Minke v. Page County, Virginia, No. 5:2018cv00082 - Document 52 (W.D. Va. 2019)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Chief Judge Michael F. Urbanski on 2/23/19. (kld)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
CLERK'S OFFICE U. S.DIST.COURT AT ROANOKE,VA FILED FE8 25 2219 IN THE UNITED STATESDISTRICTCOURT U; ULIW UDLEXCLERK FOR T H E W ESTE RN D ISTRICT O F W RGIN IA H ARRTSON BU RG D IW SIO N E C LY N D A L.M IN IG , Plaintiffy CivilAction N o.5:18-cv-82 V. PA GE CO U N TY,W RGIN IA, D efendant. By: M ichelF.U rbansld ClziefUnited StatesDistrictJudge < M O R AN D U M O PIN IO N TllismattetcomesbeforethecourtonDefendantPageCounty,Virginia'srTage Countf')objecdons,ECF No.43,toUnitedStatesMagistrateludgeyloelC.Hoppe'sotder, ECF No.42,oflanuary7,2019,broughtpursuanttoRule72oftheFederalRulesofCivil Procedure.Thisdiscoverydisputeadsesfrom PlaindffLyndaL.M inke'smodon tocompel discovery and obtain inform aion aboutdiscussionstegatcling herem ploym entdlzting a closed-meeéngofthePageCountyBoardofSuperdsors(<%oatd''lheldonlune2û,2017, afterwhich theBoard voted to terminate M inke'sem ploym ent.M inkeissued interrogatodes, specifically Interrogatory N o.9,to D efendantPage County and deposed Am ityM oler,the PageCountyAdministrator,and tlaeemembersoftheBoard,lohrmyW oodward,Larry Minke v. Page County, Virginia Doc. 52 Foltz,and D avid W iatrow sld,on thisissue.In responfling to InterrogatoryN o.9,aswellas dlxringdeposidons,PageCountyobjected to thedisclostueoftheclosed-meetingdiscussions on two gtounds,clliming:(1)thediscussionsateexemptftom disclosuteundertheVizgml ' 'a Dockets.Justia.com . Freedom ofInformationActrTFOIA'?),Va.CodeAnn.j2.2-3700,. :.1seq.,and(2)that they ateprotected by the attorney-clientpdvilege. Onlanuary7,2019,JudgeHoppeissuedawrittenopinionandordergrantlng Minke'smodontocompel,requitingthat(1)deposidonsbereconvenedwherePageCounty hadinstructedthedeponentsnotto answerqueséonsditected to thesubstanceofthelune 20,2017closedmeeting,(2)thatPageCountyanswezlntertogatoryNo.9,and(3)thatPage County provide aprivilegelog in connecdon wit.h itsinvocadon ofthe atozney-client privilege.IntbisopH onandorder,ludgeHoppereliedonacasefrom theSeventhCircuit holding thatan Illinoisstate statutem aking unem ploym ent-com pensaion ptoceeclings conhdendaldid notcteate aprivilege from disclosing thoseproceedingsin federalcourt liégation where federal1aw govezned.E.E.O .C.v.111.D e t.ofEm 'tSec.,995 F.2d 106, 107-09 C/th Cir.1993).Forreasonsdifferentthan thoseatdculated byludgeHoppe,the courtfindsthattheVFO IA doesnotby itsterm scteate aseparateprivilegeallowing Page CountytorefusetoproducediscoveryptusuanttoRule26$)oftheFederalRulesofCivil Procedure.Accordingly,PageCounty'sobjecdonisOVERRULED. 1. Rule72(a)oftheFederalRulesofCivilProcedtuepermitsapattyto submit objectbnstoamagisttatejudje'sm'lingonnonctisposiévematters,suchasdiscoveryordets. Fed.R.Civ.P.72(a);see28U.S.C.j636(b)(1)(A).Asanon-disposidvematter,thereview of amagistratejudge'sdiscoveryorderisgoveznedbytheTfclearlyerroneous':orT<contratyto law''standard ofreview.ld.Onlyifamagisttatejudge'sdecision isffclearlyerroneousor contrarytolaw?'mayadistdctcouttjudgemodifyorsetasideanypordonofthedecision. 