Walker v. Ruot

• Decision Date: 19 April 2013
• Docket Number: No. 5D12–1403.,5D12–1403.
• Citation: Walker v. Ruot, 111 So.3d 294 (Fla. App. 2013)
• Parties: Paul B. WALKER and Bright House Networks, LLC, Petitioners, v. Gary RUOT and Jennifer Ruot, Respondents.
• Court: Florida District Court of Appeals

111 So.3d 294

Paul B. WALKER and Bright House Networks, LLC, Petitioners,

v.Gary RUOT and Jennifer Ruot, Respondents.

No. 5D12–1403.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

April 19, 2013.

Daniel S. Liebowitz and Sarah E. Wade, of Cruser & Mitchell, LLP, Orlando, for Petitioner.

Nicholas A. Shannin, The Shannin Law Firm, P.A. and Alan Stagmeier, Jr., of Morgan & Morgan, P.A., Orlando, for Respondents.

PALMER, J.

Bright House Networks, LLC, filed a petition seeking certiorari relief from the trial court's discovery order compelling it to produce the personnel file of its former employee, Paul Walker. We grant the petition, concluding that the trial court departed from the essential requirements of law by requiring the production of the entire personnel file without first conducting an in camera review.

Gary and Jennifer Rout filed an automobile negligence action against Bright House and Walker after the couple sustained injuries when Walker, while driving a Bright House van, rear-ended their vehicle. The Routs served on Bright House a request to produce Walker's personnel file. Bright House objected on the grounds that the file contained irrelevant information and that production of the entire file would reveal Walker's confidential information and thus violate his privacy rights.

The Routs filed a motion to compel. At a hearing held on the motion, the Routs argued that information in Walker's file was discoverable because it might support claims for negligent entrustment, negligent hiring, and/or negligent retention. Further, they argued that the information might aid them in locating Walker to effectuate service of process. Bright House again objected on relevancy grounds, but properly conceded that it lacked standing to assert Walker's privacy rights.

Without conducting an in camera inspection, the trial court entered an order compelling the production of Walker's entire file, holding that the documents in the file were clearly relevant to the subject matter of the lawsuit. This petition timely followed.¹

While Bright House lacked standing to assert Walker's privacy rights in his personnel file, it possessed standing to oppose the production of private information within the file on the ground that the information was not relevant to the litigation. Alterra Healthcare Corp. v. Estate of Shelley, 827 So.2d 936, 945 (Fla.2002). It is axiomatic that discovery in civil cases must be relevant to the subject matter of the case. SeeFla. R. Civ. P. 1.280(b)(1). “In exercising its discretion to prevent injury through abuse of the action or the discovery process within the action, trial courts are guided by the principles of relevancy and practicality.” Friedman v. Heart Inst. of Port St. Lucie, Inc., 863 So.2d 189, 194 (Fla.2003).

Personnel files undoubtedly contain private information. See, e.g., Alterra, 827 So.2d at 946 (referencing employees' privacy rights in their personnel files); Regan–Touhy v. Walgreen Co., 526 F.3d 641, 648–49 (10th Cir.2008) (noting that, while not categorically out of bounds, personnel files contain sensitive personal information, and trial court was not unreasonable to be “cautious about ordering their entire contents disclosed willy-nilly”); Ladson v. Ulltra E. Parking Corp., 164 F.R.D. 376, 377 n. 1 (S.D.N.Y.1996) ( “Legitimate privacy concerns exist with regard to personnel files.”). Here, Walker was named as a defendant, but he had not been...