T h e H o n o ra b le J o h n E . Jo n e s, III, U n ited S tate s D istric t Ju d g e f o r th e M id d le * D i s tr i ctof Penns y l vani a, s i t t i ng bydes i gnat i on. NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT N o. 09- 3251 S T E V E N L . R O B E R T S ; S H A N E D E A R D O R F F ; M A T T H E W T . S H U E Y ; M IC H A E L S . L Y O N S ; C L A IR M A R T IN ; T IM O T H Y W . W H E A L E ;

G O R D O N J. B E R L IN

v. JA C K F . M E N T Z E R ; JO S E P H M . D IT Z L E R ; E L I Z AB E T HT OWN BOR OUGH

St even L. R obert s , Shane D ear dor ff, M at thew T . S hu ey , M i chael S. L y on s, C l ai rM art i n and Ti m othyW . W heal e, A p p e l l a n t s A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt f o r th e E a ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( D . C . C i vi l A ct i on N o. 08- cv- 4507) D i s tr i ctJ udge: H onor abl e J uan R . Sanchez Subm i t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

A pr i l 20, 2010 B efor e: SC I R I C A and A M B R O , C i r cui tJ udges , and J O N E S, D i s tr i ctJ udge * ( O pi ni on fi l ed: M ay27, 2010)T hi s pr ovi s i on s t at es , i n r el evantpart , “Everyper s on w ho, undercol orof any 1 s t atut e, or di nance , r egul at i on, cus t om , orus age, of anySt at e . . . s ubj ect s , orcaus es t o be subject ed, anyci t i zen o f the U nit ed S t at es . . . t o the dep ri vati on of an yri gh t s, pri vil eges, o r i m m u n itie s s e c u re d b yth e C o n s titu tio n a n d la w s , s h a ll b e lia b le to th e p a rt yin ju re d . . . .” 4 2 U .S .C . § 1 9 8 3 . T h e D istri ct C o u rth ad juri sd ict ion p u rsua n t t o 2 8 U . S . C . § § 1 3 3 1 , 1 3 4 3 (a)(3)-(4), 2 1367. W e have j ur i s di ct i on under28 U . S. C . § 1291. 2 OP I NI ON J O N E S, D i s tr i ctJ udge St even L. R obert s ( “R obert s ”) , Shane D ear dor ff ( “D ear dor ff” ) , M atthew T . Shuey ( “ S h u e y” ) , M i c h a e l S . L yo n s ( “ L yo n s ” ) , C l a i rM a r t i n ( “ M a r t i n ” ) , a n d T i m o n th y W . W heal e ( “W heal e”) appea l the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s di s m i s s al of thei r42 U . S. C . § 1983
c laim s, w h ich a re b a se d o n a lleg e d v io latio n s o f th e rig h ts s e c u re d u n d e r th e F irst, 1 F o u rth , an d F o u rte e n th A m e n d m e n ts o f th e f e d e ra l C o n stitu tio n a n d th e re late d rig h ts p r o t e c t e d u n d e rth e P e n n s y l v a n i a Co n s t i tu t i o n . W e a f f i r m. 2 I. I n 2008, M i chae l L y ons ( “Ly ons ”) , a pol i ce of fi cerw i th the B or ough of E l i zabe tht ow n ( the “Borough” ) , s ued the B or ough, Pol i ce Chi ef J ack F. M ent zer( “C hi ef M en tzer”), an d A ssist an t C h ief Jo sep h M . D it zler (“A ssist an t C h ief D it zler”), (c o llec tiv e ly , “th e D e f

e n d a n ts” o r “ A p p e llan ts” ), alle g in g th a t th e yre talia ted a g a in st h imW e shal l refert o thi s i nit i al sui tas “ Lyons I.” 3 D i s tr i ctJ udge J uan R . Sanchez gr ant ed s um m aryj udgm enti n favorof C hi ef 4 M entzer , A ssi st ant C hief D i t zl er, and the B oroug h, reas on i ng that Ly on s’ F i rs t A m endmentcl ai m w as barr ed bec aus e hi s s peec h occurr ed pur s uantt o hi s offi ci al dut i es a n d w a s th e re f

