Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-01464/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-01464-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Commission on Judicial Conduct
Custodian
Susan Ehrlich
Defendant
Regina Pangerl
Plaintiff
State of Arizona
Defendant
Sheldon Weisberg
Defendant

Document Text:

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Regina Pangerl, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Susan Ehrlich, et al.,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 06-1464-PHX-MHM

ORDER

Currently before the Court is the discovery dispute between Plaintiff Regina Pangerl

("Plaintiff") and Defendants Susan Ehrlich, Sheldon Weisberg, the State of Arizona

("Defendants") and non-party Arizona Commission on Judicial Conduct (the "Commission"

or "CJC"). The Court heard oral argument regarding this dispute on April 4, 2007. 

I. Background

The three issues briefed and argued on April 4, 2007 were: (1) whether collateral

information or "other conduct" of Defendant Judge Susan Ehrlich ("Defendant Ehrlich")

sought by Plaintiff is subject to discovery; (2) whether documents from the Arizona CJC

generated in response to Plaintiff's complaint regarding alleged discrimination while

employed by the Arizona Court of Appeals is subject to discovery; and (3) whether

Plaintiff's own documents, including her diary of events, kept while employed with the

Arizona Court of Appeals are subject to the Court's confidentiality order. At the hearing on

Case 2:06-cv-01464-MHM Document 84 Filed 05/04/07 Page 1 of 9
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

Plaintiff's counsel informed the Court that Plaintiff has no objection to redacting from

Plaintiff's diary the names of cases discussed and considered by the Arizona Court of

Appeals.

2

Plaintiff's counsel also informed the Court that Plaintiff would not object to the CJC

documents, if produced, falling within the scope of the Court's confidentiality order.

- 2 -

April 4, 2007, the Court issued a ruling from the bench addressing the first issue by holding

that such "other conduct" of Defendant Ehrlich is subject to discovery and is relevant within

the context of Rule 26(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Moreover, because

such conduct does not appear to relate to matters involving judicial rule or judicial

deliberations, the discovery does not appear to fall within the scope of the Court's

confidentiality order. (Dkt.#43). As to the third issue, the Court directed an in camera review

of the diary kept by Plaintiff during her employment with the Arizona Court of Appeals. At

the hearing, the Court, in making a preliminary assessment, noted that to the extent the diary

does not relate to specific cases before the Arizona Court of Appeals, the diary would likely

fall outside the scope of the Court's confidentiality order.1

 Lastly, as to the issue of discovery

regarding investigative documents generated by the CJC, the Court instructed that it would

take the matter under advisement and render its ruling.2

II. Application of the Court's Confidentiality Order to Plaintiff's Diary 

After conducting an in camera review of the substance of Plaintiff's diary, the Court

finds that the majority of the information related in Plaintiff's diary of events commencing

on Wednesday October 20, 2004 through February 10, 2005, falls outside the scope of the

need of a confidentiality order. Plaintiff's diary describes events and incidents with members

of the Arizona Court of Appeals, including Defendant Ehrlich and Defendant Judge Sheldon

Weisberg ("Defendant Weisberg") that appear relevant to Plaintiff's claims of discrimination

and retaliation. These events touch on Plaintiff's employment claims and there is no reason

that such events should be kept from public view, especially in light of the fact that it is the

Plaintiff herself who drafted the diary. See Foltz v. State Farm Auto Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1222,

1135 (9th Cir. 2003) (noting that there is "a strong presumption in favor of access to court

Case 2:06-cv-01464-MHM Document 84 Filed 05/04/07 Page 2 of 9
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

Plaintiff's counsel and Defendants' counsel are to meet and confer before the diary

is made available as public record to ensure that there is no dispute as to the redaction of

certain information. 

4

The CJC is a non-party to this litigation; however, the CJC is represented by the same

office as the named Defendants and Defendants’ counsel has briefed and argued the position

of the CJC to this Court.

