I. A Discovery Ruling, Not a Merits Verdict
On March 10, 2026, the Oklahoma Supreme Court issued Chick-fil-A, Inc. v. Honorable Richard Ogden and Marcelino Lozada, 2026 OK 13. The proceeding arose from a wrongful-death action after a two-year-old child was struck and killed in a drive-through lane at a restaurant in Yukon. The parents alleged that the property was designed so customers entering on foot had to cross drive-through traffic. During discovery, they sought information about pedestrian incidents at other company properties. The district court ordered a broad response, and the company asked the Supreme Court to prohibit enforcement of that order. The Supreme Court granted the writ as to the disputed paragraph but expressly allowed the trial court to reevaluate the discovery request under the standards stated in the opinion. That procedural posture matters. The decision did not determine whether the property was unsafe, whether anyone was negligent, whether another incident was sufficiently similar, or whether any discovered evidence would be admissible at trial. It decided how relevance and proportionality should guide a discovery order. The opinion also carried the court's notice that it had not been released for publication and remained subject to revision or withdrawal. Responsible use therefore begins with two limits: verify the opinion's current status, and do not convert a discovery ruling into a verdict on liability.
II. What the Parents Asked to See
The dispute centered on the scope of requests for prior incidents. According to the opinion, one request initially sought ten years of records concerning adverse events, injuries, or deaths occurring at any company property across the country. The parents later narrowed their position to pedestrian incidents in parking lots. The district court's order required production for a five-year period of pedestrian incidents in parking lots at stores with drive-through lanes. Another request sought lawsuits involving motor-vehicle injuries or deaths, but the district court's order extended that request to any pedestrian injury or death. The company argued that the resulting commands were not connected closely enough to the alleged danger in the Yukon case. The parents responded that other incidents could show notice, foreseeability, and the existence of a dangerous condition. Both propositions can be legally meaningful. Prior incidents can illuminate what a defendant knew and whether a risk was foreseeable. But an incident involving a different physical layout, traffic pattern, mechanism, or alleged defect may say little about the claim being litigated. The question is not whether prior incidents are categorically discoverable or categorically forbidden. It is whether the words of the request identify a class of information that bears on an actual claim or defense and whether the scope is proportionate to what that information can prove.
III. Relevance Must Attach to a Claim or Defense
Oklahoma's discovery statute, 12 O.S. § 3226, permits discovery of nonprivileged matter relevant to a party's claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case. The Supreme Court emphasized that the rule no longer authorizes discovery merely because information relates generally to the subject matter of the lawsuit. That change is more than a drafting preference. “Subject matter” can expand outward indefinitely: pedestrian safety, parking lots, vehicle movement, restaurant operations, corporate policies, injuries, or all properties. Claim-and-defense relevance asks a more disciplined question. What fact must a party prove or disprove, and how could the requested information make that fact more or less likely? In a premises case, the pleaded theory may concern a particular crossing pattern, a drive-through configuration, visibility, warnings, traffic controls, or notice of a recurring hazard. The request should track the theory that is actually in the case. A corporate file does not become relevant simply because it contains the word pedestrian, and a useful incident should not be excluded merely because it occurred elsewhere. The connection depends on the alleged condition and the purpose for which the evidence is sought. Lawyers should be able to draw a visible line from each requested category to an element, defense, or contested factual issue. If the line cannot be explained, the request is likely asking the court and the responding party to discover its purpose after production begins.
IV. Similar Incidents Can Still Matter
The decision does not erase other-incident discovery. The court recognized that suitably focused information about incidents of the same type or involving the same product may be relevant. In a serious injury case, comparable events can bear on notice, foreseeability, the existence of a condition, the practical operation of a design, the need for a warning, or the feasibility of a corrective measure, depending on the claims and applicable evidentiary rules. The strength of that connection varies with similarity. A prior event involving the same traffic conflict at a materially similar layout may carry a different inference than a fall on an icy sidewalk, an assault in a parking lot, or a collision between two vehicles. All may be pedestrian-related in ordinary speech, yet they do not test the same alleged danger. Focus therefore serves both sides. It protects a responding party from searching broad databases for events with no meaningful connection, and it helps the requesting party obtain a set of records whose relevance can be explained without exaggeration. The most useful request may specify the mechanism, physical feature, location type, time period, and information fields needed for comparison. It may also permit staged production: first an incident index containing defined data, then complete files for events that meet stated criteria. Narrowing is not surrender. It is how a request converts a general suspicion that “something similar may have happened” into a testable evidence plan.