o re n o t p ro te c te d . See Lyons v. Ment z er , 2008 W L 4444272 *4 ( E . D . Pa. 2 0 0 8 ) (L yon s I ) ( ci t i ng G ar cet t iv. C ebal l os , 5 4 7 U .S . 4 1 0 , 4 1 0 -1 1 (2 0 0 6 )) . R u le 2 6 re q u ir e s a p a rt yto p ro v id e its o p p o n e n t w ith , in tera lia , “the name and, 5 i f know n, the addr es s and t el ephone numberof ea ch i ndi vi dual l i kel yt o have di s cover abl e i nform at i on- - al ong w i th the s ubj ect s of thati nform at i on- - thatthe di s cl os i ng partym ayus e t o s uppor ti t s cl ai m s ordefe ns es , unl es s the us e w oul d be s ol el yfor im p e a c h m e n t.” F e d . R . C iv . P . 2 6 (a )( 1 )( A )( i) . T hes e i ndi vi dual s w er e ei thercurr entorform erpol i ce of fi cer s of the 6 E l i zabe tht ow n B or ough atthe t i m e Ly ons j oi ned the pol i ce f or ce. W e s hal l r efe rt o them c o lle c tiv e ly as “ th e P o lic e O f f ic e rs .” 3 i n vi ol at i on of hi s Fi r s tA m endmentr i ght s . W hi l e thatcas e w as ul t i m at el yr es ol ved on 3
s um m aryj udgm ent , the fa ct s under gi r di ng the pr es entcas e occ urr ed dur i ng the L yon s I 4 d isc o v e ryp e rio d . In h is in iti a l d isc lo su re s m a d e p u rsu a n t to F e d e ra l R u le o f C iv il P rocedu re 26(a) , L y on s l i st ed R ob ert s, D eardorff, S hu ey , M art i n, W heale, and G ordon J. 5 B erl i n (“B erl i n”) as i nd i vidual s w ho m i gh thav e i nfo rm at i on rel evan tt o h i s Fir st 6 A m e n d m e n t c la im . C o n s e q u e n tly, th e D e f e n d a n ts s o u g h t to d e p o s e th e s e in d iv id u a ls . Pr i ort o the depos i t i ons , the D efe ndant s al l egedl ypr ovi ded thei ratt orney s w i th the p e rso n n e l f

iles o f th e P o lice O f

f ice rs w ith o u t th e P o lice O f f ice rs’ c o n se n t. D u rin g th e ir
r es pect i ve depos i t i ons , the Pol i ce O ffi cer s w er e al l egedl yques t i oned abouts ens i t i ve and confi dent i al i nform at i on cont ai ned i n thei rper s onnel fi l es . T he i ns t antm att erw as s ubs equent l yi ni t i at ed byL y ons , R obert s , D ear dor ff, Shuey , M art i n, and W heal e,W e shal l refert o thi s sui tas “ L yo n s II.” 7 4 (c o llec tiv e ly , “P lain tiff

s” o r “ A p p e llan ts” ), w h o a lleg e th a t A p p e llee s v io late d th e ir fede r al and s t at e cons t i tut i onal r i ght s bypr ovi di ng A ppel l ees ’ att orney s w i th the i nform at i on cont ai ned i n thei rper s onnel fi l es . T he D i s tr i ctC our tul t i m at el ydi s m i s s ed 7 thes e cl ai m s , and the A ppel l ant s t i m el yappea l ed. II. O ur r evi ew of the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s or dergr ant i ng D efe ndant s ’ /A ppel l ees ’ M ot i on to D is m is s th e A m e n d e d C o m p la in t is p le n a ry. Se e AT& T v
. J M T Te l e c om, LLC , 470, F . 3 d 5 2 5 , 5 3 0 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 6 ). I n conduct i ng a pl enaryr evi ew of thi s cas e, w e mustacc ept as true al l of the al l egat i ons cont ai ned i n the amended compl ai ntand dr aw al l i nfer ence s f ro m th e a lle g a tio n s in th e lig h t m o s t f a v o ra b le to th e P la in tif

f s /A p p e lla n ts . See Phi l l i

ps v. C ount y of A l l egheny , 515 F. 3d 224, 231 ( 3d C i r . 2008) ( quot i ng P i nkerv. R oche H oldi ngs , Ltd. , 2 9 2 F . 3 d 3 6 1 , 3 7 4 n . 7 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 2 )). A m ot i on t o di s m i s s s houl d be g ra n ted if

th e P lain tiff

s a re u n a b le to p lea d “ e n o u g h f a c ts to sta te a c laim to re lief th a t is pl aus i bl e on i t s fac e. ” B e ll A tla n tic C o rp . V . T w o m b ly , 5 5 0 U . S . 5 4 4 , 5 7 0 (20 0 7 ). T he pl aus i bi l i tys t andar d r equi r es “more than a s heerpos s i bi l i tythata def endanthas act ed unl aw ful l y . ” A s hcr of

tv. I qbal , - - U .S . - - , 1 2 9 S .C t. 1 9 3 7 , 1 9 4 9 (2 0 0 9 ). R ather , the

“ [ f ]a c tu a l alle g a tio n s m u st b e e n o u g h to ra ise a rig h t to re lief a b o v e th e sp e c u lativ e lev e l .

. . . ” T w o m b ly , 550 U . S. at555.T h e f e d e r a l C o n s t i tu t i o n p r o v i d e s th e m i n i m u m s a f e g u a r d s f o ri n d i v i d u a l l i b e r ty. 8 Se e F lo rida v . P o w e ll , 1 3 0 S .C t. 11 9 5 , 1 2 0 3 (3 d C ir. 2 0 1 0 ) (“ sta te c o u rts a re a b so lu tely fr ee t o i nt erpr ets t at e cons t i tut i onal pr ovi s i ons t o acc or d gr eat er pr ot ect i on t o i ndi vi dual r i ght s than do s i m i l arpr ovi s i ons of the U ni t ed St at es C ons t i tut i on”) . T her efor e, conduct th a t d o e s n o t v io late th e f e d e ra l C o n stitu tio n c a n n o t v io late th e P e n n sy lv a n ia s tate C ons t i tut i on. A s w e expl ai n bel ow , w e do notbel i eve thatthe conduc tof the A ppel l ees vi ol at ed the fe der al C ons t i tut i on, and s o ouranal y s i s i s confi ned t o fede r al cons t i tut i onal pri ncipl es. I n doi ng s o, w e t ake s peci al car e nott o confl at e the conduc tof A ppel l ees 9 (pr ov i ding theirat t orney s w i th the personnel fi l es) w i th the con du ctof A pp el l ees’ a tto rn e y s (u s in g in f

