Opinion ID: 2363701
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 9

Heading: Duties and Considerations Imposed by Berst

Text: As KaMMCO suggests, the Berst decision guides our analysis. In Berst, after having found that the NCAA could seek the mandamus, the Berst court turned its consideration to the language of 60-226(b), which defines the scope of discovery, stating that discovery is allowed of any matter, not privileged, which is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action. K.S.A.2009 Supp. 60-226(b)(1). The Berst court noted that the scope of relevancy in a discovery proceeding is broader than the scope of relevancy at trial. Berst, 232 Kan. at 186, 653 P.2d 107 ( citing Gleichenhaus v. Carlyle, 226 Kan. 167, 170, 597 P.2d 611 [1979]). It is not ground for objection that the information sought will be inadmissible at trial if the information sought appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. K.S.A.2009 Supp. 60-226(b)(1). After conducting its own in camera review of the documents, the Berst court concluded that many of the documents in the NCAA's file did not relat[e] in any way to the litigants or the issues involved in the lawsuit. Berst, 232 Kan. at 186, 653 P.2d 107. Because the irrelevant documents should have been excluded by limiting discovery, the Berst court concluded that the district court erred in failing to conduct an in camera inspection to determine which documents were not relevant, stating: We believe when a claim of privilege, confidentiality or irrelevance is raised the court has a duty to conduct an in camera inspection to separate and permit discovery of only the relevant documents, thereby protecting against unnecessary and damaging disclosure of irrelevant confidential material. (Emphasis added.) Berst, 232 Kan. at 187, 653 P.2d 107. The Berst court then focused on whether the relevant documents were confidential. Noting that the NCAA's documents did not come within any privilege created by statute, the Berst court recognized the existence of a privilege is not necessary in order to limit discovery. Rather, a court can limit discovery pursuant to its general supervisory powers over discovery. The court cited to 60-226(c), which provides that a district court may make any order which justice requires to protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense. K.S.A.2009 Supp. 60-226(c). Under this statutory provision, the Berst court indicated that a balance must be struck between discovery and nondisclosure, considering several factors, such as `the nature of the proceeding, whether the deponent is a party, whether the information sought is available from other sources, and whether the information sought goes to the heart of the claim.' Berst, 232 Kan. at 188, 653 P.2d 107 (quoting Richards of Rockford, Inc. v. Pacific Gas & Elec., 71 F.R.D. 388, 390 [N.D.Cal.1976]). In addition to this list of factors, the Berst court discussed other factors, including the degree of harm that would be caused by disclosure and the type of controversy before the court as well as the public interest in protecting confidentiality of the particular documents. Berst, 232 Kan. at 189, 653 P.2d 107 (citing 4 Moore's Federal Practice ¶ 26.60[3] [1970]; Bredice v. Doctors Hospital, Inc., 50 F.R.D. 249, 250 [D.C.Cir.1970], aff'd 479 F.2d 920 [D.C.Cir. 1973]); see also 8 Wigmore, Evidence § 2285 (McNaughton rev.1961) (identifying four fundamental conditions necessary to establish a qualified privilege against disclosure of confidential communications). With regard to the relevant documents in the NCAA's file, this court found the confidential nature of the informationinformation which went to the very essence or heart of the issues in the libel casewas outweighed by the fact that this information would result in a fair determination of the underlying case. Even in those circumstances a further duty exists, however. The Berst court explained that when a district court orders production of confidential records, it has a duty to limit the availability and use of documents by utilizing protective provisions. Berst, 232 Kan. at 187, 653 P.2d 107. Hence, although recognizing the district court's discretion when supervising the course of discovery and determining its scope, the Berst court imposed several duties. In summary, these duties are: 1. [W]hen a claim of privilege, confidentiality or irrelevance is raised the court has a duty to conduct an in camera inspection to separate and permit discovery of only the relevant documents, thereby protecting against unnecessary and damaging disclosure of irrelevant confidential material. Berst, 232 Kan. at 187, 653 P.2d 107. 2. Once a determination of relevance is made, if there is an objection that the documents are confidential or privileged, it must be determined whether the objection is valid. Berst, 232 Kan. at 187, 653 P.2d 107. 3. The court should exercise its general supervisory powers over discovery and apply K.S.A.2009 Supp. 60-226(c) by making any order which justice requires to protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense. When resolving disputes regarding whether discovery would cause annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense, a district court should weigh factors such as the nature of the proceeding, whether the discovery is requested from a party, whether the information that is sought is available from other sources, whether the information sought goes to the heart of the claim, the degree of harm that would be caused by disclosure, the type of controversy before the court, and the public interest in protecting confidentiality of a particular document or information. Berst, 232 Kan. at 187-90, 653 P.2d 107. 4. If confidential or privileged documents are ordered to be produced, the district court has a duty to limit the availability and use of documents by utilizing protective provisions. Berst, 232 Kan. at 187, 653 P.2d 107. Our next task is to examine the district court's performance or failure to perform these duties.