Title: Douglas v. Windham Superior Court

State: vermont

Issuer: Vermont Supreme Court

Document:

NOTICE:  This opinion is subject to motions for reargument under V.R.A.P. 40
as well as formal revision before publication in the Vermont Reports.
Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Vermont Supreme
Court, 111 State Street, Montpelier, Vermont 05602 of any errors in order
that corrections may be made before this opinion goes to press.


                                No. 89-484


James H. Douglas, Secretary of State         Supreme Court


     v.                                      Original Jurisdiction


Windham Superior Court and
Barbara and Gerald Wilkinsen                 January Term, 1990


John H. Chase, Office of the Secretary of State, Montpelier, for petitioner

Thomas Hayes of Miller, Cleary & Faignant, Ltd. Rutland, for Denise Snyder

Otis & Brooks, P.C., Montpelier, for respondents Wilkinsens


PRESENT:  Allen, C.J., Peck, Gibson, Dooley and Morse, JJ.


     DOOLEY, J.   The Vermont Secretary of State, as custodian of the
records of the Vermont State Board of Nursing, petitions this Court for
extraordinary relief from a trial court order directing him to produce
certain documents in response to a pretrial discovery request.  We decline
to grant the relief requested and dismiss the petition.
     Respondents here are the Windham Superior Court and the plaintiffs in a
personal injury action against a registered nurse licensed by the Board, the
hospital that employs her, and the hospital's administrator.  The suit
alleges, inter alia, that defendant nurse injected herself with drugs that
should have been administered to plaintiff, Barbara Wilkinsen, and then
injected water in the tainted syringes into Barbara Wilkinsen to conceal the
diversion.  The complaint also alleges that the hospital and its admin-
istrator hired the nurse without properly investigating her background and
physical condition and that they failed to supervise her properly or
monitor her physical condition during the term of her employment.
     In the course of pretrial discovery, plaintiffs served requests to
produce on petitioner, who is the statutory custodian of the Board's
records, seeking the following:
         1.  Any and all complaints of professional misconduct
         directed against [the nurse].

         2.  The complete contents of any and all files
         maintained by or in the custody of any employee or agent
         of the Secretary of State concerning any complaint of
         professional misconduct against and/or any possible
         discipline of [the nurse], including the complete
         contents of any investigative file.

         3.  The complete minutes of any meeting of the Vermont
         State Board of Nursing at which any complaint of
         professional misconduct on the part of [the nurse] or
         any disciplinary action or possible disciplinary action
         against [the nurse] was discussed.

         4.  Any other records involving the licensure and/or
         discipline of [the nurse] as a registered nurse.

(Emphasis added).  Petitioner responded by supplying the nurse's application
for licensure, the stipulation of settlement of the complaints against her,
and the minutes of a Board meeting of June 12, 1989.  He moved to quash the
balance of the request on grounds that the material requested was privileged
and not subject to discovery.  The motion was accompanied by an affidavit of
petitioner who stated he had personally reviewed the file of the nurse.  He
indicated that the file contained a report to the Board from one of his
investigators transmitting the oral complaint and his preliminary
investigation of it.  He also indicated that the file contains a more
complete report from the investigator, notes made by the executive director
of the Board during the investigation, and notes of a meeting between the
investigators and the nurse.  The file also contains a stipulation of
settlement between the nurse and the Board, a copy of which was provided to
respondent.  The stipulation contains an admission by the nurse that she
diverted drugs for her personal use while employed by the hospital.
     The affidavit of petitioner stated reasons why he refused to comply
with the request to produce.  As to the two reports of the investigator, he
asserted that they name persons who provided information and that
investigatory procedure "calls for the investigation stage to be
confidential, and people providing information are routinely told that."  He
asserted that complaints often come from nurses and they would be deterred
from complaining if they knew the information would be provided to private
persons for use in litigation against their employer.  He also asserted
that the remaining complaints come from patients, who would also be deterred
from complaining if details of their medical treatment were to be revealed.
Overall, he believed that revealing investigative reports would "undercut
the effectiveness of nursing regulation by revealing investigative
techniques."
     As to the notes of the Board's director, petitioner asserted that these
also include the names of persons who provided information and show
investigative techniques used.  He also stated that these notes recorded
settlement negotiations with the nurse and that disclosure of such
negotiations would discourage settlements.  He concluded that settlements
are particularly important in drug abuse cases because cooperation is needed
to allow for needed drug treatment.
     The trial court considered the affidavit of petitioner, as well as the
fact (apparently admitted during the hearing in the trial court) that the
names of informants were disclosed to the nurse, and concluded that no
applicable privilege existed in Vermont.  The court denied the motion to
quash.  The present petition for extraordinary relief followed.
     Petitioner asserts that three privileges (FN1) give him the right to resist
disclosure: (1) the investigatory files privilege; (2) the informant
privilege as set forth in V.R.E. 509; and (3) the restriction on the
admission of evidence of settlement negotiations as contained in V.R.E.
408. (FN2) We agree with the trial court that the latter two contentions can be
addressed quickly.  Assuming that V.R.E. 509 applies outside the criminal
context, this privilege is waived if the identity of the informant is
disclosed by the holder, here the Board, to a person "who would have cause
to resent the communication" from the informant to the government agency.
We can think of no person who would greater resent the communication of the
nurse's wrongdoing than the nurse.  This privilege, if it existed, was
waived.
     The other asserted source of a privilege is actually a rule of
relevancy.  See V.R.E. 408.  It does not create a privilege.  At best, the
rule creates an argument that the settlement negotiation information should
not be disclosed because it is not relevant and is not "reasonably calcu-
lated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence."  See V.R.C.P.
26(b)(1).  Petitioner did not make that argument.
     Petitioner's strongest argument is the investigatory files privilege.
The trial court concluded that no such privilege exists in Vermont.
Petitioner recognizes we have never announced such a privilege, either by
decision or in the Vermont Rules of Evidence, but urges that we follow the
lead of other states in developing such a privilege as part of the common
law.  See Killington v. Lash, 153 Vt. 628, 635, 572 A.2d 1368, 1373 (1990)
(recognizing qualified executive privilege); V.R.E. 501 ("This rule shall
not be construed to prevent the development at common law of other
privileges.").  He argues that if such a privilege is recognized, it must
necessarily cover the information plaintiffs seek.
     Before we address this argument, we must stress that we are operating
under a very limited scope of review in evaluating this kind of
extraordinary relief petition.  We held recently in Ley v. Dall, 150 Vt.
383, 386,