- 3 -

records."). Moreover, the Plaintiff has agreed to redact the case names from Plaintiff's diary

in order to comply with the Court's confidentiality order. The Court finds such action

necessary in order to preserve the confidentiality and integrity of judicial discussions

touching on cases before the Arizona Court of Appeals. As such, the Court directs that

before Plaintiff's diary is made available as public record, Plaintiff is directed to redact the

names and case identifying information discussed in the diary.3

 

III. Discovery of Arizona CJC Investigative File

Non-party CJC seeks to preclude the Plaintiff from gaining access to the CJC's

investigative file generated in response to Plaintiff's CJC complaint against Defendant

Ehrlich filed in 2005.4

 The Commission does not contend that the file does not possess

relevant information under the umbrella of Rule 26 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,

but rather that the file is confidential as a matter of law.

The Commission relies on Rule 9 of the Rules of the Arizona Commission on Judicial

Conduct. Specifically, Rule 9 provides in pertinent part:

(b) Confidential matters. All commission correspondence, draft

documents, computer records, investigative reports, attorney work product,

commission deliberations, and records of informal proceedings are

confidential. 

Moreover, the Commission notes while Rule 9(c) may provide for limited

discretionary disclosure in certain instances, the Commission has properly exercised that

discretion by denying Plaintiff's request to release any of the investigative documents. Rule

9(c) provides in pertinent part:

The commission may disclose a complaint to a judge and a judge's response

to a complainant at any time. It may also disclose confidential information to

confirm a pending investigation or clarify proceedings in a case in which an

Case 2:06-cv-01464-MHM Document 84 Filed 05/04/07 Page 3 of 9
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

5

Plaintiff relies on the most recent version of Rule 9(c) which contains the following

additional information in comparison to Rule 9(c) in effect at the time of Plaintiff’s CJC

complaint in 2005:

Unless otherwise ordered by the commission complainants, respondent judges

and witnesses are not prohibited from disclosing the existence of proceedings

or from disclosing any documents or correspondence served on or provided to

those persons. 

Regardless, of the fact that the 2005 version is controlling, it appears to be a distinction

without difference as Plaintiff only seeks documents directly from the CJC itself. 

- 4 -

investigation has become public; to explain the final disposition of a

complaint; to protect individuals, the public, or the administration of justice;

and to comply with official requests from agencies and other organizations

involved in criminal prosecutions, bar discipline investigations, or judicial

nomination, selection and retention proceedings.5

The Commission responded via letter on February 15, 2007, to Plaintiff's subpoena duces

tecum by objecting to the production of any investigative documents generated in response

to Plaintiff's allegations of misconduct against Defendant Ehrlich (CJC case number 05-

0117). (Defendants' Brief, Dkt.#42, Exhibit C). In addition to the confidential treatment of

such documents, the Commission relies on persuasive state authority to support its position.

For instance, in Garner v. Cherberg, 111 Wash.2d 811, 765 P.2d 1284 (Wash. 1988) the

Rules Committee of the Washington state legislature issued a subpoena duces tecum to the

state Commission on Judicial Conduct seeking investigative documents generated by the

Commission regarding the conduct of a state court judge. Id. at 820. The Washington

Supreme Court quashed the subpoena finding that confidentiality of the Commission

"essential to the preservation of fundamental judicial independence." Id. The court noted

multiple factors that support such confidentiality: 

(1) encouraging participation in the disciplinary process by protecting

complainants and witnesses from retribution or harassment, and reducing the

possibility of subornation of perjury; (2) protecting the reputation of innocent

judges wrongfully accused or misconduct; (3) maintaining confidence in the

judiciary by avoiding premature disclosure of alleged misconduct; (4)

encouraging retirement as an alternative to costly and lengthy formal hearings;

and (5) protecting commission members from outside pressures. 

Id. (citing In re Deming, 108 Wash.2d 82, 736 P.2d 639 (1987)). 

Case 2:06-cv-01464-MHM Document 84 Filed 05/04/07 Page 4 of 9
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 5 -

In addition, the Commission cites the Court's attention to the decision in Stern v.