2 Id.A court'sTrfl nclitng isfclearly etroneous'when although thereisevidenceto supportit,the zeviewing coutton the entiteevidenceisleftwith thedehniteand 9= convicdon thata mistakehasbeen com m itted.''United Statesv.United StatesG slzm Co.,333 U .S.364,395 (1948)9seealsoHarmanv.Levin,772F.2d1150,1152(4thCit.1985).fflnlightofthebroad disctedongiventoamagistratejudgeintheresoludonofnondisposiévediscoverydisputes, thecolnrfshouldonlyovertnlleamagisttatejudge'sdetetminadonifthisdiscredonis abused.''Shoo v.Hott,2010WL 5067567,*2 (N.D.W .Va.Dec.6,2010)(citlngDetecdon S s.Inc.v.Pittwa Co .,96F.R.D.152,154 (W.D.N.Y.1982)). II. FederalRuleofCivilPzocedute26$)(1)pet-mitsdiscoveryofffanynonprivileged m atterthatisrelevantto any party'sclnim ordefenseand propordonalto the needsofthe case.''Fed.R.Civ.P.26($(1).TfT'heobjecdngpartycarriesthebutdenofprovingthatthe chaEenged discoveryptoducdon should notbepetm itted.''Ca italO neBank N .A .v.H ess Kenned Chartered LLC,No.3:08cv147,2008U.S.Dist.LEM S 76385,at*4-5 (E.D.Va. Sept.30,2008).PageCountyassertsthatVFOIA createsaffprivilege''cognizableunderRule 269$(1),andclnimsthatallowitlgdiscoveryastotlaesubstanceoftheJune20,2017Board meedngwould(1)fTallow aplaindfftocircllmventthisstatepdvilegesimplybyftlingsuitin federalcourt''and(2)dfthwat' tVirgtu ''a'sstattztoryscheme....''ECFNo.43,at1.Page County,however,im properly assertstheVFO IA asa ffprivilege''in responseto M inke's modonto compel.PageUountycitesno caselaw considedngwhetherinformationthat mightbeprotected fzom disclosure underthe'VFO IA isalso privileged it' lacivilcasewhen requested aspartofthe discoveryprocess. 3 TheVFOIA unlikeotherVirgM 'u'astatutes,doesnotindicatean intenton thepartof theVizgirzia GeneralA ssem bly to createan independentpzivilege ofthe soztasserted by PageCounty.Virgillia'sunemploymentcompensatbn statute,Va.CodeAnn.j60.2-100Mt iqq.lirgitziaUnemploymentCompensadonAct),bycontrast,includesaspecifk provision . creating apdvilegeoftheldnd Page County urgesthe couztto ftnd in theVFO IA.Va.Code Ann.j60.2-6237),inrelevantpart,states: lnform adon flltzzished the Com m ission undettheprovisionsof thischapter shallnotbepublished orbeopen to public inspecdon,othetthan to public em ployeesin theperfo= ance oftheirpublic dudes.N eithersuch info= atbn,norany deternainadonordecisionrenderedundertheprovisionsofj 60.2-619,60.2-620or60.2-622,shallbeusedinanyjudicialor aclm inistradveproceeling othezthan one arising outofthe provisionsofthisdtle;however,the Com m ission shallm akeits zecotdsaboutaclnim antavailable to theW orkers' Com pensadon Com m ission ifitrequestssuch records.The Com m ission m ay also,in itsdiscredon,fl'tnish copiesofthe transcriptofheo ngsto anypatty. Va.CodeAnn.j60.2-6237).Here,theinclusionoftheexplicitlanguage,ffshallnotbe... useditzanyjudicialproceerlingotherthan oneadsingoutoftheprovisionsofthisdtle...,'' explicitlyprobibitsplaindffsfrom using statem entssubm itted to theVirginiaEm ploym ent Commission (<TEC'')in civilacdons,such asthoseitwolving defamadon clnims,etc.See Shabazzv.PYA Monarch,LLC,271F.Supp.2d 797,802-03 (E.D.Va.2003).Nllmerous couttsintelw edngVa.CodeAnn.j60.2-6237),la0t. h stateandfederal,haverecognized the preclusive effectofthisstataztory language,and refused to considerany statem entsm adein 4 zeladon to apêoceeding befoze theVEC based on thisstam te.SeeM oozev.PYA M onazch, LLC,238F.Supp.2:1724,728-29(E.D.Va.2002)(collecdngcases). In Kon'evichv.Washin S s.Inc.,23F.3d 401(4th Cit.1994),forexample,the plaindffarpzed thatthe disttictcotutetred by refusing to considera