Opinion
No. 01 Civ. 5980 (SAS)(KNF)
December 4, 2001
MEMORANDUM and ORDER
I. INTRODUCTION
In this action, which contains, inter alia, allegations of sex discrimination and pregnancy discrimination, the parties are engaged in discovery. A dispute has arisen concerning whether certain documents the defendants have should be classified as confidential and be withheld from public disclosure pursuant to Rule 26(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Defendants Sound Shore Medical Center of Westchester and Kathy Hagan (collectively "Sound Shore") urge that a protective order be issued by the Court to prevent disclosure to non-parties of certain personnel documents and documents that reflect the organization of its corporate structure. Plaintiffs oppose Sound Shore's request. They maintain that to grant Sound Shore's request would not be in keeping with applicable case law or the presumption in favor of public access to court records. Sound Shore has submitted the documents in question for in camera review. The Court has reviewed the documents and, for the reasons which follow, Sound Shore's application that the documents be withheld from public disclosure is granted in part and denied in part.
II. DISCUSSION
The scope of discovery, under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, is broad. Parties to an action may obtain discovery regarding any matter that is not privileged, if it is relevant to the claim or defense of any party to the action. Moreover, upon a showing of good cause, a court may order discovery of any matter relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(1).
Discovery is presumptively open to public scrutiny unless a valid protective order directs otherwise. See In re "Agent Orange" Prod. Liab. Litig., 821 F.2d 139, 145 (2d Cir. 1987). Under Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(c), a court, upon a showing of good cause, may "make any order which justice requires to protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense." Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(c). The party seeking a protective order has the burden of showing that good cause exists for issuance of the order. See In re Agent Orange, 821 F.2d at 145. To establish good cause under Rule 26(c), courts require a "particular and specific demonstration of fact, as distinguished from stereotyped and conclusory statements." Akron Beacon Journal v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., No. 94 Civ. 1402, 1995 WL 234710, at *10 (S.D.N.Y. April 20, 1995) (quoting Cipollone v. Liggett Group, Inc., 785 F.2d 1108, 1121 [3d Cir. 1986]). In the context of a claim of confidential business information, "this standard demands that the company prove that disclosure will result in a clearly defined and very serious injury to its business." Gelb v. American Tel. Tel. Co., 813 F. Supp. 1022, 1034 (S.D.N Y 1993) (internal quotations omitted) (citations omitted). In determining the weight to be accorded an assertion of a right of privacy, courts should consider whether the subject matter is traditionally considered private rather than public, the nature and degree of injury, and the reliability of the information.See United States v. Amodeo, et al., 71 F.3d 1044, 1050-51 (2d Cir. 1995).
Sound Shore submitted four categories of documents for in camera inspection; the Court's analysis of each category of documents follows:
Category I: Tables of Organization and Position Control Documents
The tables of organization submitted by Sound Shore consist of diagrams depicting the hierarchical structure of the administrative component of Sound Shore's finance department and medical, nursing home, and extended care facilities. The "position control documents" submitted by Sound Shore consist of records of administrative positions within its finance department, the occupants of those positions, and the number of hours of weekly employment associated with each position, for the years 1995, 1997, 1999 and 2000. The "position control documents" do not include explicit references to salaries or salary histories.
Sound Shore contends that disclosure of these documents to persons who are not parties to the action will injure its business because the information contained in them could be used by competitors to "lure away employees and potential patients," and to interfere with "the marketing of its medical and extended care services." In addition, Sound Shore opposes publication of the material to non-parties on the ground that the documents contain job title and job-related references to Sound Shore employees who are not parties to this action.
No showing has been made that Sound Shore's documents which reflect the organization of its corporate structure and the "position control documents" contain valuable commercial information that could adversely affect Sound Shore's competitive position in the healthcare market. All that is before the Court are Sound Shore's conclusory allegations respecting the adverse consequences to it that disclosure of this material to non-parties would have. Sound Shore's conclusory statements regarding the effects of disclosure of these documents to nonparties fall short of the specificity required to establish good cause for a protective order. Further, no showing has been made that the privacy interests of the parties whose names appear in these documents outweigh the public's presumptive right of access to discovery materials.
Accordingly, the Court finds that the documents that reflect the organization of Sound Shore's corporate structure and "position control documents" need not be protected from public disclosure.
Category II: Memorandum of John R. Spicer
The memorandum of Sound Shore executive John R. Spicer ("Spicer Memorandum") records the substance of a conversation that took place on April 5, 2000, between Mr. Spicer and defendant Charles Thevnin, an employee of Sound Shore. Sound Shore contends that the Spicer Memorandum should be withheld from public view because of "the sensitive nature of the litigation" in this case and the need to protect the parties from "annoyance, embarrassment, and oppression," as contemplated by Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(c). Plaintiffs contend that Sound Shore's position with respect to the Spicer Memorandum is untenable in light of the defenses it has asserted to the allegations of sexual harassment made in this action. Specifically, plaintiff's argue that, since Sound Shore will probably rely on the Spicer Memorandum to establish that it exercised reasonable care to prevent and correct any misconduct of the type alleged in the complaint, the document is likely to play a significant role in determining the litigants' rights in this action. Consequently, according to plaintiffs, the Court should accord "strong weight to the public's interest in access" to this document.
The Court finds that Sound Shore has met its burden and shown good cause for the protective order with respect to the Spicer Memorandum. Public disclosure of the contents of the Spicer Memorandum has a high potential for embarrassment or harm to defendant Charles Thevnin. Therefore, the privacy interest of this defendant constitutes an exception to the presumption of public access. The plaintiffs will not suffer any prejudice by the granting of the protective order with respect to this document because they will still be able to prosecute their action.
Accordingly, the Court finds that the information contained in the Spicer Memorandum should be withheld from public disclosure.
Category III: Personnel File of Charles Thevnin
The personnel file of Charles Thevnin contains documents pertaining to employment, health, financial, and personal data that are typically viewed as private. The documents in the personnel file, for the most part, pertain to private rather than public matters. The quantum of documents that are of a sensitive and private nature is such that withholding the entire personnel file from disclosure to non-parties is warranted. In addition, the Court finds that disclosure of the information contained in the documents which touch upon private and sensitive matters has a high potential for causing embarrassment or harm to defendant Thevnin. Accordingly, the Court finds that the information contained in the personnel file of defendant Charles Thevnin should not be disclosed to the public.
Category IV: Personnel File of Kathy Hagan
The personnel file of Kathy Hagan contains documents pertaining to employment, health, financial, and personal data that are typically viewed as private. As noted in connection with the documents described in Category III, above, a large portion of the documents included in this file pertain to private matters, such that disclosure of the information contained in them is potentially embarrassing or harmful to this defendant. Accordingly, the Court finds that the information contained in the personnel file of defendant Kathy Hagan should not be disclosed to the public.
III. CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, Sound Shore's application for a protective order is denied with respect to the documents described as Category I and granted with respect to the documents described as Categories II, III and IV. The items that comprise Categories II, III and IV shall be disclosed to the plaintiffs and shall not be disclosed by them to the public or be used by them for any purpose other than the prosecution of this action.
SO ORDERED.