o rm a tio n in th e f

ile s a s th e b a s is f

o r a lle g e d ly im p ro p e r q u e s tio n s ). 5 III . A ppel l ant s ar gue thatthe D i s tr i ctC our terr ed i n gr ant i ng s um m aryj udgm enton theirfede ral and st at e con st i tuti on al cl ai m s. W e add res s these cl ai m s se ria tim . 8 9 A. F i r s tAme n d me n tCl a i ms A p p e llan ts a lleg e th a t th e ir F irst A m e n d m e n t rig h ts to a p p e a r a s w itn e ss e s, to as s oci at e w i th per s ons of thei rchoos i ng, t o acc es s the court s , t o pet i t i on the court s for
r edr es s , and t o be fr ee f r om r et al i at i on w er e deni ed byA ppel l ees ’ act i ons i n the under l y i ng l i t i gat i on. W e di s cus s thes e i n turn. A ppel l ant s ’ r i ghtt o acc es s cl ai m appea r s t o be pr edi cat ed upon the as s ert i on that the us e of thei rper s onnel fi l es dur i ng the depos i t i ons conduct ed i n L yon s I s om ehow
c o m p ro m ise d th e su c c e ss o f th a t su it. In o rd e r to m a in tain su c h a su it, A p p e llan ts
m u s t “ d e m o n s tr a te th a t a d e f e n d a n t c a u s e d ‘a c tu a l in ju ry’ . . . i.e ., t ook orw as resp o n sible fo r ac ti o n s tha t ‘ h ind ere d [a p lai n ti ff ’s] eff o rt s to p u rsue a leg al claim . ’”In d e e d , a s n o te d , L yon s I w as di s m i s s ed bec aus e Ly ons coul d notes t abl i s h that 10 h is s p e e c h w a s u tte re d a s a c itiz e n , a n d n o t in h is o f f ic ia l c a p a c ity. See Lyon s I at* 3 ( L y ons ’ s peec h i ncl uded, in tera lia , “hi s compl ai nt s t o s uper i or s , up the cha i n of com m and , regar ding fell ow off i cers fai l i ng t o fo l l ow up on cri m i nal i nv est i gati on s, un reas on ablyreturni ng po l i ce report s for pun ctuati on err ors, i nter feri ng w i th D rug T ask For ce i nves t i gat i ons , i m pr oper l yi s s ui ng vi ol at i on not i ces forw ork pr oper l yper form ed, unl aw ful l ys ei zi ng drugs fr om otherj ur i s di ct i ons , and i nappr opr i at el ydi s cus s i ng c o n f id e n tia l p o lic e in f

o rm a tio n w ith c iv ilia n s .” ). A s s u m in g , ar guendo , that A pp el l ees’ c o n d u c t d id d e p riv e L y o n s o f c e rta in tes tim o n y , tha t tes tim o n yc o u ld n o t h a v e p o ss ib ly al t ered the v erynatur e of L y on s’ speech . C on sequen t l y , w e do no tbeli eve thatA pp el l ees’ c o n d u c tc a u s e d L yo n s a c tu a l i n j u ry. 6 B eckerm an v. Sus quehanna Tw p. P ol i ce & A dm i n. , 2 5 4 F ed . A p p x . 1 4 9 , 1 5 3 (3d C ir . 2007) ( ci t i ng Mons ky v
. Mor aghan , 1 2 7 F . 3 d 2 4 3 , 2 4 7 (2d C ir . 1 9 9 7 ) (cit ati o n s o m itted)). Si nce the
u n d e rly in g lit ig a tio n w a s in stitu ted b yL y o n s a lo n e , h e is th e o n lyin d iv id u a l w h o c o u ld po ssi blym ai ntai n a F i rs tA m end m ent r i gh tt o acce ss cl ai m . H ow ever, his ri gh tt o acce ss cl ai m fai l s beca us e the Fi r s tA m endmentcl ai m he as s ert ed i n L yon s I w as di s m i s s ed for
r eas ons unr el at ed t o the t es t i m onygi ven bythe Pol i ce O ffi cer s , m eani ng thatthe A p p ell ee s’ co n d u ct did n o t i n fa ct ca u se h im an yh arm . A cc o rdin g ly , the D istri ct C o u rt 10 app ropri at el ydis m i ssed the F i rs tA m end m ent r i gh tt o acce ss cl ai m s. In re latio n to th e rig h t to p e tit io n c laim s, w e n o te a g a in th a t L y o n s is th e o n ly i ndi vi dual w ho coul d pos s i bl ym ai nt ai n s uch a c l ai m s i nce he i s the onl yi ndi vi dual w ho p e tit io n e d th e g o v e rn m e n t p rio r to th is s u it. H o w e v e r, h is rig h t to p e tit io n c laim se e m s to be bas ed on the s ame pr emi s e as hi s r i ghtt o acc es s cl ai m ; t o w i t , thatA ppel l ees ’ conduct compromi s ed the t es t i m onyhe w oul d have e l i ci t ed fr om the Pol i ce O ffi cer s , ther eby7

