A terminated correctional officer, who was a non-probationary sheriff's department employee, challenged her firing in an administrative hearing. She was fired for supposedly falsifying time records, and argued that the penalty was disproportionate to her misconduct because other employees who had falsified time records had received lesser punishments. She submitted a motion to the hearing officer for discovery of the disciplinary records of other department personnel who had been investigated or disciplined for that offense, normally deemed confidential and not subject to disclosure except through discovery. The hearing officer ordered the records produced for his review. An intermediate California appeals court rejected the argument that discovery of such personnel records could not be ordered in an administrative hearing, finding that it could be ordered when relevant, which it was here. Any other interpretation of the law would conflict with the due process rights of officers in disciplinary proceedings. Riverside County Sheriff's Dep't v. Stiglitz, #E052729, 2012 Cal. App. Lexis 1025 (Cal.App. 4th Dist.).
     In a 5-2 holding, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court overturns an arbitrator's ruling reinstating a terminated police officer because the city was late in complying with a discovery request. A court or tribunal, when determining possible sanctions to a party, should consider (1) the prejudice, if any, endured by the non-offending party and the ability of the opposing party to cure any prejudice; (2) the non-complying party's willfulness or bad faith in failing to provide the requested discovery materials; (3) the importance of the excluded evidence in light of the failure to provide the discovery; and (4) the number of discovery violations by the offending party. City of Phila. v. FOP L-5 (Breary), #38 EAP 2007, 2009 Pa. Lexis 2792. 
     Florida appellate court upholds subpoenas that were served on the Miami police chief. Civilian oversight panel was lawfully seeking information about the chief's free use of a car from an auto dealer for more than a year. Timoney v. Miami Civilian Investigative Panel, #3D08-677, 2008 Fla. App. Lexis 13452 (3rd Dist.).
     Park Police did not violate the Privacy Act in failing to preserve a document or to establish safeguards to protect it from destruction. The agency was not liable for failing to search a computer before the hard drive was erased, and the Act does not mandate document retention or provide a remedy for destruction. Chambers v. Dept. of Interior, #05-0380, 538 F.Supp. 262, 2008 U.S. Dist. Lexis 20065, 27 IER Cases (BNA) 642 (D.D.C.) on remand from 515 F.3d 1362 (D.C. Cir. 2008).
     Appellate court overturns an arbitration award where the city's witnesses were not allowed to testify because a document had not been given to the accused officer. The union should have used other means to enforce the documents subpoena; a preclusion order was too drastic a remedy. City of Philadelphia v. Frat. Order of Police L-5, #44 C.D. 2007, 2007 Pa. Commw. Lexis 409.
     Lieutenant who faced disciplinary action initiated by two subordinate sergeants was not untitled to a disclosure of the sergeants' disciplinary records. The records had no direct bearing on any issue in the lieutenant's case other than the credibility of the sergeants. Crowe v. Kelly, #103504/05, 2007 N.Y. App. Div. Lexis 3846, 2007 NY Slip Op 2603.
     Florida appellate court overturns a labor commission holding that unions should pay actual costs, rather than the higher, statutory per-copy charge for documents requests. City of Miami Beach v. Pub. Empl. Rel. Cmsn., #3D05-2586, 2006 Fla. App. Lexis 14710 (3rd Dist. 2006). {N/R}
     New Mexico Supreme Court agrees with hearing officer that a discovery request made by a lieutenant facing disciplinary action was too broad. The accused officer asked for five years of records for all disciplinary sanctions. Archuleta v. Santa Fe Police Dept., #28,630, 137 N.M. 161, 108 P.3d 101, 2005-NMSC-006 (2005). {N/R}
     A Wisconsin police officer, who was the subject of a sexual harassment investigation, sued to obtain internal investigation documents. Because disclosure of the records would expose the statements of informants that had been promised confidentiality, the Wisconsin Supreme court rejected the suit, 4-to-3. Hempel v. City of Baraboo, #2003-AP-500, 2005 WI 120, 699 N.W.2d 551, 2005 Wisc. Lexis 396, 23 IER.Cases (BNA) 199 (2005). {N/R}
