Opinion
Case No. 00-CV-106-H(J)
January 29, 2001
Attorneys for Nancy Knight, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Andrew James Ridgewy, deceased, Clark Otto Brewster [COR LD NTC] Guy A Forteny [COR LD NTC] Michael L. Barkett [COR LD NTC]
Attorney for Andre James Ridgeway, plaintiff, Brewster, Shallcross DeAngelis, Tulsa Ok 741034-5725
Attorney for Tim C. McDaniel, Individually defendant, James W. Connor, Jr, [COR LD NTC], Rachel C. Mathis [COR LD NTC], Richard Connor. Tulsa Ok 74103-5103.
Attorney for Tracey R. Powell, Individually defendant, John Howard Lieber [COR LD NTC] Eller Detrich, Tulsa, OK 74114., George Gibbs [COR LD NTC] Gibbs Harmon, Tusla, Ok 74146.
Attorney for Don Lewis, Individually defendant [term 12/08/00], John Gladd [term 12\08\00] [COR LD NTC] William Francis Smith [term 12\08\00] [COR LD NTC] Gail W. Harris [term 12\08\00] [COR LD NTC] Gladd Smith Harris, Tulsa Ok, 74114-1739.
Attorney for Larry Bible, Individually defendant, Scott B. Wood [term 06\22\00] [COR LD NTC] Whitten McGuire Terry Roselius, Tulsa OK 74103
Attorney for the City of Jenkins, defendant, John A Gladd (see above) [COR LD NTC] William Francis Smith (see above) [COR LD NTC] Gail W. Harris (see above) [COR LD NTC] Stephen L. Oakley [COR LD NTC], Seigel Oakley, Tulsa Ok 74119.
Attorney for City of Glenpool, defendant, Scott B Wood (see above) [COR LD NTC] Elizabeth A Hart [COR LD NTC] Whitten McGuire Terry Roselius, Tulsa OK 74103.
Attorney for Jenks Police Department, separately, and Tim C. McDaniel, Police Officer and Don Lewis, Chief of Police defendant [term 12\08\00], John A. Gladd [term 12\08\00] (see above) [COR LD NTC] William Francis Smith [term 12\08\00] (See above) [COR LD NTC] Gail W. Harris [term 12\08\00] [term 12\08\00] (see above) [COR LD NTC]
Attorney for Glenpool Police Department, separately, and Tracey R. Powell, Police Officer and Larry Bible, Chief of Police defendant [term 06\22\00], Scott B. Wood [term 06\22\00] (see above) [COR LD NTC]
Attorney for Kent Fisher, defendant, John E. Priddy [COR LD NTC] Rosentein Fist Ringold, Tulsa OK. 74103.
Attorney for Independant School District No. 5, Tulsa County, Oklahoma a/k/a Jenks Public Schools defendant, John E. Priddy (see above) [COR LD NTC] Matthew P. Cyran [COR LD NTC] Rosentein Fist Ringold, Tulsa OK 74103.
ORDER
Defendant Independent School District No. 5 and Kent Fisher's Joint Motion for Disclosure of Confidential Records [Doc. No. 96-1], was heard by the Court on January 26, 2001. Plaintiff was present by and through Mr. Mike Barkett. Defendant Independent School District No. 5 was present by and through Matthew P. Cyran. Defendant Tim McDaniel was present by and through Ms. Rachel C. Mathis. Defendant Tracey R. Powell was present by and through Mr. John Leiber and Mr. Don Danz. Defendant City of Jenks was present by and through Ms. Gail W. Harris and Mr. Stephen L. Oakley. Defendant City of Glenpool was present by and through Ms. Elizabeth A. Hart. Defendants motion is DENIED. Defendants are urged to pursue their argument before the appropriate state court.
