Foster v. Commissioners of the Land Office

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
CHRISTOPHER FOSTER, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) Case No. CIV-24-140-G
)
STATE OF OKLAHOMA ex rel. )
COMMISSIONERS OF THE )
LAND OFFICE, )
)
Defendant. )
ORDER
Now before the Court is Plaintiff Christopher Foster’s Motion (Doc. No. 56),
seeking to quash or modify four subpoenas duces tecum sought to be served upon nonparty
entities (the “Subpoenas”) by Defendant State of Oklahoma ex rel. Commissioners of the
Land Office, as well as a protective order. Defendant has filed a Response (Doc. No. 60).
I. Relevant Standards
The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure require that a party notify the other parties in
a case before serving a subpoena for documents on a nonparty. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(a)(4).
This Court’s Local Civil Rules specify that, within seven days of such notice, “any party
may file a motion to preclude service of the subpoena, in whole or in part, on any ground
for which a protective order may be sought.” LCvR 45.1 (W.D. Okla.); see also Fed. R.
Civ. P. 45(d)(3).
The grounds on which a challenging party may object are limited, however.
Generally, “only the person to whom [a] subpoena is directed has standing to object to its
issuance.” Pub. Serv. Co. of Okla. v. A Plus, Inc., No. CIV-10-651-D, 2011 WL 691204,
Case 5:24-cv-00140-G Document 83 Filed 01/23/26 Page 1 of 4

2
at *2 (W.D. Okla. Feb. 16, 2011). An exception applies where the challenging party
“asserts a personal right or privilege with respect to the materials subpoenaed.” Id.; see
also Ramirez v. Kay Cnty. Just. Facilities Auth., No. CIV-21-971-JD, 2025 WL 3451857,
*6 (W.D. Okla. Dec. 1, 2025) (internal quotation marks omitted).
To establish standing on that basis, the challenging party “must specifically identify
the personal right or privilege on which he relies.” Pub. Serv. Co. of Okla., 2011 WL
691204, at *3. “[A] conclusory assertion that the subject documents are private,
confidential, and proprietary is insufficient.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted).
“Courts have found that parties have a personal right or privilege with regard to their
employment files, banking documents, and health records.” Ramirez, 2025 WL 3451857,
at *6 (citing Pub. Serv. Co. of Okla., 2011 WL 691204, at *3).
II. Discussion
On July 28, 2025, Defendant filed a Notice (Doc. No. 54) of its intent to serve the
Subpoenas upon: HPS Properties, LLC; Foster Company, LLC; Padberg Farms, LLC; and
Padberg Royalty LLC. See id. at 1; id. Ex. 1 (Doc. No. 54-1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(a)(4);
LCvR 45.1(a). All four entities are located in Okarche, Oklahoma. See Def.’s Notice at 1.
In Plaintiff’s Motion, filed August 4, 2025, Plaintiff states that his wife and he own
two of the entities and that Plaintiff manages the others as an independent contractor. See
Pl.’s Mot. at 1. Plaintiff asserts that the Subpoenas “seek essentially every bit of financial
information from each entity.” Id. Plaintiff argues that the Subpoenas should be quashed
or modified because only certain of the information and documents sought are relevant to
Case 5:24-cv-00140-G Document 83 Filed 01/23/26 Page 2 of 4

3
the claims in this litigation. Plaintiff also argues that the Subpoenas’ definition provisions
cause them to be overbroad and unduly burdensome. See id. at 2-4.
Defendant objects that Plaintiff does not have standing to seek to quash or modify
the Subpoenas due to any overbreadth, undue burden, or lack of relevance. See Def.’s
Resp. at 5-7.1 More specifically, Defendant argues that Plaintiff has failed to show that he
has standing based upon any “personal right or privilege” in the information sought by the
Subpoenas. See id.
Plaintiff has not addressed his standing to challenge the Subpoenas, either in his
Motion or by disputing Defendant’s Response. The information provided is insufficient to
establish that production of the subpoenaed documents would result in the disclosure of
information Plaintiff holds to be private or privileged. There being no showing or argument
presented that Plaintiff claims a “personal right or privilege” in the sought-after
information, Plaintiff lacks standing to seek to quash or modify the Subpoenas. Pub. Serv.
Co. of Okla., 2011 WL 691204, at *3.
And, while relevance, overbreadth, and undue burden may be valid concerns for the
nonparty entities to whom the Subpoenas are directed, these are not objections that may be
raised by Plaintiff. See Monroe v. FinWise Bank, No. 21-cv-00042, 2021 WL 3729305, at
*1 (D. Utah July 1, 2021) (“[W]here a party has standing to quash a subpoena based on
privilege or a personal right, he or she lacks standing to object on the basis of undue burden
as well as overly broad and relevance grounds.” (internal quotation marks omitted)).
1 There is no indication in the record that any subpoenaed nonparty has served an objection
upon Defendant pursuant to Rule 45(d)(2)(B) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Case 5:24-cv-00140-G Document 83 Filed 01/23/26 Page 3 of 4

4
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion (Doc. No. 56) is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 23rd day of January, 2026.
Case 5:24-cv-00140-G Document 83 Filed 01/23/26 Page 4 of 4