Morgenthau, 62 N.Y.2d 331, 465 N.E.2d 349, 476 N.Y.S.2d 810 (1984) where the New York

Court of Appeals reversed the lower appellate court's decision denying the state Commission

on Judicial Conduct's motion to quash the discovery of Commission records in response to

a grand jury subpoena in furtherance of an investigation involving two judges. Id. at 333-34.

The New York Court of Appeals recognized that judges are also subject to criminal

prosecution, but held that the grand jury had to yield to the confidentiality of the

Commission. Specifically, the court stated that "the responsibilities of the Commission ...

transcend the criminal prosecution of individuals. ... [and that] [e]xperience teaches that the

effective performance of [the Commission's investigative] function necessarily requires the

free flow of information to the Commission and the confidentiality of its proceedings until

wrongdoing is established." Id. at 339. Lastly, the Commission questions the true motive

of the Plaintiff in seeking these documents considering the past press coverage provided to

this case. As such, the Commission objects to the production of any portion of the CJC

investigative file made in response to the CJC complaint filed by Plaintiff against Defendant

Ehrlich. 

In opposition, Plaintiff asserts that she must be given access to the CJC file as it likely

possesses relevant information to her case and thus is authorized under the Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure. See Rule 26(b)(1) Fed.R.Civ.P. ("relevant information need not be

admissible at the trial if the discovery appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery

of admissible evidence..."). Such information identified by Plaintiff consists of potential

admissions by Defendant Ehrlich that may be admissible at trial as well as witness interviews

that provide probative information to Plaintiff's claims. Plaintiff argues that under Rule 9(c),

the CJC clearly has the discretionary authority to disclose information relating to

investigations and there is no reason that the CJC's discretion should be used not to disclose

the investigative file considering the importance of Plaintiff's right to obtain discovery

regarding her civil rights claims. Finally, Plaintiff argues that none of the information at

issue is privileged or confidential under federal law and that Plaintiff's reliance upon state

Case 2:06-cv-01464-MHM Document 84 Filed 05/04/07 Page 5 of 9
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

6

Mr. Scott is the Executive Director of the CJC and Ms. Haynes is a staff attorney for

the agency and was assigned to investigate Plaintiff’s CJC complaint in 2005. (Dkt.#42,

Exhibits A & B). 

- 6 -

authority is misplaced in the context of this federal civil rights suit. In support of this

position, Plaintiff cites the Court's attention to the Ninth Circuit's decision in Agster v.

Maricopa County, 422 F.3d 836 (9th Cir. 2005). In Agster, a civil rights action, the Ninth

Circuit affirmed the district court's decision finding that a medical mortality peer review file

regarding county medical records generated in response to an inmate death while in custody

was subject to discovery under federal law in opposition to an Arizona state statute, A.R.S.

§ 36-445.01, which provided that such records were confidential and not subject to

discovery. Id. at 838-839. As such, Plaintiff requests the Court issue an order compelling

the Commission to produce the CJC investigative records.

 In reviewing the arguments and authorities advanced, it is quite clear that there are

strong reasons both in support of and against the discovery of the CJC file regarding

Plaintiff's complaint to the CJC. For example, as stated in the Defendants' brief and the

affidavits of Mr. Keith Scott and Ms. Linda Haynes6

 witness interviews conducted in

response to CJC complaints during the informal proceedings stage are confidential and

witnesses are instructed as such. (Dkt.#42, Exhibits A & B). Thus, to authorize discovery

of such witness interviews now would be inconsistent with what the witnesses were

instructed when they came forward to the CJC with relevant information. More importantly,

any deviation from the confidentiality associated with such proceedings may bear on any

future investigations and creates the potential for a certain chilling effect upon forthcoming

witnesses. Moreover, permitting discovery of the CJC investigative file also creates the

impression that any other such complaints filed against other judges could also be subject to

discovery based upon the premise of a federal lawsuit against the respective judge. The

Court recognizes such considerations as they support denying discovery of the CJC

investigative file in this case. 

