PAYCOM PAYROLL v. BOODOOSINGH
2021 OK CIV APP 43
| Okla. Civ. App. | 2021Background
- Paycom sued former employee Brian Boodoosingh for alleged breaches of confidentiality, non‑disparagement, non‑disclosure, and non‑solicitation tied to job transition to a competitor.
- Paycom noticed an in‑person deposition in Oklahoma City for March 4, 2020; Boodoosingh (living/working in NYC) filed a protective order on March 3 seeking postponement until after his wedding/honeymoon and offering remote deposition options.
- Counsel exchanged sharp emails; plaintiff’s counsel insisted on March deposition and demanded dates if defendant was unavailable; defense counsel waited until the day before to file the motion.
- Trial court denied the protective order, ordered the deponent to appear in Oklahoma before August 31, 2020, granted Paycom its fees for responding to the motion, and later entered a money judgment of $7,290 for attorneys’ fees.
- Boodoosingh appealed the October 14, 2020 order awarding fees (an interlocutory order directing payment pendente lite); the court of appeals reviewed statutory authority and the record of counsel conduct.
- The Court of Civil Appeals reversed the fee award, finding awarding expenses unjust under the governing statute because both sides showed lack of professional courtesy; it declined to review the July 16 order denying the protective order (non‑appealable interlocutory order).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Appealability of orders | The denial of reconsideration and fee determinations are reviewable on appeal | The July 2020 scheduling order is interlocutory and not directly appealable | Only the Oct. 14 money judgment directing payment pendente lite was appealable; the July order was non‑appealable so the reconsideration denial was not reviewed |
| Statutory basis for fee award after denial of protective order | Fees are authorized under 12 O.S. § 3226(C)(2) and § 3237(A)(4) when a protective order is denied | Award allowed only if motion was not "substantially justified" and no other circumstance makes award unjust | Statutory scheme applies but fees are improper if the motion was substantially justified or other circumstances make an award unjust |
| Whether fees were reasonable and award proper on these facts | Paycom sought $7,290 as reasonable fees incurred opposing the protective order | Defendant urged reduction/denial, citing counsel's scheduling failures, pandemic timing, and offer to appear remotely | Court held trial court abused its discretion: both counsel lacked civility and circumstances made an award unjust, so the $7,290 award was reversed |
| Whether appellate court should decide denial of reconsideration | Paycom implicitly urged review of denial | Defendant argued denial was based on non‑appealable interlocutory order | Court declined to review the October 23 denial because it rested on the non‑appealable July order |
Key Cases Cited
- Craft v. Chopra, 907 P.2d 1109 (1995) (interlocutory order directing payment pendente lite is appealable).
- Barnett v. Simmons, 278 P.3d 8 (2012) (sanction must be fair and related to discovery order).
- State ex rel. Tal v. City of Oklahoma City, 61 P.3d 234 (2002) (abuse‑of‑discretion standard described).
- Crest Infiniti II, LP v. Swinton, 174 P.3d 996 (2007) (federal discovery rules instructive in construing Oklahoma Discovery Code).
- Kohler v. Chambers, 435 P.3d 109 (2019) (statutory construction reviewed de novo).
- TAL Techs., Inc. v. L.D. Rhodes Oil Co., 4 P.3d 1256 (2000) (sanctions reviewed for abuse of discretion).
- Seabrook Med. Sys., Inc. v. Baxter Health Care Corp., 164 F.R.D. 232 (S.D. Ohio 1995) (professional courtesy in scheduling depositions urged to avoid disputes).