Opinion ID: 2657600
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Rowan’s Discovery Motion

Text: Rowan argues that the trial court denied him due process by denying his motion for production of records from law enforcement without conducting an in camera review. In response, OCS frames the issue not as a constitutional matter, but rather as a discovery dispute and argues that the standard of review should be abuse of discretion; it argues in the alternative that even if the trial court abused its discretion, Rowan has not shown that the error harmed him. In his reply brief, Rowan contends that even under an abuse of discretion standard the trial court’s ruling should be reversed. With limited exceptions not applicable here, the discovery provisions of Alaska Civil Rules 26-37 and 45 apply in child in need of aid (CINA) cases.8 We have previously held that “the civil rules are committed to a system of liberal pretrial discovery.”9 Although AST raised the issue of the Alaska Public Records Act, Rowan did not make a request for records as a member of the general public; his motion was for discovery directly relevant to the civil proceeding against him. Civil Rule 26(b)(1) provides that a party “may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged which is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action.” As part of the discovery process, a party can, with few exceptions, depose and obtain relevant documents from any person who may have information relevant to the litigation.10 8 CINA Rules 1(e) and 8(b). 9 Jones v. Jennings, 788 P.2d 732, 735 (Alaska 1990) (citing United Servs. Auto. Ass’n v. Werley, 526 P.2d 28, 31 (Alaska 1974)). 10 Alaska R. Civ. P. 30-31, 45. We recognize that Rowan apparently did not first attempt to conduct a records deposition in this case, but OCS does not raise this procedural issue as a reason to deny his request and it seems likely that had Rowan (continued...) -7- 6881 Although we previously have construed the Public Records Act,11 we have not considered the interaction between the exceptions to disclosure in that statute and civil discovery rules. Both provide access to information, but they do so for different reasons and provide different types of access. As one federal court wrote in relation to the federal Freedom of Information Act (FOIA):12 The FOIA furthers the public’s general right to know and ensures government accountability. Discovery discourages unfair surprise and delay at trial. In the FOIA context, the requesting party’s need for the information is irrelevant . . . . In the discovery context, when qualified privilege is properly raised, the litigant’s need is a key factor. Whether the information is disclosed depends on the relative weight of the claimant’s need and the government’s interest in confidentiality.[13] Here the trial court denied all access to the information Rowan requested in his discovery motion, relying on exceptions to disclosure in the Public Records Act instead of analyzing the discovery request under the Civil Rules. There is no indication in the trial court’s order that it considered whether Rowan’s need for the information as a litigant outweighed the law enforcement agencies’ interests in not disclosing it. This was legal error and requires a remand to the trial court. 10 (...continued) sought records depositions, the parties would have been before the trial court in exactly the same posture attempting to resolve the discovery dispute. 11 See, e.g., Gwich’in Steering Comm. v. State, Office of the Governor, 10 P.3d 572 (Alaska 2000). 12 5 U.S.C. § 552 (2012). We have noted some parallels between the FOIA and the Public Records Act. Gwich’in Steering Comm., 10 P.3d at 577 n.6. 13 Friedman v. Bache Halsey Stuart Shields, Inc., 738 F.2d 1336, 1344 (D.C. Cir. 1984). -8- 6881 We note that Rowan apparently now has been charged criminally with numerous counts of child sexual abuse and presumably has been provided in his criminal case with much, if not all, of the information he sought through discovery in the CINA case.14 If any information requested in the CINA discovery motion and identified by the law enforcement agencies has not been provided to him, the court should order law enforcement to provide him with the information or make a claim of privilege or other protection with respect to that information. The trial court then can conduct an in camera review of documents to assess any claim of privilege or other protections.15 After Rowan’s discovery requests have been resolved, he should be given the opportunity to bring any information obtained through discovery in his criminal case and in this case to the attention of the trial court. The trial court then must review any new information to determine whether the new information changes the trial court’s determination that the children are in need of aid under any statutory basis relied upon.