     New Mexico Supreme Court, in an appeal where a lieutenant was demoted to sergeant, affirms the denial of a prehearing demand that the city produce the records of all disciplinary actions in the past five years. The request was overly broad, burdensome, and the records sought had no relevance to the issues in his appeal. Archuleta v. Santa Fe Police Dept., #28,630, 2005 NMSC 6, 108 P.3d 1019, 2005 N.M. Lexis 118 (2005). [2005 FP Jul]
     Amendments to the Fair Retail Credit Act now exclude reports sent from outside agencies that are related to "suspected" employee misconduct. H.R.2622, enacted as Public Law No. 108-159, amending Sec. 601(a)(q) of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S. Code 1681a(d)(2)(D). [2004 FP Apr]
     Appeals court upholds the decision by an arbitration panel of not to issue a subpoena for the disciplinary files of other officers who were disciplined for untruthfulness. AFSCME v. City of New Haven, #AC 23347, 2004 Conn. App. Lexis 56 (2004). [2004 FP Apr]
     New York's Public Employment Relations Board holds that management has a duty to furnish the union with the investigative reports, including summaries and conclusions, so that a union is able to defend an employee at a disciplinary hearing. IBT L-264 and Erie County Sheriff, #U-23017, 36 NYPER (LRP) 3021, 2003 NYPER (LRP) Lexis 86 (NYPERB 2003). [2004 FP Jan]
     Supreme Court declines to review the termination of a police officer who had been fired for excessively self-centered personality traits. The officer's appeal was dismissed for a repeated failure to comply with the city's discovery requests. Dismissal of an appeal is an appropriate sanction, and does not deny an appellant's due process rights. Joseph v. Salt Lake City, #20010399-CA, 2002 UT App 254, 53 P.3d 11, 2002 Utah App. Lexis 72; cert. den., #02-1211, 2003 U.S. Lexis 2973 (4/21/2003). [2003 FP Jun]
     In a disciplinary hearing, an accused employee is entitled to see uncensored documents in his personnel file, to better prepare a defense. City of Fort Worth and Individual Grievant, AAA Case No. 71-390-00207-2, 117 LA (BNA) 1621 (Goodman, 2002). [2003 FP May]
     Federal court in Philadelphia allows a terminated officer to view disciplinary records of coworkers to prepare his discriminatory discipline lawsuit. Court enters a protective order to preserve the privacy of those whose files were sought. Morrison v. Philadelphia Housing Auth. Police, #00-2847, 203 F.R.D. 195, 2001 U.S. Dist. Lexis 11272 (E.D. Pa.).  [2002 FP Apr]
     Federal court in Kansas orders discovery of five years of I-A dispositions in a suit by two officers who allege they were disciplined in retaliation for their free speech. Beach v. City of Olathe, #99-2210-GTV, 203 F.R.D. 489, 2001 U.S. Dist. Lexis 16215 (D. Kan.).  [2002 FP Apr]
     In a disparate discipline claim, a federal court orders production of 880 personnel records for examination by plaintiff's counsel. Rowlin v. Alabama Dept. of Public Sfty., #00-D-580-N, 200 F.R.D. 459, 2001 U.S. Dist. Lexis 6234 (M.D. Ala. 2001). [2001 FP 150-1]
     California Court of Appeal holds that disclosure, pursuant to a Pitchess motion, of information concerning a sustained complaint prior to the five-year limitation period of Evidence Code §1045(b)(1) was necessary to protect the defendant's right to a fair trial, City of Los Angeles v. Superior Court (Brandon), 84 Cal.App.4th 767, 2000 Cal. App. Lexis 847; 101 Cal.Rptr. 2d 156 (2nd Dist., 2000); Review Granted #S093628, 2001 Cal. Lexis 24. {N/R}
     Michigan appeals court denies a union access to a law enforcement agency's disciplinary records as part of a pre- arbitration grievance inquiry. Kent Co. Deputy Sheriffs' Assn. v. Kent Co. Sheriff, 605 N.W.2d 363, 238 Mich.App. 310, 1999 Mich. App. Lexis 323, 162 LRRM (BNA) 2977. [2000 FP 133-4]
     Federal agency Advisory Opinion holds that outside law firms that assist employers in employment or disciplinary matters are "Consumer Reporting Agencies" and an unedited copy of all reports must be furnished the employee. FTC Adv. Opin. to Judi A. Vail (5 Apr. 1999). [1999 FP 83] www.ftc.gov/os/statutes/fcra/vail.htm
     New York court grants the city's Public Advocate access to disciplinary investigative files of police officers, where the civilian review board has substantiated the complaints against the accused officers. Between one third and one half of all cases in which the review board substantiated a claim of police misconduct, the officer involved received no disciplinary action. Green v. Safir, 174 Misc.2d 400, 664 N.Y.S.2d 232, 1997 N.Y. Misc. Lexis 497. {N/R}
