LOUIS NARVAEZ VS. STATE OF NEW JERSEY JUDICIARYÂ VICINAGE 4(L-1717-15, MERCER COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)
A-3166-16T1
| N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. | Nov 22, 2017Background
- Plaintiff Louis Narvaez, former chief probation officer in Camden vicinage, sued the State Judiciary alleging CEPA retaliation and LAD discrimination after his 2015 termination.
- Discovery sought by Narvaez included vicinage performance plans, comparative departmental statistics, and personnel records of other department heads.
- Parties entered a Consent Protective Order (CPO) limiting use and public disclosure of non-public discovery materials; the CPO was drafted by defendant.
- Trial court ordered production of the requested materials without conducting an in camera review, subject to the CPO and protection of probationer identities.
- Defendant appealed, arguing that personnel records warrant strong confidentiality and that the court should have performed in camera review before disclosure; plaintiff argued no in camera review was required under Dixon.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court erred by ordering production of other employees' personnel and department performance records without conducting an in camera review | Narvaez: Dixon allows access without immediate in camera review; discovery is presumptively broad | State: Personnel records are highly confidential; court should perform in camera review before turnover | Court affirmed: no abuse of discretion in ordering production without immediate in camera review given the CPO and relevance of records, but the order was modified for redaction procedures |
| Scope of confidentiality and redaction protocol for produced materials | Narvaez: Documents should be produced for use in litigation subject to CPO | State: May redact sensitive identifying and personnel information; more protective measures may be needed | Court held: Defendant may redact personal identifiers and use initials per CPO; if plaintiff objects, court will resolve via in camera review and may impose additional protections (e.g., counsel-only access) |
| Standard for balancing discovery access vs. privacy/confidentiality of third-party personnel records | Narvaez: Broad civil discovery standard applies | State: Needs case-by-case balancing; Dixon should not mandate blanket disclosure | Court: Confirmed broad civil discovery right but endorsed case-by-case balancing; no categorical rule either way; in camera review remains available when disputes arise |
Key Cases Cited
- Dixon v. Rutgers, 110 N.J. 432 (1988) (discusses disclosure and redaction of peer records in employment disputes)
- Loigman v. Kimmelman, 102 N.J. 98 (1986) (discusses in camera review and balancing interests in discovery)
- Capital Health Sys., Inc. v. Horizon Healthcare Servs., Inc., 230 N.J. 73 (2017) (reaffirms broad presumptive right of access to civil discovery)
- N. Jersey Media Grp., Inc. v. Bergen Cty. Prosecutor's Office, 405 N.J. Super. 386 (App. Div. 2009) (recognizes confidentiality interests in personnel records)