Discovery

In General

In appeal of termination in part for dishonest use of sick leave, appellant waived privilege to shield physician-patient communications regarding his treatment for migraine on day covered by leave request. In re Cullen, CSA 127-08, 2 (1/7/09).

Records from the Employee Assistance Program relevant to appellant's compliance with his stipulation and agreement and not covered by any privilege are discoverable. In re Cullen, CSA 127-08, 2-3 (1/7/09).

Police reports related to a domestic incident and transportation to a detox facility are discoverable on the issue of the state and level of appellant's intoxication in an appeal of termination for breach of a stipulation and agreement related to use of alcohol. In re Cullen,
CSA 127-08, 3 (1/7/09).

Credit card and bank records to prove previous purchases of alcohol are not sufficiently probative of issues where termination was for use of alcohol on one particular day. In re Cullen, CSA 127-08, 3 (1/7/09).

Records of detox facility are discoverable on the issue of whether appellant was intoxicated on the day he claimed sick leave for a migraine. In re Cullen, CSA 127-08, 3 (1/7/09).

Requests for documents from non-parties, including other agencies, must be supported by good cause and show the relevance of the requested documents to the appeal. In re Harrison, CSA 55-07 (Order 11/18/08), citing §19-45 B.

Requests for subpoenas to compel the attendance of witnesses must be supported by good cause, and call for testimony that is relevant to the appeal. In re Harrison, CSA 55-07 (Order 11/18/08), citing §19-45 C.

A motion for a subpoena made after the deadline imposed by pre-hearing order may be denied as untimely. In re Harrison, CSA 55-07 (Order 11/18/08).

The Career Service Rules disfavor extensive discovery. In re Rogers, CSA 25-08 (5/13/08); CSR § 19-45 A.

Appellant must comply with discovery order after withdrawal of his attorney. In re Bradley, CSA 60-06, 2 (Order 12/7/06).

Appellant’s failure to comply with discovery orders is not excused by withdrawal of his attorney where appellant had sole access to requested information. In re Bradley, CSA 60-06, 2 (Order 12/7/06).

Because the hearing process is designed to provide a fair but relatively quick and inexpensive resolution to employment disputes, the rules disfavor extensive discovery, as it places an undue burden on those who are hard-pressed to afford protracted litigation expenses. In re Ortega, CSA 81-06 (Order 11/13/06).

Extensive discovery, including the taking of depositions, is limited to extraordinary circumstances, defined as “good cause.” § 19-45. In re Ortega, CSA 81-06 (Order 11/13/06).

Depositions

Depositions are permitted If it is not feasible for a subpoenaed witness to appear at hearing. In re Rogers, CSA 25-08 (5/13/08); C.S.R. § 19-45 D.

Motion to depose a witness was denied when appellant was unaware if witness would be unavailable to attend hearing. In re Rogers, CSA 25-08 (5/13/08); C.S.R. § 19-45 D.

Untimely motion for deposition that failed to request an extension of time or state good cause for tardiness was denied. In re Rogers, CSA 25-08 (5/13/08).

Subpoena duces tecum (subpoena to produce documents)

A motion requesting a document that is already designated as an exhibit in the appeal will be denied as unnecessary. In re Harrison, CSA 55-07 (Order 11/18/08).

A motion for a subpoena to produce which fails to demonstrate any probative value to an issue on appeal will be denied as a failure to state good cause. In re Harrison, CSA 55-07, (Order 11/18/08).

Subpoena request for entire file of doctor pertaining to death of a jail inmate while under appellant deputy sheriff‘s watch is relevant or may lead to the discovery of relevant information in appellant’s dismissal. In re Rogers, CSA 25-08 (5/13/08).