34 F. Supp. 3d 1
D.D.C.2014Background
- Cienfuegos worked for the Office of the Architect of the Capitol until June 2012 and alleges intimidation and retaliation for discrimination complaints, including a termination claim.
- She followed the Office of Compliance’s Procedural Rules, engaged in counseling and mediation, and participated in formal hearings for two complaints.
- The current action concerns records from those OOC hearings and whether they are discoverable in this civil action.
- Cienfuegos argues the hearings were confidential and thus the records are not discoverable; the defendant argues disclosure is permissible under a protective order.
- The court held that confidentiality of the proceedings does not create an evidentiary privilege and that the disputed records may be released subject to a protective order.
- The court cites Blackmon-Malloy and related authority, noting counseling records are highly confidential but not privileged, and emphasizes the parties’ identities in the hearings reduce confidentiality concerns when protected by a order.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Are OOC hearing records discoverable? | Cienfuegos contends hearings are confidential and records are not discoverable. | Release is permissible under protective order; confidentiality can be safeguarded. | Yes; records may be disclosed under a protective order. |
Key Cases Cited
- Blackmon-Malloy v. U.S. Capitol Police Board, 575 F.3d 699 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (privacy of counseling-mediation records; no privilege; use protective order)
- United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683 (U.S. 1974) (privileges are not lightly created; high standard to establish privilege)
- Pearson v. Miller, 211 F.3d 57 (3d Cir. 2000) (limits on confidentiality-based privileges; protective-order approach)