Gen. 249] 249
PERSONNEL
E VIDENCE

) P ERSONNEL F ILES OF P RIVAT E E MPLOYER A RE N OT P RIVILEGED A GAINS T D ISCOVERY

June 2, 1995

The Honorable Gilber t J. Genn House of Delegates
You have request ed our opini on whetherthe pers onnel fi les of a private em ployer are privil eged agains t dis covery in c ivillitigati on.
For the rea sons st ated bel ow, we conclude that the pers onnel fil es of a p rivate e mp loyer a re no t privileg ed ag ainst dis cove ry in civil litigation. Wheth er such fi les may actuall y be discover ed depends upon their

relationshi p to pot enti al evi dence in t he litigati on. Even if di scovery of personnelfil es occurs , however, the privacyinter ests of

those who are t

he subject

of th e fil es may be safe gua rde d to som e ex tent b y a p rote ctive ord er.

I Background Maryland Rule 2-402(a) defines the s cope of dis covery as follows: (a) A part y m ay obtain d iscovery

regardi ng any matter, no t pri vilege d, inc luding the exist ence, des cription, nat ur e, cust ody, conditi on, and location of a ny documents or other tangibl e thing and the ide ntit y and locat ion of persons having knowledge of any disco verab le ma tter, if

the m atter relate s to the claim or defens e of the party se eking discovery or to the claim or defens e of any other party. It i s not ground f or objection that250 [80 O p. Att’y

1 Maryland Rule 2-402(a) contains language pa ra lleling tha

t in FederalRule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1). The Court of Appea ls has said that it willlook to federaldecisions construing the corresponding federal rulefor guidance in construing a similar State rule. Snowhite v. State e x rel. Tennant , 243 Md. 291, 308-09, 221 A.2d 342 (1966). Accord Turgut v. Levine , 79 Md. App. 279, 289, 556 A.2d 720 (1989).

the in fo rma ti on s oug htis al re ad y kn own to or otherwise obtain able b y the p arty se eking discovery or that

the inf ormation wil l be inadm issible at the tri al if the inf ormation soughtappe ars rea sona bly ca lculated to l ead to the dis covery of

a dmi ss ib le ev id en ce . A n interrogatory or deposition quest ion o therwise properis not

object ionable merely because the response invo lves an opin ion o r con te nti on that relat es to f

act or t he applic ation of

law to fact. 1
One of the obj ecti ves of the rules of disc overy is “to require the disclosure of facts by a p arty litigan t to all o f h is adver sari es, and therebyto eliminate, as far as possible, the neces sit y of any party to litigat ion goin g to trial in a confused or muddled stat e of mind, conce rning the fac ts that gave r ise t o the li tigation.” Balt imor e Tran sitCo . v. Mezzan otti , 227 M d. 8, 13, 174 A .2d 768 (1 961). AccordBill

man v. State Deposit Corp. , 86 Md. App. 1, 12-13, 585 A.2d 238 , cer t . deni ed , 323 M d. 1, 5 90 A .2d 1 58, cert. denied , 112 S.C t. 30 4 (1 991 ).
Under the rul e, i nformati on is di scoverabl e if i t is (i) not privi leged; (ii ) rel evant t o the subj ect matt er invol ved in the acti on, whether it

relat es to a c laim or de fense of the p arty seeking disco very or de fense of an other p arty; or (iii) re ason ably calcul atedto le ad to the disc ove ry o f ad m issib le ev iden ce. See Rubin v. Weiss man , 59 M d. App . 392, 400, 47 5 A.2d 1235 (1 984); Paul V. N iem eye r an d L ind a M . Sch uett, Maryland Ru l es Com mentary 253-54 (2d ed. 1992). I nformati on is privi leged for discovery purp oses if

it would be privil eged at t rialunder the rules of evide nce. “ Privil eges for confiden tial comm unications are creat ed beca use th e state th inks a particu lar relation ship ... is suf ficiently important

that it shoul d be fost ered by pres ervi n g conf identia lity in the rel ations hip even at the cost of losing evidence that woul d help to determine t he trut h in lat er li tigation.” CharlesGen. 249] 251