reportsubm itted by the plaindff'sem ployetto theVEC.TheFourth Circuit,acknowledging thatthisreportwotzld supporttheplaindff'stheoryofhistetminaéon,nonethelessheldthatVa.CodeAnn.j60.2623 expncitly ffprecludestheuse ofinform adon pzovided to theVirginiaEmploym ent Commissioninanyjudicialoradministraéveproceeflinp''Id.Inresponsetotheplnindff's argamentthat,pursuanttoErieRailroadv.Tom ldns,304U.S.64(1938),thedistdctcourt shouldhave(1)considered federalprocedurallaw,ratherthan thisVirginialaw,and (2) allowed therepol'tto beaHmittedinto evidence,theFoutth Citctétstateàthatitffdoesnot agreethatEdewould pe= itafederalcourtto ignore astate statm eregatcling state aclministtadvepolicy.''LdaFindingno errot,theFollt'th Circuitaf6rmed thedisttictcoutt's hnclingthattherepottin quesdon wasinadmissible.ld. Hete,PageCountyteliesonVa.CodeAnn.j2.2-3711(A)(1),aprovisionofthe VFO IA,which allow sforclosed m eetingsduring which the public m ay bedenied access underthefollowing circllm stances: D iscussion,consideradon,otinterviewsofprospecdve candidatesforem ploym ent;assigmnent,appoin% ent, prom odon,perform ance,dem otion,salaties,disciplining,or resignatbn ofspecihc publicofûcers,appointees,orem ployees ofany publicbody;and çvaluadon ofperform anceof depnrtm entsorschoolsofpublicinstitudonsoflligher educadon where such evaluadon willnecessarily involve iscussion ofthe petfo= anceofspeciûcindividuals. 5 Va.CodeAnn.j2.2-3711(A)(1).Nowhereit'lthisprovision,oranyotherprovisioncitedby PageCounty,istherelanguagealongthelinesofthatfoundinVa.CodeAnn.j60.2-6237), discussed w pza,evincing an intentby theVirgitaia GeneralAssem bly thatm eetingsclosed to thepublicpursuantto thisstatutealso beprotectedbyan independentTfpzivilege.r'In other wotds,theVitginia GenetalA ssem bly,knowing how to create affprivilege''ofthe sort posited byPage County,and having specihcally done so in no lm certain term sin other stamtes,includingVa.CodeAnn.j60.2-6237),didnotdosoinVa.CodeAnn.j2.23711(A).Statedsomewhatdiffetently,Va.CodeAnn.j2.2-3711(A)(1)doesnotcont/in pzeclusivelanguage sim ilatto thatwllich theFolzrf.h Circuitzecopuz ' ed asproscribing disclosure oftherepottsubmitted to theVEC in K on'evich v.W ashin S s. Inc.,23 F.3d 401 (4th Cir.1994). Furtherm ore,fedetalcotutsintem redng state statm esem ploying sim ilarstatm ory languageto the W RO IA haverefused to infersuch a privilege fordiscussions,docllm ents, etc.,created in thecontextofclosed m eedngswhere thereisno explicitstatutorylanguage protecdngsuchmaterialfzom disclostuein civillitkadon.CityofGrandview v.Missolati GasEner ,No.4:11-CV-00822-BP,2012W L 12897093,at*1(W.D.Mo.Sept.10,2012), forexam ple,concetned asuitin which thedefendant,through am odon to com pel,sought docplm entsand deposidon testim ony from theplaindff,am unicipalgovernm ent.Thepardes disputedwhethertheMissolzriOpen MeetingsandRecordsAct,Mo.Ann.Stat.j610.021(1) (West),also known astheSunshineLaw,created anindependentprivilegepzotecdngthis m aterialfrom disclosure d'lting civildiscovery.1d.The specihcM issouristataztoryprovision itaquesdon,dtled ffclosed m eedngsand closed recordsauthodzed when,excepdonsy'' 6 allowedtheplnindff(municipalgoveznment)tocloserecordstotheextenttheyrelateto ffgllegalacéons,causesofacéon orlidgadon involvingapublicgovetnmentalbodyandany conhdendalorprivileged com m unicatbnsbetween apublicgoveznm entalbody orits