Defendant requests the Court order the inspection, release, and disclosure of the "juvenile law enforcement records" of Dusty Cagle and Adrew Ridgeway. Title 10 O.S. 2001, § 73071.2F[10-73071.2F] provides:
"Juvenile law enforcement records" are defined under the statute. 10 O.S. 1991, § 7307-1.1.B.5[10-7307-1.1.B.5].
Except as otherwise required by state or federal law, the confidential records listed in subsection A of this section may only be inspected, released, disclosed, corrected or expunged pursuant to an order of the court. Except as otherwise provided in Section 601.6 of this title or any provision of this chapter, no subpoena or subpoena duces tecum purporting to compel disclosure of confidential information or any confidential juvenile record shall be valid.
Although the statute does not specifically define "court," this Court concludes that the appropriate procedure with regard to the release of confidential juvenile records is for the party requesting the records to file a petition in state court.
Plaintiff characterizes this as a "jurisdictional" argument. The Court declines to address whether or not this is jurisdictional. Rather, pursuant to Oklahoma law, the appropriate procedure to request the disclosure of confidential juvenile records is to file a petition in state court.
The "confidential juvenile records" statute contemplates "the filing of a petition." 10 O.S. 2001, § 7307-1.2.H[10-7307-1.2.H]. Petitions are filed in state court, but generally complaints are filed in federal court. The state courts regularly consider requests to release "confidential juvenile records," and are therefore in a position to easily address the state court issues which were instrumental in the initial classification of the documents which Defendant seeks as confidential. Further, based on issues of comity and federalism, the Court concludes that the parties should first request the release of such records from the appropriate state courts. See also United States v. Pretlow, 770 F. Supp. 239 (D.N.J. 1991) (Juvenile records belong to the state and under principles of federalism and comity the state court should determine whether the records should be released).
The United States Supreme Court described the comity doctrine with the following language:
[At the heart of the comity doctrine is] a proper respect for state functions, a recognition of the fact that the entire country is made up of a Union of separate state governments, and a continuance of the belief that the National Government will fare best if the States and their institutions are left free to perform their separate functions in their separate ways. This, perhaps for lack of a better and clearer way to describe it, is referred to by many as `Our Federalism,' and one familiar with the profound debates that ushered our Federal Constitution into existence is bound to respect those who remain loyal to the ideals and dreams of `Our Federalism.' The concept does not mean blind deference to `States' Rights' any more than it means centralization of control over every important issue in our National Government and its courts. The Framers rejected both these courses. What the concept does represent is a system in which there is sensitivity to the legitimate interests of both State and National Governments, and in which the National Government, anxious though it may be to vindicate and protect federal rights and federal interests, always endeavors to do so in ways that will not unduly interfere with the legitimate activities of the States . It should never be forgotten that this slogan, `Our Federalism,' born in the early struggling days of our Union of States, occupies a highly important place in our Nation's history and its future.Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 44-45 (1971) (emphasis added).
In this case, this Court has already heard argument, by all of the parties with regard to whether the documents requested by Defendants are relevant to the lawsuit pending in this Court. This Court concludes that the documents are relevant. Defendants have posed at least two areas in which the documents are relevant and otherwise discoverable. First, Defendants assert that Plaintiff has argued that Mr. Ridgeway did not know Mr. Cagle or did not know that Mr. Cagle stole or might have stolen the car when Mr. Cagle asked Mr. Ridgeway if he wanted a ride. Defendants suggest the records are relevant with regard to whether or not Mr. Cagle and Mr. Ridgeway had a relationship, and as to whether or not Mr. Ridgeway knew that Mr. Cagle had previously stolen a vehicle. Second, Defendants assert that the documents are relevant to damages. Plaintiff states that Plaintiff shall seek no damages for loss of compensation. Assuming that as true, Defendants maintain that any damages which Plaintiff seeks under § 1983 ( e.g. "loss of enjoyment of life) could be impacted by the information which Defendant seeks. The Court finds that the documents sought by Defendants are relevant for the purposes of discovery.
IT IS SO ORDERED.