Opinion
C. A. PC-14-2837
01-05-2017
RUSSELL HENRY, Plaintiff, v. MEDIA GENERAL OPERATIONS, INC., CHRIS LANNI, ALIAS, JAMES TARICANI, ALIAS, PETER LECLERC, ALIAS, RONALD JACOB, ALIAS KAREN E. GUILBEAULT, ALIAS, JOHN DOES, ALIAS, Defendants.
For Plaintiff: Kathleen M. Hagerty, Esq. For Defendant: Stephen E. Breggia, Esq.; Raymond A. Marcaccio, Esq.; Charles N. Redihan, Esq.; Thomas C. Plunkett, Esq. For Interested Parties: David V. Igliozzi, Esq.; Michael J. Lepizzera, Jr., Esq.; Christopher M. Rawson, Esq.
Providence County Superior Court
For Plaintiff: Kathleen M. Hagerty, Esq.
For Defendant: Stephen E. Breggia, Esq.; Raymond A. Marcaccio, Esq.; Charles N. Redihan, Esq.; Thomas C. Plunkett, Esq.
For Interested Parties: David V. Igliozzi, Esq.; Michael J. Lepizzera, Jr., Esq.; Christopher M. Rawson, Esq.
DECISION
GIBNEY, P.J.
The Plaintiff, Russell Henry (Plaintiff or Henry), brings this Motion to Compel the Defendant, Karen E. Guilbeault (Defendant or Guilbeault) to produce previously redacted documents that were subpoenaed by the Plaintiff on April 18, 2016. The Defendant objected to production and, on June 14, 2016, provided a privilege log stating that some requested documents had been redacted due to privilege. After conducting an in camera review of the redacted documents, this Court finds that the documents are, in fact, protected by privilege and the Plaintiff's Motion to Compel is therefore denied.
I Facts and Travel
On April 18, 2016, the Plaintiff issued a subpoena duces tecum to Defendant requesting her appearance at a deposition on May 3, 2016 and requiring that she bring with her all documents and records regarding the present case. Specifically, the subpoena requested:
"True and exact copies of all records, including all bills, of telephone calls, text messages, emails and any and all communication, for each and every one of your personal cell phones, Personal Digital Assistant (PDA), Blackberry device, Droid device, Apple device, or any other communication device owned or operated by you at any time from November 1, 2013 up to and including August 31, 2014." Pl.'s Ex. A, at 4.
The Defendant thereafter filed a Motion to Quash the Plaintiff's Subpoena Duces Tecum and moved for the issuance of a protective order. On May 2, 2016, the parties met in chambers with the Honorable Justice Licht to address the Defendant's Motion to Quash. As a result of that meeting, the Court entered an Order (the June 10th Order) granting, in part, Defendant's Motion to Quash. The Court ordered that the scheduled deposition of the Defendant for May 3, 2016 be cancelled. The Court also ordered that the deposition be rescheduled and that the Defendant produce the documents requested in the subpoena, but that she be allowed to submit a privilege log outlining what information is withheld and what privilege she is invoking. Further, the Court ordered that during said deposition, no party shall question the Defendant about any fact, claim, issue, and/or matter in any way relating to the case of Guilbeault v. Palombo, Jr., et al, Civil Action No. PC-2013-2109 (the Palombo Suit).
The Defendant thereafter produced the subpoenaed documents, with redactions, attended a deposition, and also provided a privilege log containing twenty objections. In response, the Plaintiff brings this Motion to Compel production of those redacted documents. The matter came before this Court during a hearing on December 5, 2016. In preparation for that hearing, the Defendant submitted unredacted copies of the requested documents to the Court for an in camera review. The Court has conducted said in camera review of the unredacted documents in order to determine if a valid privilege exists.
II Parties' Arguments
The Plaintiff contends that the redacted documents are not appropriately within a privilege. Further, the Plaintiff maintains that the June 10th Order states that the parties will not ask questions regarding the Palombo Suit during the deposition, but that the Court did not restrict the Plaintiff from requesting production of documents, nor did it allow the Defendant to object to a request based on a privilege. The Defendant contends that any redacted portions of email communications are based on proper privileges. The Defendant maintains that the redacted emails contain information regarding the Palombo Suit and that the information was protected from discovery by the Court's June 10th Order. Further, the Defendant asserts that documents were redacted because they contained personal information, medical records, or employment claims of a third party, all of which are protected by privilege. The Defendant contends that in her role as the head of the Planning & Development board, she dealt with the employment records of other officers, whether active or retired, and that such information would be privileged.