repzesentadvesandattozneys....''Mo.Ann.Stat.j610.021(1)(West).LiketheVitgml ''a statutoryatissueit'ltlliscase,theM issolnristatute also included an ' analogousprovision allowing thegovernm entto close employm ent-related recordsconcerning: H iting,flring,disciplining orprom odng ofpatticularem ployees by apublicgovernm entalbodywhen personalinform adon abouttheem ployeeisdiscussed orrecorded.H owever,anyvote on aEnaldecision,when taken by apublicgovernm entalbody, to hire,& e,prom ote ordisciplinean em ployee ofapublic governm entalbody shallbe m adeavailablewitlaarecord of how eachmembetvotedtothepublicwithinseventhtwohours oftheclose ofthe m eedngw here such acéon occuzs;provided, howevçr,thatany em ployee so affected shallbe endtled to ptom ptnotice ofsuch decision d'lting the seventr two-hour pedod before such decision ism ade available to thepublic. Mo.Ann.Stat.j61û.021(3)(West). ThecouttinCityofGrandview,althoughonlyaddressingMo.Ann.Stat.j 610.021(1)(West)specifically,notedthattheploindffcitednocaselaw considetingwhethet docllmentsand/ortesdmonythatmightbeptotected from disclosureundertheSunshine Law generally colzld also be privileged in acivilcasewhen requested dtuing discovery.N o. 4:11-CV-00822-BP,2012W L 12897093,at*1(W.D.M o.Sept.10,2012).Thecourtnoted thattheU nited StatesSuprem e Colxtthasheld thatfffederalopen recordslaw sdo notcreate an independentpdvilegeon which thegovernm entcan rely to withhold doclxm entsthatare otherwise discovezable in civillidgadon.''Ltk(citingChamberofCommerceofU.S.v.Le al . Aid Soc.ofAlamedaCounty,423U.S.1309,1310-11 (1975)(finflingthatwhen the 7 producdon soughtisnotputsuantto the Freedom ofInform adon Actbutisinstead partof adiscoveryeffort,theonlycbimsofprivilegeareunderFed.R.Civ.P.26(c)becausetheAct itselfcreatesnopdvilegesl).Thecouttfutthernoted thatalthough Missouticourtshadnot directly addressed theissue,atleastone cout'tquesdoned whethertheSunshineLaw operated in a civildiscoverycontext.UlHm ately,becausçitw asTfunclearthatthegovernm ent can use the actasan independentprivilege during civl 'ldiscovery ...,''the Ci of Grandview courtdeclined to create such aprivilege.JIL -. H eretoo,atam inim llm ,itisunclearwhethertheVF0 IA createsan independent ffpdvilege''insulatingtheBoard'sdiscussionsonlune20,2017ftom disclosureincivt 'l M gaéon.Forthatreason alone,thecourtcould fmd thatludgeHoppe'sJanuaty7,2019 ordezand opinion arenotfrclearly erroneous''orTfcontzaryto lam ''ThattheVirgml ' 'a GeneralA ssem bly cteated such a fTprivilege''thtough explicitlanr agein otherstam tes, including theVitginiaUnem ploym entCom pensadon A ct,suggeststhatitclid notintend to im buetheVFO IA with asim ilarprivilegeto thattecognt 'zed by the Folll'th Circuitin Konjevich.Here,asin CityofGrandview,thecolzrtcannot,andwillnot,inferanysuch privilege.Indeed,none ofthe casescited by Page County favortecognidon ofaprivilege undertheVFO IA.H aving detetmined thatno such privilegeisapplicable,thecourtneed notreachtheissueofwaiver.Finally,PageCountydoesnotappeartoclisputeludge H oppe'sholcling regatding itsinvocation ofthe attotney-clientpdvilege.Fotthe fotegoing reasons,PageCounty'sobjecdonsareOVERRULED. An apptopdate ORD E R willbeenteted. 8 snteted, o a- -z a - zz !) /#f C. .-,(.ty.,;.2 fZMf# .. .( .,t ,j * ' , ' , e.t .j(E..' . , . i .T ' . , M ichaelF.Urb nsld A . United StàtsDistdctluage 9 ..
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