pr event i ng hi m fr om m ai nt ai ni ng hi s Fi r s tA m endmentr et al i at i on cl ai m i n L yon s I. Si nce w e v ie w th e s e c la im s a s in d is tin g u is h a b le , s ee W oodf or d v. N go , 548 U . S. 81, 122 ( 2006) ( “the r i ghtof ac ces s t o the court s i s an as pectof the Fi r s tA m endmentr i ghtt o pet i t i on the G ov ernm ent for r edress of g ri evan ces” ) , w e s hal l denyL y ons ’ r i ghtt o pet i t i on cl ai m for the r eas ons s t at ed i n ourdi s cus s i on of hi s r i ghtt o acc es s cl ai m . A ccor di ngl y , the D i s tr i ct C ou rtdid not err i n d i sm i ssi ng A pp el l ants ’ r i gh tt o p et i t i on cl ai m s. W i th regard t o A pp el l ants ’ r i gh tof associat i on cl ai m , w e no t e that “the F i rs t A m e n d m e n t p ro tec ts tw o typ e s o f a ss o c iatio n : e x p re ss iv e a n d in tim a te. G e n e ra lly sp e a k in g , ex p re ss iv e a ss o c iatio n p ro tec ts th e a b ili tyo f in d iv id u a ls to g a th e r in o rd e r to p u rsu e p o lit ica l, so c ial, e c o n o m ic, e d u c a tio n a l, relig io u s, a n d c u ltu ra l en d s . . . . In tim a te associ at i on prot ect s the closestand m osti nter dep end ent of hu m an rel at i on shi ps against
s t at e i nt er fer ence . ” Schul t zv. W i l s on , 304 Fed. A ppx. 116, 120 ( 3d C i r . 2008) ( i nt ernal quot at i ons and ci t at i ons om i t t ed) . Si nce A ppel l ant s al l ege thatA ppel l ees ’ conduct pr event ed them from fr eel yas s oci at i ng w i th i ndi vi dual s of thei rchoos i ng, w e cons true thei rcl ai m s as bei ng gr ounded i n the theoryof i nt i m at e as s oci at i on. I nt i m at e as s oci at i ons “bythei rnatur e i nvol ve dee p att achment s and comm i t m ent s t o the nec es s ar i l yfew other i nd i vidual s w i th w ho m on e shares noton l ya speci al com m un i tyof thou gh t s, exp eri ences, and bel i efs butal s o di s t i nct i vel yper s onal as pect s of one’ s l i fe. ” P iLam bda P hi Fr at er ni t y, I nc. v. U ni ver s i t y of P i t t s bur gh , 229 F. 3d 435, 442 ( 3d C i r . 2000) ( quot i ng R ober t s v. U ni t ed Stat es Jayc ees , 468 U . S. 609, 619- 20 ( 1984) ) . A ppel l ant s have not8

pr ovi ded us w i th anyauthor i ty , norcan w e l ocat e the s ame, i ndi cat i ng thatanytype of empl oym ent , m uch l es s the publ i c empl oym entati s s ue i n thi s cas e, aut om at i cal l ygi ves r i s e t o an “i nt i m at e as s oci at i on. ” Fur ther , A ppel l ant s have f ai l ed t o l odge al l egat i ons from w hich a r easona ble per son co uld i nfer that s uch an associat i on dev el op ed am on gst them. M or eover , A ppel l ant s have f ai l ed t o i dent i fyhow A ppel l ees ’ di s cl os ur e of the per s onnel fi l es adver s el yaff ect ed thei rr i ght s of as s oci at i on. A ccor di ngl y , the D i s tr i ct C our tpr oper l ydi s m i s s ed A ppel l ant s ’ fr eedom of as s oci at i on cl ai m s forfai l ur e t o s t at e a cl ai m upon w hi ch r el i ef maybe gr ant ed. A pp el l ants al so argue thatA pp el l ees’ con du cti nfri ng ed u po n thei r Fi rs t A m endmentr i ght s t o appea ras w i tnes s es . H ow ever , al though the r i ghtt o appea rand gi ve true t es t i m onyas a w i tnes s i n a l egal pr ocee di ng i s guar ant eed bythe fr ee s peec h
c la u s e o f th e F ir s t A m e n d m e n t, se e Me lto n v . O k la h o m a C ity , 8 7 9 F .2 d 7 0 6 , 7 1 4 (1 0 th C ir . 1 9 8 9 ) , cer t . deni ed , 50 2 U . S . 90 6 (199 1), A pp el l ants hav e no tal l eged that A pp el l ees’ conductcaus ed them ei thert o fai l t o appea ras w i tnes s es ort o pr ovi de fa l s e t es t i m ony w hen theydi d appea ras w i tnes s es . I ndeed, as the D i s tr i ctC our tnot ed, A ppel l ant s do not
c o n tes t th e f

