Professional Documents
Culture Documents
by
Plaintiff, DEPUTY
VS. CJ-2010-2623
VS. CJ-2010-5186
Defendant.
and all of the Responses, Objections, and Replies thereto, including the
10, 2010 and the Amicus Briefs of CompSource Oklahoma filed on August 20,
The Court, being fully advised in the premises, finds that said Motions
can be decided without a hearing pursuant to District Court Rule 4(h) and can
action.
2. The Defendants OPM and OSF have access to the public records that
are the subject of the Open Records Act Request by OPUBCO and the Tulsa
World.
4. The Motion for Summary Judgment filed by the Defendants OPM and
2
Paragraph 31. The balancing test for the public body to
right to notice and hearing for the employee under the Open
test and a rational basis exists for the agency heads to exercise
Pellow is sustained to the extent that the Open Records Act excludes from
with this Order and denied in part to the extent that it is inconsistent with this
Order.
are denied.
consistent with this Order and denied in part to the extent that it is inconsistent
3
with this Order.
Department of Public Safety in accord with the rulings made in this Order.
9. The Court reserves the ruling on costs and attorney's fees, if any, upon
and OSF's Motion for Summary Judgment is sustained and the other Motions
for Summary Judgment are sustained in part, denied in part or denied in full as
stated hereinabove.
employee; and
staff.
shall follow the procedure set out in Attorney General Opinion, 2009 OK AG 33,
for the employing agency to make the determination as to the disclosure of the
State agencies shall have 60 days from the date of this Order to report their
to Defendants OPM and OSF. After 60 days, Defendants OPM and OSF shall
4
disclose to Intervening Defendants OPUBCO and the Tulsa World the dates of
Certificate of Mailing
This is to certify that on the 21st day of September, 2010, a copy of this
Order was mailed by the Court Clerk to the following:
J. Schaad Titus
15 E. Fifth Street, Ste. 3700
Tulsa, OK 74103