III Standard of Review
The trial court is afforded broad discretion in handling discovery requests. Pastore v. Samson, 900 A.2d 1067, 1073-74 (R.I. 2006) (citing Cullen v. Town Council of Lincoln, 850 A.2d 900, 903 (R.I. 2004)). Underlying our discovery rules is the philosophy that "prior to trial, all data relevant to the pending controversy should be disclosed unless the data is privileged." Cabral v. Arruda, 556 A.2d 47, 48 (R.I. 1989) (citing 8 Wright & Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure, Civil § 2001 at 15 (1970)).
Rule 45 of the Rhode Island Superior Court Rules of Civil Procedure allows parties to issue subpoenas to witnesses requiring the production of responsive documents. Super. R. Civ. P. 45; see also Butera v. Boucher, 798 A.2d 340, 345 (R.I. 2002). However, a party may object to a subpoena if the subpoena "[r]equires disclosure of privileged or other protected matter and no exception or waiver applies[.]" Super. R. Civ. P. 45(c)(3)(A)(ii). When a party withholds information otherwise discoverable under these rules by claiming that it is privileged or subject to protection, the party shall make the claim expressly and shall describe the nature of the documents, communications, or things not produced or disclosed in a manner that, without revealing privileged or protected information, will enable other parties to assess the applicability of the privilege or protection. Super. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(5).
IV Analysis
The Plaintiff contends that the redacted email communications likely do not contain privileged material and that the Defendant was not entitled to redact such information as a result of the June 10th Order from the Court. The Defendant, in response, submitted unredacted copies of the email communications and asserts that the material contains personal information, medical records, or employment records of a third party. The Defendant maintains that the unredacted documents contain email communications between the Defendant and a third party, Ronald Jacob.
As a result of Plaintiff's Motion to Compel, this Court conducted an in camera review of the requested documents. See Pastore, 900 A.2d at 1086 (holding that in camera review "is an appropriate procedure to decide whether [ ] documents should be produced [in discovery]"); Mallette v. Children's Friend & Serv., 661 A.2d 74, 77 (R.I. 1995) (noting that the relevance of information requested during discovery is "a determination that must be made by the trial justice[, ]" which can be conducted through in camera review to determine said relevance).
A Medical and Employment Records of a Third Party
Under Rhode Island law, parties in a litigation are precluded from disclosing a third party's medical information without that third party's consent. See Washburn v. Rite Aid Corp., 695 A.2d 495, 498 (R.I. 1997). Rhode Island's Confidential Health Care Information Act prevents such disclosure of privileged medical records. See G.L. 1956 § 5-37.3-6.1. In Washburn, the Rhode Island Supreme Court stated that:
"This [medical records] privilege generally protects a person's confidential health-care records from being disclosed to unauthorized third parties unless the disclosure falls within one of the statutory exceptions . . . [D]ocuments that are privileged still cannot be disclosed (without the privilege holder's consent) except by strictly complying with the requirements of any compulsory legal process that may be issued with respect to such documents[.]" 695 A.2d at 498.
This Court finds that portions of the redacted email communications do, in fact, contain information relating to medical records of a third party. Such information was conveyed to the Defendant in her role as the Chair of the Planning and & Development board. The Defendant stated in her deposition testimony that, as the Chair, she is responsible for access to medical information of officers who are injured on duty, as well as acting as a possible liaison to officers who have retired and who need access to their medical files. Therefore, such information contained in the email communications is privileged under Rhode Island's Confidential Health Care Information Act and is properly redacted from the requested documents. See § 5-37.3-6.1.
Furthermore, the redacted documents contain information on the unrelated Palombo Suit that was addressed briefly by the June 10th Order. Information related to that pending legal matter is unrelated to the discovery issues at hand. Rule 26(b)(1) of the Rhode Island Superior Court Rules of Civil Procedure states that discovery will be allowed as to "any matter, not privileged, which is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action[.]" Super. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). Thus, discoverable matter must be both relevant and not privileged. Fireman's Fund Ins. Co. v. McAlpine, 120 R.I. 744, 747, 391 A.2d 84, 86 (1978). The redacted portions of email communications, in addition to containing the medical records of a third party, contain information related to the Defendant's pending litigation in the Palombo Suit. Thus, they are not relevant to this present proceeding and are precluded from discovery. See Fireman's Fund Ins. Co., 120 R.I. at 747, 391 A.2d at 86.
Additionally, both parties stated at oral argument on December 5, 2016 that information on the unrelated Palombo Suit was not appropriate or necessary discovery for this pending litigation. Tr. 7, Dec. 5, 2016.
V Conclusion
After an in camera review of all redacted documents, this Court finds that the redacted portions of the Defendant's email communications are protected by a valid privilege and/or are unrelated and irrelevant to the case at hand. Therefore, the Plaintiff's Motion to Compel is denied in full, and the documents will retain their redacted portions.