a c t th a t d u rin g th e lit ig a tio n o f th is c a se th e yd id h a v e a n o p p o rtu n ityto a p p e a r a s w itn e ss e s a n d b e d e p o se d w ith th e ir a tto rn e y s p re se n t. If th e A p p e llan ts f e lt thati m pr opr i et i es w er e comm i t t ed i n connec t i on w i th thei rdepos i t i ons theycoul d haveW hen a de pos i t i on i s “bei ng conduct ed i n bad fa i th ori n a mannerthat 11 unr eas onabl yannoy s , embar r as s es , oroppr es s es the depone ntorparty , ” the depone ntor p a rt ym a ym o v e th e c o u rtto te rm in a te o r l im it th e s c o p e o f th e d e p o s itio n . See F e d . R. C iv . P . 3 0 (d )( 3 )( A ). 9 a le rt e d th e D is tr ic t C o u rtto th e s a m e . See Fed. R . C i v. P. 30. H ow ever , theyfai l ed t o do 11
s o. A ccor di ngl y , the D i s tr i ctC our tpr oper l ydi s m i s s ed A ppel l ant s ’ Fi r s tA m endment
c laim s to th is e x ten t. Fi nal l y , t o the ext entthatA ppel l ant s have l odged Fi r s tA m endmentr et al i at i on cl ai m s agai ns tthe A ppel l ees , w e t ake c ogni zanc e of the thr ee- s t ep bur den- s hi ft i ng a n a lysis u tiliz e d w h e n a n a lyzi n g c la im s o f th is n a tu re b yp u b lic e m p lo y e e s . See Hi l lv. C i t y of Scr ant on , 411 F. 3d 118, 125 ( 3d C i r . 2005) . “Fi r s t , the empl oy ee musts how that the ac t i vi tyi s i n fac tpr ot ect ed. Second, the empl oy ee musts how thatthe pr ot ect ed act i vi ty‘ w as a s ubs t ant i al fac t ori n the al l eged r et al i at oryact i on. ’ T hi r d, the empl oy er m a yd e f e a t th e e m p lo y e e ’s c laim b yd e m o n stra tin g th a t th e sa m e a d v e rse a c tio n w o u ld have t aken pl ace i n the abs ence of the pr ot ect ed conduc t . ” I d. (cit ati o n s o m itted). In determ i ning w hetheran all eged actof ret al i at i on can suf fi ci entl ysupp orta F i rs t A m en d m en t r etali ati o n claim , w e loo k to w h ethe r th e a ct w o u ld b e “ su ff ici en t t o d eter a p e rs o n o f

o rd in a ry f

ir m n e s s f ro m e x e rc is in g h is F ir s t A m e n d m e n t r ig h ts .” McKee v . H art , 4 3 6 F .3 d 1 6 5 , 1 7 0 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 6 ) ( in te rn a l q u o ta tio n m a rk s a n d c ita tio n o m itte d ). I n the ca s e atbar , as faras w e ca n t el l , the Fi r s tA m endmentr et al i at i on cl ai m as s ert ed by L y ons i s pr emi s ed upon hi s fi l i ng of L yon s I, and the r et al i at i on cl ai m s as s ert ed bytheT hi s concl us i on i s but tr es s ed bythe fa ctthatal though A ppel l ant s had the 12 op po rtun i tyt o co m plai n ab ou tthe all eged i m propri et i es ass ociat ed w i th the dep osi t i on s, theyfai l ed to do so . Q uit e si m ply , w e decli ne the i nv i t at i on t o clas si fyzeal ou s cr osse x a m in a tio n a s re ta lia to ry c o n d u c t. 10 rem ai ning A pp el l ants are pr em i sed on theirw i l l i ng ness t o b e dep osed as L y on s’ w i tness i n L yon s I. A s the D i s tr i ctC our tnot ed, “D epos i t i ons ar e adver s ar i al i n natur e . . . . ” Ji m i nezv. A l l

-A m er i can Raths kel l er, I nc. , 503 F. 3d 247, 253 ( 3d C i r . 2007) ( ci t i ng D ar nel lv. Targe t St or es , 16 F. 3d 174, 176 ( 7th C i r . 1994) ) . N othi ng i n the amended compl ai nti ndi cat es th a t A p p e llee s’ d isc lo su re o f th e p e rso n n e l f

iles w a s d o n e f

o r a n yp u rp o se o th e r th a n to as s i s ti n thei rdefe ns e of Ly ons ’ al l egat i ons . I ndeed, A ppel l ant s admi tthatthe per s onnel fi l es w er e bei ng us ed i n or dert o i dent i fybi as and t o otherw i s e i m peac h thei rcr edi bi l i tyor c a s t th e m in a n e g a tiv e lig h t. See A m end. C om pl . ¶ 19. C ert ai nl y , s uch a us e w as r eas onabl e gi ven the natur e of the l aw s ui ti n L yon s I, i . e. a Fi r s tA m endmentr et al i at i on s u it. C ons equent l y , w e bel i eve thatthe conduc taboutw hi ch A ppel l ant s compl ai n i s not “s uffi ci entt o det era per s on of or di naryfi r m nes s fr om exer ci s i ng hi s Fi r s tA m endment ri g h ts .” A ccordi ng l y , the D i stri ctC ou rtdid not err i n d i sm i ssi ng A pp el l ants ’ Fi rs t

