The Oklahoma Supreme Court delivered a significant ruling in 2025 that establishes clear boundaries for discovering financial information from expert witnesses in civil litigation. In Jolley v. McClain, Oklahoma Supreme Court 2025, the court addressed whether opposing parties can use subpoenas duces tecum to obtain broad financial records from expert witnesses, ultimately holding that such discovery methods exceed the scope permitted under Oklahoma’s Discovery Code.
Background and Parties
The case arose from a condemnation action initiated by the Oklahoma Department of Transportation (ODOT) against Christopher Charles Jolley. ODOT sought to acquire a strip of land owned by Jolley for public use, but when negotiations failed, the agency filed a condemnation proceeding in Garvin County District Court. Following standard Oklahoma condemnation procedures under 69 O.S. § 1203, three disinterested freeholders were appointed as commissioners to appraise the property value.
The commissioners valued Jolley’s property at $15,310.00, a figure that Jolley contested by demanding a jury trial. ODOT named Robert Grace, a professional appraiser, as its expert witness to testify regarding the property’s valuation.
The Discovery Dispute
In November 2023, Jolley issued a subpoena duces tecum to Grace seeking extensive financial records spanning three years. The subpoena demanded all financial documentation, including IRS Forms 1099, related to Grace’s work as an expert witness in Oklahoma condemnation actions. More broadly, Jolley sought all 2021 and 2022 IRS 1099 forms from any governmental entity, lawyers, or law firms issued to any entity owned by Grace, regardless of the nature of the work performed.
Jolley’s strategy centered on exposing potential financial bias by demonstrating Grace’s economic relationship with government entities. The theory underlying this discovery request was that a Business Expert Witness who regularly receives compensation from government agencies might be financially motivated to provide favorable testimony for those clients.
ODOT’s Response and Trial Court Ruling
ODOT moved to quash or modify the subpoena, arguing that Jolley’s discovery request exceeded the scope permitted under Oklahoma’s Discovery Code. The agency contended that the Oklahoma legislature had established specific procedures for discovering expert witness financial information, and that subpoenas duces tecum were not among the authorized methods.
After conducting a hearing in January 2024, the trial court granted ODOT’s motion to quash the subpoena. Jolley subsequently filed a petition for writ of prohibition, seeking to compel the trial court to enforce his subpoena.
The Supreme Court’s Analysis
The Oklahoma Supreme Court’s analysis focused on the structure and intent of the Oklahoma Discovery Code, specifically examining 12 O.S. § 3226. The court emphasized that the Discovery Code contains comprehensive provisions governing discovery methods, including specific rules for obtaining expert witness financial information.
Chief Justice Kuehn, writing for the court, rejected Jolley’s argument that bias is always relevant to witness credibility and therefore justifies broad financial discovery. The court determined that while expert witnesses typically receive compensation for their opinions, this general principle does not authorize unlimited discovery into their financial affairs.
The court distinguished between the authorized discovery methods outlined in the Discovery Code—depositions, written interrogatories, requests for admissions, and requests for documents—and the use of subpoenas duces tecum. The court clarified that subpoenas are properly used to compel testimony at depositions, permit inspection of tangible items, or allow inspection of premises, but not to circumvent the specific expert witness discovery provisions.
Impact and Implications
The Oklahoma Supreme Court’s ruling establishes important precedent limiting the scope of financial discovery available against expert witnesses. The decision protects expert witnesses from overly broad fishing expeditions while preserving legitimate avenues for discovering relevant bias information through the prescribed Discovery Code procedures.
This ruling provides clarity for attorneys representing both parties who retain expert witnesses and those seeking to challenge expert testimony. The decision reinforces that discovery procedures must comply with legislative intent rather than general principles of relevance, ensuring that expert witness discovery remains within defined statutory boundaries while maintaining the integrity of the adversarial process.