2 SG§10-616(i) “was inte nded to give person

nel file a ccess on ly to the person

who is the subject o f the file or to those

persons w

ho actua lly supervis e or are directly responsible for the supervision of the person who (continued...) Alan W righ t, Law of Federal Co urts §81, at

549 (4th ed. 1983) (foo tno te om itted ).
The rul es of disc overy are t o be libe rally constr ued. Mezzan otti , 227 Md. at 13. A tr ial c ourt i s givenwid e discr etion in a pplying the r ules . 227 M d. at 1 3-1 4. Acc ord Ka rl v. Da vis , 10 0 M d. A pp. 4 2, 55 , 639 A.2 d 21 4 (1 994 ).
Your inquir

y aris es from the s ituation in which an empl oyee sues his or he r employer, usuall y for unl awful dis crimination or wrongful termination, and seeks t o discover the per sonnel f

iles of other employees who are not parti es to t he cas e. Th e li tigant employee usuall y seeks the personn el fil es to det ermine if the employer treats all sim ilarly situated em ployees in the same man ner, or whe t he r t

he emp lo yer tr eats s ome similarly sit uated employees differe ntly. This type of comparative infor

mation is often “necessa ry to affo rd the e mp loyee plaintiff a fair op portu nity to develop his or h er case and m ay be releva nt to establ ish the pretext ual nature of

defendant

[employer’ s] conduct .” Flanagan v. Travelers Ins. Co ., 111 F.R .D. 4 7 (W .D.N .Y. 1 986 ). See g ener ally Stefan Epstein, Annotati on , Discovery, Under Fed eral R ules o f Civil Procedure, in Acti ons Brought by Pri vate P laint iff s Under Equal Employment Op

portu nity Provisi ons of Civi l Right s Act of 1964 , 31 A.L.R . Fed. 657 (1 977).

II

Discov ery of

Personne l Recor ds
In general , publi c polic y favors protect ing the conf identia lity of perso nnel file s. This policy is reflecte d in the M aryla nd Pub lic Informati on Act, which requ ires that a custodi an deny inspec tion of a personn el rec o rd of a pub lic em ploy ee. §1 0-61 6(i) of th e State Government (“SG”) Arti cle, Maryland Code. The obvious purpose of this sub section is to pres erve the privacy of personalinfor

mation about a public employee that is ac cum ula ted duri ng his or he r em ploy me nt. 65 Opinions of the Att orney General

365, 367 (19 80). 2252 [80 O p. Att’y

2 (...continued) is the subject of the file.” 78 Opinions of the Attorney General

291, 294 (1993). Disclosur e of the c ontents of personne l fi les may be consider ed a breach of

an em ployee’s reaso nable expe ctation of co nfiden tiality and per son al pr ivac y. See Sco tt L. F ast, Brea ch of Employee Confident iali ty: Moving Toward A Comm on-Law Tort Remedy , 142 U. Pa. L. R ev. 431, 43 8 (1993 ) (“Acco rding to one survey, m ore than fif ty perce nt of workers and executives cons ider t he personal infor mation kept by the ir employ ers t o b e ‘ ve ryi mpo rt an t ’ in t erms of privacy

... ”). I ndeed, where t he employee is not

a party to t h e litigati o n, such expect ations are hei ghtened. Revealing s uch infor mation may caus e mo ra le problem s. In addition, “em ployers may cease t o frankl y criticiz e [employee] pe rformance for fe ar that any writt en evaluat ions they prepa re m ay b e us ed a gain st the m ....” In th e Matte r of

Hawai i Co rp ., 88 F. R.D . 518, 5 24 (D . Haw aii 1980). W hat is m ore , “b y chillin g the fr ee flow of can did communication s i n this m anne r, the ab ility of the [em ploy er] to ma intain their

standar ds and to imp rove em ploy ee pe rform ance will arguably be impaired. ” Id

. Nevertheless, while the re are s trong p ubli c polic y arg um ents in fav or of prot ecti ng personnelfil es, s uch a poli cy alone does not create a privi lege for th e pu rpo ses o f disc ove ry. Cf. Boy d v. G ullett , 64 F.R.D. 169, 177 (D. Md. 1974) (exemption in Public I nformati on Act for in vestigatory reco rds does n ot create discov ery privilege). Rather, the poli cy becomes an evi dentiary pri vilege only aft er reco gni tion as su ch in statu te or cas e law