12 A m end m ent r et al i at i on cl ai m s. B. F o u r th Ame n d me n tCl a i ms T h e F o u rth A m e n d m e n t sta tes , “T h e rig h t o f th e p e o p le to b e se c u re in th e ir per s ons , hous es , paper s , and ef fec t s , agai ns tunr eas onabl e s ear ches and s ei zur es , s hal l notA p p e llan ts a rg u e th a t if w e a f f irm th e D istric t C o u rt’s d e ter m in a tio n s, w e w ill 13 be i m pl i ci t l ys anct i oni ng empl oy er s t o m ani pul at e the r ecor ds of i t s empl oy ees as theys ee fi t , i ncl udi ng, butnotl i m i t ed t o, di s tr i but i ng and publ i s hi ng i nform at i on der i ved ther efr om . T hi s ar gum entm i s appr ehends ourhol di ng, w hi ch i s expr es s l yl i m i t ed t o the f a c t s o f th i s c a s e . As s t a t e d , th e ma t t e ra tb a ri s b a s e d u p o n th e F i r s tAme n d me n tc l a i ms as s ert ed aga i ns tC hi ef M ent zer , A s s i s t antC hi ef D i t zl er , and the B or ough i n L yon s I. In th a t ca se , L y o n s h im se lf id e n tifie d R o b e rts, D e a rd o rf f , S h u e y , M a rtin , W h e a le, a n d B e rlin as i ndi vi dual s w ho m i ghthave i nform at i on r el evantt o hi s Fi r s tA m endmentr et al i at i on c l a i m. T h e s e i n d i v i d u a l s we r e e v e n tu a l l ys u b p o e n a e d f o rd e p o s i t i o n . I n th a tc o n t e x t , we bel i eve i tw as ent i r el yr eas onabl e forthe A ppel l ees t o pr ovi de thei ratt orney s w i th the per s onnel fi l es of thos e i ndi vi dual s , w hi ch A ppel l ees cr eat ed and mai nt ai ned, s o thatany pot ent i al bi as es coul d be i dent i fi ed dur i ng the depos i t i ons . A ppel l ant ’ s s l i pperys l ope a rg u m e n t is in a p t f

o r a ll o f th e f o re g o in g re a s o n s .

11 be vi ol at ed, and no W arr ant s s hal l i s s ue, butupon pr obabl e ca us e, s uppor t ed byO ath or aff i rm at i on, and part i cul ar l ydes cr i bi ng the pl ace t o be s ear ched, and the per s ons orthi ngs t o b e s e i z e d. ” U . S. C ONST . am en d IV . A n ind ividu al’s F o u rth A m en d m en t r igh ts are im p lic a te d in s itu a tio n s w h e re h e o r s h e h a s a re a s o n a b le e x p e c ta tio n o f p ri v a c y . See O ’ C onnorv. O r t ega , 4 8 0 U . S . 7 0 9 , 7 1 5 (19 8 7 ). T h e a m en d ed co m p lai n t cl ea rl yav ers th a t th e A p p e lle e s m a in ta in e d a n d h a d a c c e s s to th e p e rs o n n e l f ile s . See A m e n d e d C o m p l. ¶¶ 15, 16. C onver s el y , the amended compl ai nti s compl et el yber eftof anyi ndi cat i on that the per s onnel fi l es bel onged t o A ppel l ant s . N orhave A ppel l ant s pr ovi ded us w i th any
cas e l aw i ndi cat i ng thatempl oy ees have a pr i vacyi nt er es ti n the per s onnel fi l es m a in tain e d b yth e ir e m p lo y e rs. In d e e d , w e b e liev e th a t re a so n a b le e m p lo y e e s w o u ld
as s um e thatthe per s onnel fi l es m ai nt ai ned bythei rempl oy ercoul d be us ed i n an e mp l o yme n t - d i s c r i mi n a t i o n l a ws u i ti n wh i c h th e yt e s t i f i e d . I n s u c h c i r c u ms t a n c e s , we beli eve thatthere i s no reasonab l e exp ect at i on of p ri vacyi n sai d fil es. See O r t ega , 480 13T o be s ur e, w e ca n envi s i on a ci r cumst ance w her e the r evel at i on of i nform at i on 14 cont ai ned i n a per s onnel fi l e mi ghts uppor ta cl ai m of r et al i at i on; t o w i t , i f s ens i t i ve in f o rm a tio n th a t co u ld n o t p o ss ib lyb e u se d to a ss e ss b ias w a s g ra tu ito u slyo r re c k les sly r el eas ed. T her e i s no i ndi cat i on thatthi s occurr ed her e. W hi l e A ppel l ant s bal dl yal l ege th a t ce rta in m e d ica l an d c o n f id e n tial in f

o rm a tio n w a s re lea se d to A p p e llee s’ c o u n se l in advanc e of the depos i t i ons , ther e i s no i ndi cat i on thatanyi nform at i on ut i l i zed by A ppel l ees fel l out s i de the r eal m of w hatcoul d have be en r eas onabl yus ed t o as s es s the exi s t ence of bi as . M or eover , A ppel l ant s fai l t o ci t e t o anydepos i t i on t es t i m ony demonstr at i ng the i nappr opr i at e r el eas e of i nform at i on fr om thei rfi l es , norhave they att ache d the depos i t i ons as exhi bi t s t o thei rcompl ai nt , w hi ch coul d have be en acc om pl i s hed unders eal t o pr es erve conf i dent i al i ty . I n s hor t , A ppel l ant s have pr ovi ded us w i th nothi ng m or e than bl anketas s ert i ons thatthe di s cl os ed i nform at i on w as “c o n fid en ti al” a n d there fo re tha t i ts r elea se w as u n co n sti tuti o n al. S u ch all eg ati o n s are in s u f f ic ie n t to a llo w th e irc la im s to s u rv iv e . See Ashc r of tv. I qbal , - - - U . S. - - - , - - - , 12 9 S. C t . 19 37 , 19 49 (2009 ) ( W hil e a com plai nt att acked bya R ule 12(b)( 6) m oti on t o d i sm i ss n ee d n o t con tai n d etail ed fa ctua l al lega ti o n s, itm u st co n tai n “su ff ici en t fac tual m att er, a c c e p ted a s tru e , to s tate c laim to re lief th a t is p lau sib le o n its f a c e .”); See Bel lA t l
. C or p. v . T w o m b ly , 550 U . S. 544, 555 ( 2007) ( B ar e al l egat i ons ar e “notent i t l ed t o the as s um pt i on of truth” and mustbe di s r egar ded forpurpos es of r es ol vi ng a 12( b) ( 6) m ot i on to d ism iss. ). 12 U . S. at717 ( “The em pl oy ee’ s expec t at i on of pr i vacym us tbe as s es s ed i n the cont extof th e e m p lo ym e n t re latio n .”). T h e re f o re , w e f in d th a t th e D istric t C o u rt d id n o t er r in dis m i ssi ng A pp el l ants ’ Fou rth A m end m ent cl ai m s. 14 C. F o u r t e e n th Ame n d me n tS u b s t a n t i v e Du e P r o c e s s Cl a i ms T h e d u e p ro c e s s c la u s e o f th e F o u rt e e n th A m e n d m e n t s ta te s , in p e rt in e n t p a rt , “ No S t a t e s h a l l . . . d e p r i v e a n yp e r s o n o f l i f e , l i b e r ty , o rp r o p e r ty , wi th o u td u e p r o c e s s o f l a w; no rde nyt o a nype r s on w i thi n i t s j ur i s di c t i on the e qu a l pr ot e c t i on of the l a w s . ” U . S. C ONST . a me n d . XI V. T h e e lem e n ts o f a su b sta n tiv e d u e p ro c e ss c laim a re th a t: (i) defe ndant s act ed undercol orof l aw ; ( i i ) a pr ot ect ed pr opertyorl i bertyi nt er es tw as at13

s t ake; ( i i i ) the def

endant s had a dutyof ca r e t ow ar d the pl ai nt i ff; and ( i v) a depr i vat i on w ith in th e m e a n in g o f

th e d u e p ro c e s s c la u s e o c c u rr e d . See Fagan v. C i t y of V i neland , 22 F .3 d 1 2 9 6 , 1 3 1 0 (3 d C ir . 1 9 9 4 ). T h e a m e n d e d c o m p lain t av e rs th a t A p p e llee s, in th e ir offi ci al capa ci t i es , vi ol at ed A ppel l ant s ’ s ubs t ant i ve due pr oces s r i ght s bydepr i vi ng them
o f th e ir p ro tec ted p ro p e rtyin ter e sts in th e ir p e rso n n e l an d m e d ica l re c o rd s a n d th e ir pr ot ect ed l i bertyi nt er es ti n bei ng “fr ee of arbi tr aryand capr i ci ous governm entact i ons devoi d of anyl egi t i m at e governm entpurpos es . . . . ” A m end C om pl . ¶¶ 8, 22. In order t o sup po rta subst anti ve d ue p rocess cl ai m , the g ov ernm ent cond uct m ust b e “so eg reg iou s, so o u tr ag eo u s, that itm ayfa ir lyb e sa id to sh o ck the c o n tem p o rary cons ci ence . ” Kaucherv. C ount y of B ucks , 455 F. 3d 418, 425 ( 3d C i r . 2006) . T he det erm i nat i on of w hetherconduct“s hocks the cons ci ence ” i s depende ntupon the fa ct s of
e a c h p a rt ic u la r c a s e . See i d. at425- 26. A s afor es t at ed, w e bel i eve that , i n the cont extof L yon s I, i tw as ent i r el yr eas onabl e forA ppel l ees t o do pr ovi de thei rcouns el w i th the p e rso n n e l f

iles o f th o se in d iv id u a ls w h o w e re sp e c if ica llyid e n tifie d b yL y o n s in R u le 2 6 (a ) d isc lo su re s a n d w h o h a v e b e e n su b p o e n a e d to tes tify , as d o in g so w o u ld a ss ist th e ir
co u n sel i n d eterm ining w h ethe r L y o n s’ all eg ati o n s o f u n law fu l r etali ati o n w ere m er i t or i ous . A ccor di ngl y , w e do notbel i eve thatA ppel l ees ’ conduct“s hocks the
c o n sc ien c e ,” m e a n in g th a t th e D istric t C o u rt d id n o t er r in c o n c lu d in g th a t A p p e llan ts fai l ed t o s t at e a s ubs t ant i ve due pr oces s cl ai m upon w hi ch r el i ef c an be gr ant ed.14

