Oklahoma State Conference of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People et al v. Drummond et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
BLACK EMERGENCY RESPONSE )
TEAM et al., )
)
Plaintiffs, )
)
v. ) Case No. CIV-21-1022-G
)
GENTNER DRUMMOND, in his official )
capacity as Oklahoma Attorney )
General, et al., )
)
Defendants. )
ORDER
On August 11, 2025, the Court ordered that oral argument be held on Plaintiffs’
pending Motion to Compel (Doc. No. 223) on Thursday, August 21, 2025, at 1:00 p.m.
The Court herein MODIFIES that prior order as set forth below.
In Count IV of the Amended Complaint (Doc. No. 50), as currently operative: (i)
Plaintiff Oklahoma State Conference of the National Association for the Advancement of
Colored People brings a claim for violation of equal protection against the State
Defendants;1 and (ii) Plaintiffs Precious Lloyd, as next friend of S.L., and American Indian
Movement Indian Territory bring a claim for violation of equal protection against certain
of the State Defendants. See id. ¶¶ 177-189 (collectively, the “Equal Protection Claim”);
Order of June 14, 2024 (Doc. No. 172); Pls.’ Stipulation of June 30, 2025 (Doc. No. 254).
1 The State Defendants are, in their official capacities: Kevin Stitt, as the Governor of
Oklahoma; Gentner Drummond, as Oklahoma Attorney General; Ryan Walters, as
Oklahoma Superintendent of Public Instruction; the members of the Oklahoma State Board
of Education; and the Oklahoma State Regents for Higher Education.
Case 5:21-cv-01022-G Document 278 Filed 08/19/25 Page 1 of 3

2
On August 18, 2025, after the Motion to Compel was set for hearing, the State
Defendants filed two Motions for Protective Order and to Quash (Doc. Nos. 276, 277),
challenging Plaintiffs’ deposition notices and issuance of subpoenas regarding the Equal
Protection Claim. The State Defendants also filed a Renewed Motion for Judgment on
the Pleadings (Doc. No. 275), citing a newly issued Tenth Circuit decision2 and seeking
relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c) as to the Equal Protection Claim.
In both the Motion to Compel and the State Defendants’ motions, the parties dispute
the scope of proper discovery on the Equal Protection Claim and seek the Court’s relief in
connection with multiple aspects of that discovery. Plaintiffs have not yet had the
opportunity to respond to the newer discovery motions, however. Nor have Plaintiffs yet
been able to submit a response to the State Defendants’ Renewed Motion for Judgment on
the Pleadings, in which the State Defendants argue that discovery on the Equal Protection
Claim should be prohibited or limited pursuant to applicable case law.
Further briefing on these overlapping issues is warranted prior to any presentation
of oral argument by counsel. The Court therefore FINDS that such argument as to
Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel would be premature at this juncture. The hearing set for
August 21, 2025, is STRICKEN, to be reset by later order of the Court if required.
2 See Poe ex rel. Poe v. Drummond, No. 23-5110, __ F.4th __, 2025 WL 2238038 (10th
Cir. Aug. 6, 2025).
Case 5:21-cv-01022-G Document 278 Filed 08/19/25 Page 2 of 3

3
IT IS SO ORDERED this 19th day of August, 2025.
Case 5:21-cv-01022-G Document 278 Filed 08/19/25 Page 3 of 3