Opinion ID: 2355825
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Respondent Abused His Discretion in Ordering Production of Ms. Johnson's Entire Personnel File.

Text: Delmar Gardens alleges Respondent abused his discretion in ordering it to produce Ms. Johnson's personnel file in its entirety, thereby rejecting completely its argument that to produce the entire file would violate Ms. Johnson's right to privacy and would fail to properly balance the confidential nature of the records with Mr. McNeil's discovery needs. [5] This Court agrees. Missouri recognizes a right of privacy in personnel records that should not be lightly disregarded or dismissed. See State ex rel. Crowden v. Dandurand, 970 S.W.2d 340, 343 (Mo. banc 1998) (Employees have a fundamental right of privacy in employment records). Contrary to Delmar Gardens' assertions, however, this does not mean that employment records are entirely undiscoverable in every case. Even though the right of privacy in employment records has been described as fundamental, State ex rel. Crowden, 970 S.W.2d at 343, there can be instances in which some discovery is appropriate. For example, in State ex rel. Tally v. Grimm, 722 S.W.2d 604, 605 (Mo. banc 1987), this Court ordered that the plaintiff's earning authorizations, which were kept in his personnel file, were sufficiently related to the issues in the pleadings to be discoverable. Tally acknowledged the overarching confidentiality of the records, however, and recommended the trial court perform an in camera examination of the documents to determine which matters are not relevant to the lawsuit. Id. The Court also acknowledged that protective orders may be entered by the [trial] court to preserve the privacy of the parties. Id. Indeed, our discovery rules expressly contemplate such limited discovery in certain circumstances. See, e.g., Rule 56.01(c)(1-4) (detailing limited discovery options available upon motion). Any discovery that is permitted of confidential personnel records must be limited to information that relates to matters put at issue in the pleadings, especially in relation to sensitive personal information. State ex rel. Madlock v. O'Malley, 8 S.W.3d 890, 891 (Mo. banc 1999); see also State ex rel. Crowden, 970 S.W.2d at 343 ([A] subpoena for employment records must be limited to the issues raised in the pleadings.). The overbroad request for Ms. Johnson's entire personnel file and any other materials in your possession in any form . . . relating to Beather Johnson clearly is not limited to the issues raised in the pleadings. See State ex rel. Madlock, 8 S.W.3d at 892 (request for any and all information . . . concerning [a person's] employment is too broad). The overbreadth of the pending discovery request is even more striking when one considers that Ms. Johnson is not a party to the suit. [6] Rather, this is an injunction action brought by Delmar Gardens against Mr. McNeil based on an incident to which Ms. Johnson merely is a witness. Permitting discovery of a witness' entire personnel file solely for a collateral matter such as impeachment would eviscerate the right of privacy that employees enjoy as to those records. See State ex rel. Pooker, 216 S.W.3d at 672. It could also discourage witnesses from reporting incidents of misconduct, for fear that their private personnel information be might later be discoverable. Finally, counsel for Mr. McNeil admitted at oral argument that the discovery request could have been more reasonably tailored. Mr. McNeil's counsel was able to identify for this Court several specific types of information, e.g., documents related to disciplinary incidents, prior allegations of misconduct, or training, that he believes may be relevant and that may be present in Ms. Johnson's employment records. That is not what he requested, however, nor what Respondent ordered Delmar Gardens to produce. The discovery process was not designed to be a scorched earth battlefield upon which the rights of the litigants and the efficiency of the justice system should be sacrificed to mindless overzealous representation of plaintiffs and defendants. State ex rel. Madlock, 8 S.W.3d at 891. In light of the Respondent's order enforcing this overbroad request, Delmar Gardens had no option but to seek relief by way of extraordinary writ. Nonetheless, there is no evidence in the record that justifies the parties' inability to amicably resolve this issue. Id. Nor is there any record showing that the parties even attempted to reach a compromise on this issue in the court below. For these reasons, this Court finds that Respondent's failure to balance Ms. Johnson's privacy interests with Mr. McNeil's need to obtain disclosure and his ability to obtain the information through less invasive means constituted a clear abuse of discretion. Id. ([D]iscovery relevant to impeachment must be no more intrusive than necessary . . .); see also State ex rel. Madlock, 8 S.W.3d at 891-92. However, [t]he lack of a record of exploration of issues relating to relevance, burden, and protection of privileged and confidential matters prevents this Court from determining what lesser degree of discovery [if any] would have been within the court's discretion to permit. State ex rel. Pooker, 216 S.W.3d at 672. It therefore is left to the trial court to determine whether, in light of the principles stated herein, any discovery of these records may be appropriate and, if so, the necessary conditions of that discovery. See State ex rel. Tally, 722 S.W.2d at 605 (ordering that certain employment records were discoverable, but recommending an in camera examination to limit disclosure to those records that were relevant and the use of a protective order to minimize the invasion of privacy).