V. Substantial Similarity Is a Factual Design Problem
Courts often use the idea of substantial similarity when evaluating other incidents, but similarity is not a single switch. The features that matter depend on the inference the evidence is offered to support. If the theory concerns notice of a recurring pedestrian-vehicle conflict, relevant comparison points may include lane geometry, pedestrian paths, sight lines, signage, traffic controls, store entrances, lighting, speed, and the relationship between parked or queued vehicles and people walking. If the theory concerns a specific product or operational policy, a different set of details may control. A careful request asks for enough information to evaluate those features rather than assuming every incident is alike. Dates, site diagrams, photographs, internal classifications, narrative summaries, investigative findings, and corrective actions may help screen the population. That screening should not be confused with proving the underlying case. A database label can be incomplete, and two sites that look similar on a plan may operate differently. Conversely, corporate systems may use inconsistent terminology for the same type of event. Discovery design must anticipate both problems. Search terms, custodians, structured fields, and definitions should be built around the factual mechanism, then tested against sample records. The goal is not to define “similar” so narrowly that no record can qualify. It is to identify objective features that make comparison rational and allow the court to understand why the requested class of events could matter.
VI. Proportionality Is More Than Counting Files
Section 3226 directs courts and parties to consider the importance of the issues, the amount in controversy, access to relevant information, the parties' resources, the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues, and whether the burden or expense outweighs the likely benefit. Those factors resist slogans. A nationwide request is not automatically disproportionate, and a request limited to one location is not automatically reasonable. Centralized data may make a broad search relatively efficient, while an old local system may make a small request expensive. The seriousness of a death does not eliminate proportionality, but it can increase the importance of evidence that bears directly on notice or a recurring danger. The requesting party may lack any independent way to know how incidents were recorded, while the responding party may be able to describe its systems and estimate search costs. Productive proportionality analysis replaces general assertions with evidence: where records are stored, which systems cover which years, what fields are searchable, how many likely hits appear, what review is required, and whether sampling or phasing can reduce the burden. The Supreme Court criticized an order whose breadth was not sufficiently linked to the specific claim. The practical answer is not simply “ask for less.” It is to ask for information whose expected value can be described and to choose a method that obtains that value with no more cost and intrusion than the case reasonably requires.
VII. Draft the Request Around the Theory of the Case
A strong request starts with a proof map. Identify the alleged dangerous condition, the defendant's disputed knowledge, the causal mechanism, and any pleaded defenses. Then define the incident category in language that corresponds to those issues. Instead of asking for every injury at every property, counsel might define events involving a pedestrian and a moving vehicle within a specified relationship to a drive-through lane or designated pedestrian path. The appropriate formulation must come from the actual pleadings and evidence; no universal wording can supply it. Time and geography require the same analysis. A longer period may be justified when notice accumulates slowly or a design remains unchanged, while redesigns, acquisitions, or data-retention limits may divide the relevant period. A national scope may matter if design standards or incident reporting are centralized. A regional or configuration-based scope may be more informative if layouts vary substantially. The request should also say what documents or data are needed. An incident index can reveal date, location, mechanism, claimed condition, and disposition without immediately demanding every attachment. Targeted follow-up can then seek investigative materials for qualifying events. Meet-and-confer discussions are most useful when they address these mechanics rather than exchange conclusions. A requesting party can explain the inferential link; a responding party can explain systems and burden; both can propose a staged path that gives the court a concrete alternative to all-or-nothing relief.
VIII. Preservation Comes Before Production
Discovery scope and evidence preservation are related but distinct. A court may later narrow what must be produced, yet relevant information can disappear while the parties debate the proper request. Serious injury counsel should identify potentially relevant systems early: incident databases, risk-management files, emails, photographs, video, inspection records, site plans, design standards, claims files, and communications concerning corrective measures. A preservation notice should describe the alleged event and the categories reasonably connected to the anticipated claims without pretending that every corporate record belongs in the case. For the occurrence itself, speed can be critical because surveillance systems overwrite data, employees move, physical conditions change, and third-party records follow separate retention schedules. For prior incidents, preservation may require protecting queryable databases and the fields needed to identify comparable events, not exporting every record immediately. The distinction matters because preservation protects the possibility of later adjudication; production determines what must actually be exchanged. Neither should be used as a threat or a substitute for a legal basis. Counsel must account for privilege, privacy, protective orders, and the sensitivity of information involving other people. A disciplined preservation plan identifies custodians and systems, records the steps taken, and revisits scope as the pleadings and court orders develop. That process protects reliable evidence while leaving room for the proportionality analysis the Supreme Court required.
