This article originally appeared as a Gavel to Gavel guest column in the Journal Record on May 13, 2026.
By Phillips Murrrah attorney Natalie M. McMahan
Natalie McMahan
In March, the Oklahoma Supreme Court weighed in on an increasingly common dispute in trial courts: what limits, if any, are there regarding the scope of litigation discovery? See CHICK-FIL-A v. OGDEN. The seemingly expanding definition of relevance and discovery has plagued corporate defendants who are often required to search the depths of their records and communications to preserve and even produce materials with little or no probative value in the case at hand.
The Oklahoma Supreme Court addressed the key limitation of “proportionality” in a case between Chick-fil-A and the parents of a toddler tragically struck and killed by a motor vehicle in the drive-through lane. The trial court granted a motion to compel in favor of the parents, ordering Chick-fil-A to produce documents “related to incidents or injuries involving pedestrians in the parking lot of any Chick-fil-A franchise or restaurant with a drive-through in the United States” for a period of five years. As stated, the production would include a number of accidents dissimilar to the facts in this case, including slip/trip and falls, for example.
Chick-fil-A sought the review of the Oklahoma Supreme Court, requesting a writ of prohibition to preclude the trial court from enforcing its discovery order. The Oklahoma Supreme Court largely agreed with Chick-fil-A. Reviewing the history of the Oklahoma Discovery Code, the Oklahoma Supreme Court noted these statutes were amended in 2017 to more closely follow the amendments to the equivalent Federal Rules of Civil Procedure adopted in 2015, where the advisory drafters emphasized “proportionality” as a core element in determining the scope of discovery. These changes narrowed the scope from “relevant to the subject matter” to “relevant to any party’s claim or defense.” There’s no doubt a slip and fall is wildly different from how this young boy was killed. Furthermore, the slip and falls are certainly not relevant to his parents’ claims or Chick-fil-A’s defenses.
Emphasizing the requirement of relevance should be firmly applied, the Oklahoma Supreme Court stated when a request is overly broad or not relevant on its face, the party seeking discovery carries the burden to show the relevancy of the request. Accordingly, the Oklahoma Supreme Court found an abuse of discretion where the trial court did not require any showing of relevance by the party seeking discovery.
About the author:
Natalie M. McMahan is a litigation attorney at the law firm of Phillips Murrah who represents individuals and both privately-held and public companies in a wide range of civil litigation matters
CONTACT: nmmcmahan@phillipsmurrah.com | 405.552.2437
Visit Phillips Murrah on social media:
