W.S. v. Daniels
8:16-cv-01032
| D.S.C. | Jul 11, 2017Background
- Plaintiff W.S., asserting § 1983 and state-law claims, subpoenaed Boys Home of the South (BHOTS) for incident records (2000–2011), later narrowed to 2003–April 19, 2011, and to specific individuals listed in his affidavit.
- BHOTS did not object and collected materials; Defendants (SCDSS and two employees) moved to quash the subpoena, requesting an in-camera review before disclosure and arguing the Children’s Code confidentiality provisions protect the records.
- Parties conferred and narrowed the subpoena scope (specific children identified; three individuals withdrawn; time period narrowed) and a Confidentiality Order was entered.
- The central dispute: whether federal courts should recognize a third-party privacy privilege based on South Carolina’s Children’s Code such that an in-camera review (and further limitation) is required before production.
- Court concluded Defendants had not shown a federal Rule 501 privilege exists for these third-party records and that the Confidentiality Order plus narrowed scope adequately protected interests; denied motion to quash and ordered production within 30 days.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether records sought are protected by a federal privilege under Rule 501 | No privilege applies; discovery is allowed subject to protective order | Children’s Code confidentiality creates a third-party privacy privilege requiring in-camera review before disclosure | No federal privilege recognized; deny motion to quash; in-camera review not required |
| Applicability of state statute confidentiality to federal privilege law | Federal privilege law governs; state confidentiality insufficient to create federal privilege | State confidentiality (Children’s Code §63-7-1990) warrants deference and in-camera review | Federal courts apply federal privilege law in mixed federal/state cases; state statute alone does not automatically create federal privilege |
| Proper mechanism to protect sensitive third-party interests | Protective order under Rule 26(c) suffices | Court should conduct in-camera review and further narrow subpoena (e.g., only sexual incidents) | Protective order and narrowed subpoena scope are adequate; no further limitation ordered |
| Who bears burden to justify new privilege | Privilege must be narrowly construed; party asserting privilege must show it promotes sufficiently important interests | Defendants must demonstrate strong interest outweighing need for probative evidence | Defendants failed to meet high burden to create a new federal privilege; court declines to create it |
Key Cases Cited
- United States ex rel. Becker v. Westinghouse Savannah River Co., 305 F.3d 284 (4th Cir. 2002) (district courts have substantial discretion managing discovery)
- Virmani v. Novant Health Inc., 259 F.3d 284 (4th Cir. 2001) (federal law of privilege applies in cases with both federal and state claims)
- Jaffee v. Redmond, 518 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1996) (privileges are narrowly construed; privilege recognition requires important interests)
- Univ. of Pa. v. EEOC, 493 U.S. 182 (U.S. 1990) (privileges should be recognized only when interests outweigh need for probative evidence)
- Pearson v. Miller, 211 F.3d 57 (3d Cir. 2000) (courts should scrutinize state privilege claims when state actors assert them and consider federal interests)
- Trammel v. United States, 445 U.S. 40 (U.S. 1980) (articulates standard that privilege must promote sufficiently important interests to overcome need for evidence)