Opinion
CASE NO. 1:10 CV 1833.
July 7, 2011
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on third-party, Lake County Department of Job and Family Services's ("Lake County DJFS") Objection and Motion to Quash or Modify Subpoena. The Court previously ordered that the Lake County DJFS to submit the requested recordsfor in camera review, along with a proposed protective order to be issued in the event the records were to be disclosed.
Although the records are protected to some degree by state confidentiality laws, they are not subject to an absolute privilege from disclosure in a federal court action. Following a full review of the submitted documents, the Court finds that these records are necessary and relevant to a full and fair determination of the pending claims; the Defendants have shown good cause for disclosure; and, the need for disclosure outweighs the confidentiality considerations set forth in the state confidentiality laws. See, e.g., Thomas v. Cleveland Municipal School Dist., Case No. 1:05-CV-2216, 2006 U.S. Dist. Lexis 6484 (N.D. Ohio Feb. 21, 2006). The Lake County DJFS has submitted both redacted and unredacted copies of the documents. The redacted copies redact the social security numbers and phone numbers of the Plaintiffs, as well as the name and contact information of a possible witness. Because this information is otherwise known to the Plaintiffs, or is available to them from other sources, the Court finds that disclosure of the redacted documents best furthers the interests addressed by the state confidentiality laws, without impairing the Defendants ability to address the claims against them.
Therefore, Lake County DJFS is to disclose to the parties the documents that are responsive to the subpoena issued by Defendants on March 14, 2011, in the redacted form submitted to the Court for review and approval. Further, the disclosure of these documents is subject to the terms and conditions set forth in the proposed Protective Order that was submitted by the parties and by Lake County DJFS (ECF #22-1), in accordance with this Court's prior Order. IT IS SO ORDERED.
Date: July 6, 2011