Case 2:06-cv-01464-MHM Document 84 Filed 05/04/07 Page 6 of 9
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

7

In addition, at oral argument, Defendants' counsel proposed that this matter be

certified to the Arizona Supreme Court under A.R.S. § 12-1861. However, such action is

appropriate where the federal court is applying state law and seeks clarification or direction

as to the state authority. This case does not appear to deal with such a situation as the Court

is applying federal law.

- 7 -

However, while the Court appreciates the arguments advanced by the Commission,

through Defendants' counsel, regarding the confidentiality of its informal investigations and

documents, the Court finds this case provides sufficient circumstances supporting discovery

of the CJC investigative file. Plaintiff's Complaint asserts federal civil rights claims based

upon alleged discriminatory treatment she incurred while employed with the Arizona Court

of Appeals and most significantly during her time as law clerk for Defendant Ehrlich. As

with any such case alleging discrimination in the workplace, the Plaintiff is clearly entitled

to discovery that may produce information relevant to her case. Moreover, this Court is not

bound by the Arizona and state law authority cited by the Defendants in support of their

confidentiality argument. As recognized by the Ninth Circuit's review in Agster, this Court

must look to federal law to determine whether the CJC file is confidential or privileged. Id.

at 839 (noting that no court in the Ninth Circuit recognized privilege cited by the

defendants).7

 Notably, the Commission cites no federal authority suggesting that the

investigative information is somehow privileged or confidential under federal law. Thus, this

Court's decision is based upon the balancing of Plaintiff's right to obtain such discovery and

the interests associated with confidentiality of the CJC investigation. In performing this test,

the Court finds the Plaintiff's right to obtain such discovery supersedes. Based upon the

nature of the allegations and the lack of any federal authority supporting the non-disclosure

of the CJC investigative documents, the Court finds that Plaintiff is entitled to discover the

relevant portions of the file. However, while the Court will overrule the Commission's

objection to production of the CJC file, the Court will first perform an in camera review of

the documents to verify that the information within the file provides relevant information to

Plaintiff’s claims. To the extent any portion of the file is relevant, it will be turned over to

Case 2:06-cv-01464-MHM Document 84 Filed 05/04/07 Page 7 of 9
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 8 -

Plaintiff subject to the terms of the Court's confidentiality order. In making this

determination, the Court finds it important to note that the investigative documents, to the

extent they are relevant and thus subject to discovery, will not become subject to public

review due to the application of the Court's confidentiality order. Therefore, given the

confidentiality afforded to the documents, the potential chilling effect, discussed above, may

be minimized. 

IV. Summary

The Court finds that the Plaintiff's diary does not fall within the scope of the Court's

confidentiality order. However, the Court directs that before the diary becomes available as

public record that any case names or case identifying information be redacted. In addition,

the Court finds that the CJC investigative file generated in response to Plaintiff's complaint

against Defendant Ehrlich is subject to discovery assuming that the information is relevant

to Plaintiff's claims. The Court will first conduct an in camera review of the file to determine

whether the information is relevant to this litigation and will then turn any relevant portion

over to Plaintiff, subject to the terms of the Court's confidentiality order. 

Accordingly, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED overruling Defendants' objection to the disclosure of

Plaintiff's diary outside the scope of the Court's confidentiality order. However, prior to any

such disclosure Plaintiff is directed to redact any case names or identifying case information.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED overruling the Commission's objection to Plaintiff's

subpoena duces tecum regarding the discovery of the CJC investigative file generated in

response to Plaintiff's CJC complaint against Defendant Ehrlich. The CJC is directed to

submit the investigative file to the Court for an in camera review on or before May 15, 2007.

To the extent the information is relevant to Plaintiff's complaint, the file will be turned over

to Plaintiff. Any portion of the file turned over to Plaintiff is subject to the Court's

confidentiality order. 

Case 2:06-cv-01464-MHM Document 84 Filed 05/04/07 Page 8 of 9
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 9 -

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED directing Plaintiff and Plaintiff's counsel not to release

any portion of the CJC investigative file to the public or media, should the Court release any

portion of the CJC file. 

DATED this 3rd day of May, 2007.

Case 2:06-cv-01464-MHM Document 84 Filed 05/04/07 Page 9 of 9