Nelson v. Napolitano

Filing 39

ORDER. The Court's complete copy of the personnel files of Melvin, Grim, and Walston will be available for defense counsel at the courthouse. Defendant shall provide the personnel files to Plaintiff, by 11/26/2010. Signed by Judge B. Lynn Winmill. (caused to be mailed to non Registered Participants at the addresses listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by cjm)

Nelson v. Napolitano

Doc. 39

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT F O R THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO

K E L L IE H. NELSON, C a s e No. 1:09-cv-00310-BLW Plaintiff, ORDER v. J A N E T NAPOLITANO, SECRETARY O F THE DEPARTMENT OF H O M E L A N D SECURITY, Defendant.

O n October 27, 2010, the Court ordered that Defendant provide three personnel f ile s for an in camera review for relevance. Order, Dkt. 38. Defendant contends that P la in tif f 's request for the personnel files is overly broad and irrelevant. Having reviewed th e documents at issue, the Court rules as follows. R u le 26 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure governs discovery of the files. Under that rule, "[p]arties may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, w h ic h is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action." 1 Fed. R. Civ. P. 2 6 (b )(1 ). The information sought must appear "reasonably calculated to lead to the d is c o v e ry of admissible evidence." Id. Issues relating to the scope of discovery permitted

1

Defendant has conceded that there is no issue of privilege in this case.

OR D E R - 1 -

Dockets.Justia.com

under the Rules rest in the sound discretion of the District Court. Munoz-Santana v. U.S. Im m ig r a tio n and Naturalization Service, 742 F.2d 561, 562 (9th Cir. 1984). It is well e s ta b lis h e d that a defendant's claim of irrelevance or privilege must be balanced against a p la in tif f 's argument of need. Kerr v. United States, 426 U.S. 394, 404 (1976). Here, Defendant asserts that the subject documents are not relevant, while Plaintiff a rg u e s that production is not unduly burdensome and the requested documents are s u f f ic ie n tly relevant. On its review, the Court finds that the majority of the documents at is su e have marginal relevance. However, relevance of the requested personnel files is m o re in the eye of the beholder than subject to strict legal demarcations. While the Court re c o g n iz e s that the files may have little if any use to Plaintiff, production of the files s h o u ld not be limited to defense counsel's own determination of what may be "reasonably c a lc u la te d to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence." The Court does not sit as an a d v o c a te for Plaintiff, nor is it privy to the legal theories Plaintiff may seek to advance; c o u n s e l for Plaintiff ­ and not the Court ­ is in the best position to determine whether d o c u m e n ts of marginal relevance could or could not lead to the discovery of admissible e v id e n c e . The Court's concern, as noted in its Order (Dkt. 38) to provide files for this in c a m e r a review, is to protect sensitive or privileged materials from discovery under Rule 2 6 (b )(1 ). On its review, the Court found no materials of a sensitive or privileged nature. In addition, the Court found that a number of documents are clearly relevant to this

OR D E R - 2 -

action, especially concerning Mr. Melvin's file. Accordingly, Defendant's u n d if f e re n tia te d objection to production of the files is overruled. ORDER I T IS ORDERED THAT: T h e Court's complete copy of the personnel files of Melvin, Grim, and Walston w ill be available for defense counsel at the courthouse. Defendant shall provide the p e rs o n n e l files to Plaintiff, by November 26, 2010. DATED: November 19, 2010

B. LYNN WINMILL C h ie f U.S. District Court Judge

OR D E R - 3 -