     In camera inspection of internal affairs files ordered in suit by former officer alleging national origin discrimination. Relevant documents would be discoverable, Martinez v. Village of Mt. Prospect, #96 C 6027, 1997 U.S. Dist. Lexis 18763 (N.D. Ill. 1997). {N/R}
     Arbitrator reinstates employee who, without permission, took or photocopied hundreds of her employer's documents to prove her claim of job misclassification. Before disciplinary action can be imposed, an employer must establish specific rules or policies governing how employees are to obtain copies of work records and personnel policies, to prepare for grievance hearings. Ralph's and Teamsters L-572, 110 LA (BNA) 33. [1998 FP 99]
     It is a thoroughly entrenched principle of labor law that a union is entitled to receive from the employer information and documents the union needs to carry out its duties to represent its members. Because "one of the duties of a labor union is the processing of grievances, the union has a qualified right to information needed in the grievance process." Resorts Intl. v. NLRB, #92-3557, 996 F.2d 1553, 1993 U.S. App. Lexis 16002, 143 LRRM (BNA) 2697 (3rd Cir. 1993). {N/R}
     Supreme Court now allows a psychotherapist-patient communications privilege. It was erroneous for the District Court to apply sanctions in a police shooting case when the officer declined to let the jury learn the contents of her debriefing and counseling interviews. Jaffee v. Redmond, 1996 U.S. Lexis 3879, 116 S.Ct. 1923. [1996 FP 139]
     Federal appeals court refuses to quash a U.S Attorney's subpoena for police internal reports, including officers" compelled statements; Fifth Amendment governs improper use of compelled statements, not their production in a grand jury proceeding. Grand Jury Subpoena ex rel. Huntington Beach P.O.A. v. U.S., 75 F.3d 446 (9th Cir. 1996). [1996 FP 148]
     California Superior Court reinstates police dept. jailer because the city failed to provide him with relevant materials in the files prior to his hearing. Honey v. Distelrath, L.A.Co. #BS037655, 109 (150) L.A.D.J. V&S 17 (Cal.Super. 1996). [1996 FP 148-9]
     Article: "Confidentially of internal reports on personnel matters," 37 (11) For the Defense 3-7 (Nov. 1995). {N/R} www.dri.org/
     Maryland appellate court reject's an officer's attempt to depose his police chief, who had increased the disciplinary penalty recommended by a hearing board. Montgomery Co. v. Stevens, 337 Md. 471, 654 A.2d 877 (1995). [1995 FP 132-3]
     NJ appellate court disallows discharged officer's discovery demand for the personnel and investigative records of other officer who held similar positions during the relevant time period. Korostynski v. State, 266 N.J. Super. 549, 630 A.2d 342 (1993). [1994 FP 68]
     WV Supreme Court allows police officer, accused of misconduct, to subpoena mental health records of the complainant. Nelson v. Ferguson, 399 S.E.2d 909 (W.Va. 1990).
     Accused employee, absent a statute, does not have a right to pre-hearing discovery in a disciplinary proceeding before a civil service board. Civil Service Board v. Berryman, 571 So.2d 1125 (Ala. 1990).
     Demoted officer not entitled to discover disciplinary records of other officers where the punishment imposed was an appropriate sanction. State ex rel. Baer v. Campbell, 794 S.W.2d 690 (Mo.App. 1990).
     Police officer was not entitled to learn the identity of a confidential informant who accused him of drug abuse. Coleman v. Kramer, 603 N.Y.S.2d 140 (A.D. 1993). [1994 FP 51-2]
     Employee not entitled to subpoena his internal affairs file. Valentino v. City of Houston, 674 S.W.2d 813 (Tex.App. 1984).
     Unless the information is protected from disclosure, an employer's failure to comply with the union's request for information and documents constitutes an unfair labor practice -- a failure to bargain in good faith. General Motors v. NLRB, 700 F.2d 1083, 1983 U.S. App. Lexis 30002, 112 LRRM (BNA) 2976 (6th Cir. 1983). {N/R}
     Maryland appellate court holds that accused employee must be given pretrial statements made by department's witnesses contained in the department's files. Chief, Montgomery Co. Dept. of Police v. Jacocks, 436 A.2d 930 (Md. App. 1981).
     Appellate court holds that accused officer is not entitled to inspect the personnel file which is used against him. Bland v. City of Trenton, 618 S.W.2d 438 (Mo.App. 1981), citing Jencks v. U.S., 77 S.Ct. 1007 (1957).
     See also: Discovery, Publicity and Media Rights.