Melendez v. Albert Einstein High School et al

Filing 64

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER GRANTING IN PART and DENYING IN PART 60 Motion to Compel. Signed by Judge Deborah K. Chasanow on 11/12/2015. (sat, Chambers)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
:
MARIA MELENDEZ
:
v.

:

Civil Action No. DKC 14-3636

:
BOARD OF EDUCATION FOR
MONTGOMERY COUNTY

:

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiff

filed

a

motion

to

compel,

with

supporting

documents, seeking access to the entire personnel file of Tony
Hopkins, her supervisor.

(ECF No. 60).

Plaintiff’s motion also

seeks the court to compel Defendant to respond to “Plaintiff’s
First Set of Interrogatories No. 7” (“interrogatory number 7”).
(Id.)

For the following reasons, the motion will be granted in

part and denied in part.
The standard for considering disclosure of a personnel file
is a balancing test:
In
determining
whether
it
is
appropriate to compel the discovery of
personnel
files,
courts
in
the
Fourth
Circuit have balanced the importance of
personal
privacy
and
accurate
employee
evaluations
against
the
countervailing
interest in broad discovery that provides
each party with the information necessary to
present their complete case before the
court. See Kirkpatrick v. Raleigh County Bd.
of Educ., 78 F.3d 579 (4th Cir. 1996)
(Table); Blount v. Wake Elec. Membership
Corp., 162 F.R.D. 102, 105 (E.D.N.C. 1993).

This test generally favors non-disclosure:
personnel files, even if relevant, are only
discoverable
in
“limited
circumstances,”
such as when the “need for disclosure is
compelling because the information sought is
not otherwise readily available.”
United
States EEOC v. McCormick & Schmick's Seafood
Rests., No. DKC–11–2695, 2012 WL 3563877
(D.Md. Aug. 16, 2012); Bennett v. CSX
Transp., Inc., No. 5:10–CV–00493–BO, 2011 WL
4527430 (E.D.N.C. Sept. 26, 2011).
Hemphill v. ARAMARK Corp., No. ELH-12-1584, 2013 WL 1662963, at
*2 (D.Md. Apr. 15, 2013).

As another judge within this district

noted:
Personnel files are discoverable only
in
“limited
circumstances”
given
that
“personal privacy and accurate, employee
evaluations are important public policy
concerns.”
Weller v. Am. Home Assurance
Co., No. 3:05–cv–90, 2007 WL 1097883, at *6
(N.D.W.Va. Apr. 10, 2007) (quoting Blount v.
Wake Elec. Membership Corp., 162 F.R.D. 102,
105 (E.D.N.C. 1993)) (internal quotation
marks omitted). In an unpublished decision,
the Fourth Circuit indicated that personnel
files are discoverable if they contain
information relevant to the subject matter
of a case and the need for the information
outweighs
the
fileholders’
privacy
interests.
See Kirkpatrick, 1996 WL 85122,
at *2.
McCormick & Schmick's, 2012 WL 3563877, at *4.
Here, Plaintiff baldly asserts that the personnel file is
relevant, suggesting that it might contain evidence that Mr.
Hopkins

has

discriminated

in

the

past.

Surely

disciplinary

actions, if taken in response to allegations similar to those at
2

issue

in

this

case,

might

be

relevant

and

discoverable.

However, Defendant states that there are no such actions within
the

personnel

file

and,

as

discussed

below,

Plaintiff

can

receive the requested information without obtaining the entire
personnel file.

(ECF No. 60-1, at 6).

Plaintiff wants the

opportunity to see for herself, but the discovery principles
don’t allow that.

Otherwise, a personnel file contains very

sensitive and private information that has not been shown to be
relevant to Plaintiff’s claims.
sensitive

materials,

which

Broadly allowing access to such

Defendant

has

a

duty

to

keep

confidential, without a specific indication of relevance is not
appropriate.

Accordingly,

Plaintiff’s

motion

to

compel

production of the personnel record is denied.
However,

Plaintiff

is

correct

that

a

response

to

her

interrogatory regarding Mr. Hopkins’ disciplinary actions may be
relevant to her case.
number

of

reprimands

Interrogatory number 7 requests, “the
or

disciplinary

actions

brought

against

Tony Hopkins by [Defendant] at any point while employed with
[Defendant]”.

(ECF No. 62, at 6).

Information regarding past

reprimands or disciplinary actions brought against Mr. Hopkins
for

conduct

discoverable.

similar

to

the

conduct

alleged

in

this

case

is

Davis v. Rouse, No. WDQ-08-3106, 2011 WL 2748737,

at *2 (D.Md. May 31, 2011) (denying motion to compel production
3

of the entire personnel record, but compelling the defendant to
“provide

summary

information”

regarding

relevant

information

sought by the plaintiff); see also McCormick & Schmick’s, 2012
WL 3563877, at 6 (compelling production of records because the
managers
employment

were

involved

actions

in

taken)

the

(citing

allegedly
cases).

discriminatory

Defendant

asserts

that no such record exists in its opposition brief (ECF No. 601,

at

6),

but

interrogatory
answer

to

Plaintiff

sworn

under

interrogatory

is

entitled

penalty
number

7,

of

to

a

response

perjury.

limited

to

to

an

Providing

an

reprimands

or

disciplinary actions brought for conduct similar to this case,
does not raise the same privacy concerns as producing an entire
personnel file.

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to compel a

response to interrogatory number 7 is granted in part.
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s motion to compel is
GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.

/s/
DEBORAH K. CHASANOW
United States District Judge

4