this matter), to/from
Haaji beginning 09/28/2020, 12:00 A.M. (CST) to 12/31/2020, 11:59 P.M. (CST).”4
While the accident occurred on December 9, 2020, phone records after the date of
the accident are still relevant, as Oklahoma law allows juries to consider “[h]ow long the
[subject] conduct lasted and whether it is to continue” when assessing punitive damages.5
The period from September 28, 2020, which represents the date Haaji received official
communication from Roadways that cell phone usage while driving dramatically increases
the likelihood of accidents, through December 31, 2020, represents a modest period of time
that is plainly relevant to Plaintiffs’ claim for punitive damages related to their accusations
that Haaji was distracted by his cell phone when the accident occurred. The Court finds
that 	Defendants 	should 	be 	able 	to 	produce 	such 	records 	with 	minimal 	difficulty.
4 First Set of Req. Prod. (Dkt. 67, Ex. 1), at 1.
5 Okla. Uniform Jury Instructions, §5.9(3).
Case 5:23-cv-00037-PRW Document 114 Filed 03/04/26 Page 3 of 5

4
Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ Motion as it relates to Request for Production
Number One.
II. 	Request for Production No. 2.
Plaintiffs then request “all records in [Defendants’] possession, custody or control
relating to text-messages, SMS messaging, iMessage, Snap Chat, or similar messaging
apps, between US Roadways, or its representatives (excluding its attorneys of records in
this matter), and Haaji beginning 09/28/2020, 12:00 A.M. (CST) to 12/31/2020, 11:59 P.M.
(CST).”6 For the reasons given for the Court’s granting the Motion for Request for
Production Number One, the Court GRANTS the Motion as it relates to Request for
Production Number Two.
III. 	Request for Production No. 3.
Plaintiffs next request “[Haaji’s] cellular phone usage records and bills for [his]
cellular phone at the time of the Incident for the time period beginning on September 28,
2020, and ending on December 31, 2020.”7 Such a request is relevant and proportional to
Plaintiffs’ claims for punitive damages. However, the Court would allow Defendants to
redact phone numbers and the contents of any communications that may be gleaned from
the records and bills, as only the time of cell phone usage is relevant to this case.
Accordingly, 	the 	Motion 	as 	it 	relates 	to 	Request 	for 	Production 	Number 	Five 	is
GRANTED IN PART.
6 First Set of Req. Prod. (Dkt. 67, Ex. 1), at 2.
7 Resp. to Second Set of. Req. Prod. (Dkt. 67, Ex. 2), at 1.
Case 5:23-cv-00037-PRW Document 114 Filed 03/04/26 Page 4 of 5

5
IV. 	Request for Production No. 18.
Turning finally to Request for Production Number 18, Plaintiffs seek “all [of
Haaji’s] logs, official or unofficial, for the six (6) months before the collision and for thirty
(30) days after the Incident.” This request is relevant as it relates to the previously discussed
requests, as these would allow Plaintiffs to cross-reference when Haaji used his phone
while driving. Further, the Court is unconvinced that producing such information will be
unduly burdensome on Defendants. However, the driving logs for the periods of time prior
to or after the period in the requests for phone records are not obviously relevant to the
Court. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS THE MOTION IN PART. Defendant shall turn
over all logs from the period beginning September 28, 2020, through December 31, 2020.
Conclusion
For 	the 	foregoing 	reasons, 	the 	Court 	ORDERS 	Defendants 	to 	produce 	the
information discussed above within twenty-one (21) days of entry of this Order.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 4th day of March 2026.
Case 5:23-cv-00037-PRW Document 114 Filed 03/04/26 Page 5 of 5