Peet v. Sidney
- Tony Leung
- 0:17-cv-01870
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 4
In Peet v. Smith, Judge Leung granted a discovery motion, requiring production of redacted documents and confidential treatment.
John E. Peet and the New Orleans Defendants, Mark Jones and Sue Morfitt. The order required the New Orleans Defendants to produce the declaration and cover letter with personal identifying information redacted and required all parties to treat them as confidential.
What happened
In Peet v. Smith, John E. Peet sought a declaration and cover letter related to a discrimination charge he filed against his landlords. The documents were obtained from the Minnesota Department of Human Rights after the New Orleans Defendants could not find the declaration in their files.
The New Orleans Defendants asked the court to review the documents before producing them because they believed disclosure could harm the person who wrote the declaration. Peet argued that both documents should be provided to him.
The court found the documents relevant but ruled that personal identifying information had to be removed. Judge Tony N. Leung granted the motion, ordered production within seven days, and required the parties to treat the documents as confidential under the protective order.
The detailed version
- Peet v. Sidney · No. 0:17-cv-01870
- Tony Leung
- Jan. 21, 2020
Background
During discovery, Plaintiff John E. Peet requested a declaration that he believed had been filed with the Department of Housing and Urban Development in connection with a discrimination charge against his landlords. Defendants Mark Jones and Sue Morfitt, identified as the New Orleans Defendants, could not locate the declaration in their files. They sought it through public-records requests to the Department of Housing and Urban Development and the Minnesota Department of Human Rights.
The Minnesota Department of Human Rights provided the declaration and an accompanying cover letter on December 9, 2019. The New Orleans Defendants reviewed the documents but did not produce them because they were concerned that disclosure could oppress the person who made the declaration under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c). They instead asked the court to review the documents privately, and the court ordered them submitted for that review.
Analysis
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 generally permits discovery of nonprivileged information that is relevant and proportional to the needs of the case. Rule 26(c) also permits a court to protect a person from annoyance, embarrassment, or oppression by limiting or setting conditions for disclosure.
The court found that the declaration and cover letter were relevant to the proceeding. It also found that publicly disclosing the information would oppress the person who authored the declaration. To balance those interests, the court ordered production with all personal identifying information redacted, including names, addresses, and information covered by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5.2. The court also required the parties to treat the documents as confidential information under the existing protective order.
Ruling
The court GRANTED the NOC Defendants’ Motion for In Camera Review and Order on Production of Documents. The New Orleans Defendants were ordered to produce the documents within seven days after the order was filed, with the required redactions. The parties were ordered to treat the documents as confidential under the protective order. The court also stated that violations of this or prior consistent orders could lead to appropriate remedies or sanctions.
The order was signed by United States Magistrate Judge Tony N. Leung.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.