. Policyargu ment s in fav or of c onfid entiality h ave re sulted in re cogni tionof a number of privilege s, some of which derive fr om the common law and others of which ar e purely s tatutory . Th e foll owing privileges are s et out in the Courts & Judici al Procee dings Articl e, Maryland Code: marit al pri vilege , §9-105; privi lege against self -incriminati on, §9-1 07; atto rney -client, §9 -108 ; psyc hiatristpatien t, §9-109; psyc hia tri st/mental heal th nursing special ist -pat ient ,Gen. 249] 253

3 It is not be yond imagi

ning that the Maryla

nd Court of

Appeals mightrecognize such a privilege as a matter of common law, as on e commentator

has urged. SeeScott L. Fast, Bre ach of Employee Confidential ity: M

oving Toward A Common-Law Tort Remedy , 142 U. Pa. L. Rev. at 459. However, we have no basis for predicting that the Court will do so. §9-109.1; accountant -cli ent , § 9-110; cl ergy-peni tent, §9-111; journal ist -source , §9-112; and s ocialworker-pat ient, §9-121. Maryland cou rts als o re cog nize an e xec utiv e pr ivile ge, Hamilton v. Verdow , 287 Md. 544, 414 A.2d 914 (1980), and a legi slat ive privil ege , Montgomery County v. Schooley , 97 Md. App. 107, 627 A.2 d 69 (19 93)

. How ever, Maryland court s have not recogni zed an emp loyeremployee priv ilege

. See S mith v. B.& O. R

. R. Co ., 473 F. Supp. 572, 585 (D. Md. 197 9) (d es cr ib in g Mar yl an d l aw)

. 3 Acc ordingl y, because the personnelfil es of an employer are not privil eged, t

hey may be su bject to disco very if the bro ad rele vanc y stan dard in Ru le 2-4 02( a) is m et.
Federal cases pr ovide a wealt h of examples i n which such discovery was allowed. See , e.g., Co ugh lin, 946 F .2d 1152 (plaintiff was entitled to di scover per sonnel fil es of employees who had been guilty of a variety of infractions m ore seri ous than t hose committed by plaintiff

, butwh o nev erthele ss w ere no t discha rged ); Weahkee v. Norton , 621 F.2d 1080 (10t h Cir. 1980) (plai ntif

f who contended that he ha d bee n disc rimin ated a gains t in prom otions wa s entitled to discover, i n h i s e mpl oy me nt discr iminati on suit , pers onnel fi les of other employees who had all eged ly bee n pro mo ted or h ired in discriminatory pre fer ence over him ); Orbovich v. Macales ter College , 119 F. R. D. 411 (D. Minn. 1988) (profess or who allege d she was de nied te nure as a r esult of sex di scri mination, was entit led t o disc over tenure and p erson nel info rma tion reg arding other faculty mem bers for purpose of comparing t reatmentof gend ers at college). See al so S mit h v. B.& O. R.R . Co ., 473 F. Supp. at 585 ( infor mation on annual and guar anteed i ncomes of employees was not privil eged infor mation and wa s su bjec t to d isco ver y). But see McGowan v. GeneralDynam ics Corp ., 794 F.2d 36 1 (8th Cir . 1986) ( denialof applicant’s request to compel disc over y of personne l and employment record s relating to all cleric al and li ne posit ion jobs from date pot entia l appli cant first a pplied was not

an abuse of254 [80 O p. Att’y

4 Certain information obtained during the employer-employee relationship is privileged. The Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) provides that

information received by an employer about an employee (or anap plicant) as a result of a medical examination is confidential. 42 U.S.C. §12112(d)(2), (d)(3), and (d)(4). Such information must be col lected and maintained in separate medical files, not the empl oyee’ s personnelrecord. §12112 (d)(3)(B). See 29 C.F.R . §1630.14(b)(1) and (c)( 1). In es sence, the ADA creates a pr ivilege against discovery of medicalinformation received by an employer. This privilege may be overcome in limited circumstances (for example, in an ADA enfor cement action, 29 C.F.R. §1630.14(b)(1)(iii), and withregard to work safety or accommo dations, 29 C.F.R. §1630.44(g)(ii)). For State law prov is ions protecting medical r

ecords, see Title 4, Subtitle 3 of the Health-General Article.