IX. Discoverability Is Not Admissibility
Information may be discoverable even if it will not ultimately be admitted at trial, because discovery can lead to evidence that helps prove or test a claim or defense. At the same time, discovery is not unlimited merely because a party hopes that a broad search will locate something useful. Trial admissibility asks additional questions under the rules of evidence: relevance to the issues submitted, the purpose for which the evidence is offered, sufficient similarity, unfair prejudice, confusion, hearsay, foundation, and other limitations. A discovery ruling ordinarily does not decide those questions in advance. The Chick-fil-A opinion stayed in its procedural lane. It prohibited enforcement of the challenged portion of the order and permitted reevaluation; it did not hold that all prior incidents were inadmissible or that no incident could be discovered. That boundary should shape case evaluation and public discussion. A party who obtains records has not proved notice, negligence, or causation. A party who defeats an overbroad request has not proved that no comparable event exists. The work after production remains demanding: authenticate the record, understand the event, compare the conditions, identify the permissible inference, and address contrary facts. Treating discovery and admissibility as separate stages prevents both overclaiming and premature abandonment of evidence that could become important once the factual foundation is developed.
X. The Trial Court Still Has Work to Do
The writ did not end discovery. The Supreme Court prohibited enforcement of a particular paragraph of the district court's order and authorized the trial court to reconsider the motion to compel consistently with the opinion. That leaves room for a request tied more closely to the allegations, supported by a clearer explanation of relevance, and measured against actual burden. It also leaves the parties responsible for developing a record the trial court can evaluate. The company can describe its incident systems, search capabilities, site variations, and expected review burden. The parents can identify the precise notice or foreseeability theory, the features that would make an event comparable, and why the information is unavailable elsewhere. The trial court can consider definitions, time limits, configurations, data fields, sampling, sequencing, confidentiality, and cost. None of those steps predicts the outcome. They demonstrate why appellate decisions about discovery often establish a method rather than a final production list. The opinion's unpublished, revision-subject status adds another reason for care. Lawyers relying on it should check the official docket and current text, examine any later treatment, and avoid representing the reproduced version as fixed. The durable lesson is the statutory one: relevance must connect to a claim or defense, and the method and breadth of discovery must be proportionate to the case before the court.
XI. Build the Evidence Map Early
For an injured person or grieving family, discovery doctrine can feel remote from the event that brought them to counsel. In practice, it determines whether critical information is preserved, found, and presented in a form a court can use. Early investigation should document the scene, measurements, traffic flow, visibility, warnings, photographs, video sources, witnesses, property records, design changes, and the policies that governed the location. Counsel should then connect each factual theory to the records likely to test it. If prior incidents may matter, define what would make an event comparable before demanding an entire archive. If a company controls the only searchable system, identify the data fields and custodians that can reveal the relevant population. If burden is disputed, seek enough technical information to evaluate it rather than guessing. This evidence map should also preserve uncertainty. The existence of another incident does not establish fault in the present case; the absence of a produced incident does not establish safety; and the Supreme Court's decision does not resolve the parents' wrongful-death claims. Hicks Law Firm approaches serious Oklahoma injury cases by matching the requested evidence to the legal theory and by preserving the difference between allegation, discoverable information, admissible proof, and a final finding. Precision at the beginning makes the eventual record stronger.
If a serious injury or death may involve a dangerous Oklahoma property condition, preserve photographs, video, witness information, receipts, messages, and every document identifying the location and time. Seek legal review promptly because surveillance, physical conditions, corporate records, and legal deadlines can change or expire. Contact Hicks Law Firm at (405) 759-0515 or through the contact page. Do not send confidential details until an attorney-client relationship has been established. This article provides general information, not legal advice or a prediction of any case. Past results do not guarantee future outcomes. Chick-fil-A v. Ogden was a discovery decision, not a liability verdict, and the opinion should be checked for revision, withdrawal, or release-for-publication status before reliance.