B as ed on the for egoi ng di s cus s i on, the D i s tr i ctC our tpr oper l ydi s m i s s ed the above- capt i oned ac t i on beca us e A ppel l ant s fai l ed t o es t abl i s h thatthei rFi r s t , Four th, or F o u rte e n th A m e n d m e n t rig h ts h a d b e e n v io late d . H o w e v e r, ev e n if A p p e llan ts’ rig h ts had bee n vi ol at ed, the doctr i ne of qua l i fi ed i m m uni tyw oul d i ns ul at e M ent zerand D i t zl er f ro m liab ili ty . T h e d o c trin e o f q u a lifie d im m u n ity p ro tec ts g o v e rn m e n t o f f icia ls per form i ng di s cr et i onaryfunct i ons s o l ong as thei rconductdoes notvi ol at e es t abl i s hed
c o n s titu tio n a l r ig h ts o f

w h ic h a re a s o n a b le p e rs o n w o u ld h a v e k n o w n . H ar l ow v. F itzg e ra ld , 4 5 7 U .S . 8 0 0 , 8 1 8 (1 9 8 2 ). S ta te d d if f e re n tly, i n as s es s i ng w hetherC hi ef M entzerand A ssi st ant C hief D i t zl er s ho uld be ve st ed w i th q uali fi ed im m un i ty , w e m ust det erm i ne w hetherther e w as a cons t i tut i onal vi ol at i on and w hetherther e w as good r eas on f o r t h e m to k n o w th a t th e ira c tio n s w e re u n c o n s titu tio n a l. W i lki e v. R obbi ns , 551 U . S. 537 ( 2007) ( ci t i ng Sa u c ierv . Ka tz , 5 3 3 U . S . 1 9 4 , 2 0 1 (20 0 1 )); s ee al s o P ears on v. C al lahan , -

- U . S. - - , 129 S. C t . 808 ( 2009) ( m odi fy i ng Sa ucier t o the ext entthatcourt s need not add res s one spe ci fi c i nq uirybefo re the o ther) . A s st at ed ab ov e, given t hat A pp el l ees’ conductoccurr ed i n the cont extof a Fi r s tA m endmentr et al i at i on l aw s ui ti n w hi ch A ppel l ant s w er e i dent i fi ed i n R ul e 26( a) di s cl os ur es and s ubpoenae d t o t es t i fy , w e do not bel i eve thata r eas onabl e per s on coul d concl ude thatA ppel l ees s houl d have know n that thei rdi s cl os ur e of A ppel l ant s ’ per s onnel fi l es vi ol at ed ei therthe Fi r s t , Four th, orA g a in , this d e ter m in a tio n is p re m ise d o n th e f a c t th a t A p p e llan ts h a v e f a iled to 15 i dent i fyanys peci fi c i nform at i on cont ai ned i n the per s onnel fi l es and us ed dur i ng the dep osi t i on s that w as not desi gn ed to i den t i fybias . 15 Four t eenth A m endment s of the fe der al C ons t i tut i on. C ons equent l y , A ppel l ees w oul d be 15
v e s te d w ith q u a lif

ie d im m u n ity in th e in s ta n t la w s u it. See G r oh v. R am i r ez , 540 U . S. 551, 5 7 1 (2 0 0 4 ) (f

o r th e p ro p o sitio n th a t q u a lifie d im m u n ityp ro v id e s a m p le p ro tec tio n to a ll butthe pl ai nl yi ncompet entorthos e w ho know i ngl yvi ol at e the l aw ) . A ccor di ngl y , the D istric t C o u rt’s d e c isio n to d ism iss th e c laim s a g a in st th e m w a s p ro p e r in a n ye v e n t. F u rth e r, w ith re g a rd to th e a lleg a tio n s lo d g e d a g a in st th e B o ro u g h , w e n o te th a t a
m uni ci pal i tyi s l i abl e under§ 1983 forcons t i tut i onal vi ol at i ons “w hen the exe cut i on of a g o v e rn m e n t’s p o licyo r c u sto m , w h e th e r m a d e b yits law m a k e rs o r b yth o se w h o se e d icts
oract s m ayfai r l ybe s ai d t o r epr es entoffi ci al pol i cy , i nfl i ctthe i nj ury . ” Monel lv. D ep’ tof Soc. Ser v. , 4 3 6 U .S . 6 5 8 , 6 9 4 (1 9 7 8 ). A m uni ci pal i tyi s notl i abl e under§ 1983 unl es s the p o lic yo r c u s to m is th e m o v in g f o rc e b e h in d th e c o n s titu tio n a l v io la tio n . C i t y of C ant on v. H a rr is , 489 U . S. 378, 388 ( 1989) . T he amended compl ai nti s compl et el yber eftof any al l egat i ons r el at ed t o a pol i cyorcus t om adopt ed bythe B or ough, m uch l es s a pol i cyor cus t om thatdi r ect l yr es ul t ed i n the al l eged de pr i vat i on of A ppel l ant s ’ cons t i tut i onal
r i ght s . A ccor di ngl y , the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s deci s i on t o di s m i s s the cl ai m s agai ns ti tw as ent i r el yappr opr i at e. * * * * *16

B a se d o n th e f

o re g o in g , w e a f

f irm th e ju d g m e n t o f

th e D istric t C o u rt.