5 Marylan

d Rule 2-4 03 is simila

r in substance and form to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c). discr etion, where request wa s extre me ly bro ad in s cope and p roba bly irrelevant). 4

III
Protective Orders Although no privi lege agai nst di scovery of pe rsonnel fil es ex ist s, certa in res tri ctions on discover y may be sought. Maryland Ru le 2-403(a) provides that a court may li mit di scover y to prot ect against“annoyance, embarrassment, oppressi on, or undue bur den or expense ....” 5 Under this rule, the court may limit

discover y by way of a p rotectiv e ord er requ iring:

(1) that t he d isco ver y no t be h ad, (2) th at the discovery not be ha d until other des ignate d discovery has been complet ed, a pre tri al confe rence has taken pl ace, or

some otherevent or proceeding has occu rred , (3) that the discover y may be had only on specif

ied te rms and condit ions, including an alloc ation of

the expense s ora designation of t he t i me or place , (4) that t he discover

y may b e ha d only by a method of dis cover y otherthan that select ed by the part

y s eeking discover

y, (5) that certain matters not be inquired int o or that t he scopeGen. 249] 255

6 Of course, the court must take care to avoid unne cessary infringement

of the plaintiff’s interests. Farnsworthv. Procto r & Gamble (continued...) of the disc over y be lim ite d to certa in matter s, ( 6) that discover

y be c onducted with no one present e xcep t perso ns de signa ted by the co urt, (7) tha t a deposit ion, after

being sea led, be opened only by orderof the cour

t, ( 8) that

a trade secret

or other confidential resear ch, devel opment, orcommercial infor mation not be discl osed or be disclos ed on ly in a designated way , (9 ) that th e partie s simu ltaneo usly fil e specif ied documen t s or i nfo rmationenclosed in sealed e nvelopes t o be open ed as directe d by the co urt.
For example, t

he federa l Circui t Court of Ap peals f or the N inth Circu it held that a prot ecti ve order l imiti ng discover y was proper und er the fo llow ing circ um stance s:

Pla intiffs seek mo re than statistical d ata o f offi ceremployment termination, di scipl ine and com pen satio n. They dem anded access to [the defenda nt agency ’s] p erson nel files to com pile their

own stati sti cs. While t

hese fi les are not absolut ely pri vilege d, the confidential
n ature of the e mp loyee perso nnel file s sugg ests that ope ning the fi les t o the plaintiffs fora g en er al se ar ch co ul d r ea ch we l l beyond the legitimate inq uires n ecess ary to th is litigati on and woul d impac t disciplinary pro ced ure s w ithin the [ age ncy ]....
W hile plaintiff

s demonstrat e the relevance of stat ist ics to their su it, they fail to s how that discovery of the a ctual fil es was necessar y. Focused discover

y c ould have bee n employed.
Sanchez v. Cit

y of Santa Ana , 936 F.2d 10 27, 1034 (9th Cir. 1990 ). See also Rossini v. Ogilvy & Mather, Inc ., 798 F.2d 5 90 (2d C ir. 1986) (prot ecti ve order pr oper ly perm itted only plaintiff’s lawye rs to hav e dire ct acces s to the personnelfil es produced by t he defenda nt in the course of discove ry). 6256 [80 O p. Att’y

6 (...continued) Co. , 758 F.2d 1545, 1547 (11 th Cir . 1985). See Longmire v. Alabama State University , 151 F.R.D. 414 (M.D. Ala. 1992) (o ral motion to exclude plaint iff employee from production of personnel files denied whe r e plaintiff’s presence would make document production more ef ficient because plaintiff had personal knowledge of the case). IV
Conclusion
In summary, it i s our opini o n that p erson nel files o f a priv ate em plo yer are n ot p rivile ged aga inst d isco ver y in civil litiga tion

. J. Joseph C urran, Jr. AttorneyGeneral
Kim berly Sm ith Wa rd Assist ant Attorney General
Jack Sch wa rtz Chief Counsel Opinions & Advice