Brown v. Wimberley

Filing 27

ORDER AFTER IN CAMERA REVIEW of Documents Subpoenaed from Wasco Recreation and Parks District, signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 3/2/2016. (Hall, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

DANNY BROWN,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

v.
AUBREY WIMBERLY,

15

Defendant.

16

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 1:14-CV-01812- JLT
ORDER AFTER IN CAMERA REVIEW OF
DOCUMENTS SUBPOENAED FROM WASCO
RECREATION AND PARKS DISTRCT
(Docs. 25, 26)

The parties have stipulated that the Court would review documents subpoenaed from

17
18

Wasco Parks and recreation District to determine which of the records, if any, should be protected

19

based upon privacy concerns. (Doc. 24)
Notably, the parties request the Court to determine, not whether Plaintiff may receive and

20
21

use copies of the documents, but whether the privacy concerns should preclude further

22

dissemination. Seemingly, the District contends that disclosure of the records without a protective

23

order would violate significant privacy interests of unrelated third parties such as witnesses and

24

others.

25

Disseminating otherwise confidential documents generally is required “for the sole purpose

26

of assisting in the preparation and trial, or the settlement, of litigated disputes.” Seattle Times Co.

27

v. Rhinehart, 467 U.S. 20, 32 (1984). However, the Court must be mindful that the purpose of

28

discovery is “to facilitate orderly preparation for trial, not to educate or titillate the public.” Joy v.
1

1

North, 692 F.2d 880, 893 (2d Cir. 1982). If privacy interests are implicated by discovery efforts,

2

and the court finds particularized harm will result from disclosure of information to the public, it is

3

required to balance the public and private interests when deciding whether a protective order is

4

necessary. See Glenmede Trust Co. v. Thompson, 56 F.3d 476, 483 (3rd Cir.1995).

5

Here, the Court finds that disclosure of certain of the documents, set forth below, have the

6

great potential of causing third parties to suffer embarrassment and could impact the employee’s

7

future economic interests or job prospects if the information, generally maintained as confidential,

8

was disclosed. Other documents contain specific information related to personal identifiers, which

9

could subject third parties to fraud or harassment if these details become known. Moreover, courts

10

often issue protective orders to prevent extra-judicial disclosure of private documents made

11

available in discovery.

12
13

Thus, after completing the in camera review of the subpoenaed documents, the Court finds
good cause to entitle the following to protection:

14

1.

Letter of reprimand, dated November 18, 2011 issued to employee C.S.;

15

2.

“Memo of Correction” e-mail from Plaintiff to employee C.S. dated June 14, 2012;

16

3.

Memo to Plaintiff from employee C.S. dated June 20, 2012;

17

4.

Memo to employee C.S. from Plaintiff dated June 18, 2012;

18

6.

The “County of Kern Statement of Earnings and Deductions” for employee E.A.A.

19

The Court does not find that any other documents are legally entitled to protection though the

20

parties may agree to treat them as protected.

21
22
23
24

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

March 2, 2016

/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

25
26
27
28
2