PAYCOM PAYROLL v. BOODOOSINGH, 502 P.3d 737

Paycom sued former employee Brian Boodoosingh in December 2017 for breaching confidentiality, non-disparagement, non-disclosure, and non-solicitation provisions.
Paycom noticed Boodoosingh (a New York resident) for an in-person deposition in Oklahoma City; notice filed Feb 11, 2020 for a March 4, 2020 deposition.
On March 3, 2020 Boodoosingh moved for a protective order under 12 O.S. § 3226(C), citing lack of prior scheduling consultation, his upcoming wedding/honeymoon (unavailable until April 27), and requesting travel expense allocation or remote deposition.
The trial court denied the protective order (July 16, 2020), ordered an in-person deposition before Aug 31, 2020, and granted Paycom "all reasonable fees and costs incurred in having to respond" (amount to be determined). The deposition occurred Aug 10, 2020.
Paycom sought $7,290 in fees (Aug 18, 2020); the trial court awarded $7,290 (Oct 14, 2020) and denied Boodoosingh’s motion to reconsider (Oct 23, 2020). Boodoosingh appealed the fee award (interlocutory appeal under 12 O.S. § 993(A)(5)).

Issue	Paycom's Argument	Boodoosingh's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court properly awarded $7,290 in attorney fees after denying the protective order under 12 O.S. § 3226(C) and § 3237(A)(4)	Fees are authorized because the protective-order motion was denied and Paycom incurred reasonable expenses responding	Motion was substantially justified / circumstances (wedding, COVID timing, lack of conferral by plaintiff) made awarding expenses unjust; counsel tried to offer remote deposition	Reversed. Court found both counsel lacked professional courtesy; given the circumstances an award was unjust under § 3237(A)(4); fee award was an abuse of discretion
Whether the trial court's October 23, 2020 denial of the motion to reconsider was appealable	Paycom implicitly relied on interlocutory procedures for sanctions; the controlling appealable order is the Oct. 14 money judgment	Argued the denial of reconsideration could be reviewed under § 993(A)(5)	Court declined to review the Oct. 23 order because the July 16 order (basis for reconsideration) did not direct payment of money pendente lite; only the Oct. 14 order (money judgment) was appealable

Craft v. Chopra, 907 P.2d 1109 (Okla. Civ. App. 1995) (order directing payment pendente lite is interlocutory and appealable)
TAL Techs., Inc. v. L.D. Rhodes Oil Co., 4 P.3d 1256 (Okla. 2000) (sanctions reviewed for abuse of discretion)
Kohler v. Chambers, 435 P.3d 109 (Okla. 2019) (statutory construction reviewed de novo)
Crest Infiniti II, LP v. Swinton, 174 P.3d 996 (Okla. 2007) (federal discovery rule analogies are instructive when construing Oklahoma Discovery Code)
Barnett v. Simmons, 278 P.3d 8 (Okla. Civ. App. 2012) (sanctions must be fair and related to the discovery dispute)
Andrew v. Depani-Sparkes, 396 P.3d 210 (Okla. 2017) (treatment of motions to reconsider as post-judgment motions in certain timeframes)
Bd. of Regents v. Nat'l Collegiate Athletic Ass'n, 561 P.2d 499 (Okla. 1977) (review of abuse of discretion requires examination of facts and law)