Favale v. Roman Catholic Diocese of Bridgeport

Brief Fact Summary.

Plaintiff alleged that the principal of the elementary school where she worked subjected her to sexual harassment. Plaintiff’s counsel asked the principal at a deposition about any psychological and psychiatric illnesses she may have had as well as any related medical treatment. Counsel also asked about the principal’s alleged anger management history. Defendant objected to the requests on the grounds that the information was irrelevant and privileged.

Synopsis of Rule of Law.

A party must demonstrate that requested information is relevant to a claim or defense in order to prevail on a motion to compel.

Facts.

For 21 years, Plaintiff worked for Saint Joseph’s School as an administrative assistant. Sister Bernice Stobierski became the interim principal and subsequently the full-time principal. Plaintiff has alleged that Stobierski subjected Plaintiff to severe and repeated sexual harassment between December 2002 and June 2003 by touching her inappropriately, making sexually suggestive comments, exhibiting lewd behavior, and requesting physical affection. Plaintiff reported this conduct to her employer, the Defendant. Plaintiff sued the Defendant for sexual harassment, retaliation, defamation, intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress, negligent hiring, and negligent supervision. During deposition, Plaintiff’s counsel asked the principal about any psychological and psychiatric illnesses she may have had as well as any related medical treatment. Counsel also asked about the principal’s alleged anger management history. Defendant objected to the requests on the grounds that the information was irrelevant and privileged. However, Plaintiff argued that the information was discoverable because Defendant negligently hired and supervised an individual who was not fit to be a school principal as she had limited experience and emotional issues that presented a risk to the school’s students and staff. Plaintiff subsequently moved to compel Stobierski to testify to any prior treatment for anger management and psychological or psychiatric conditions. Plaintiff also moved to compel the Defendant to produce any records related to any such treatment of Stobierski.

Issue.

Must a party demonstrate that requested information is relevant to a claim or defense in order to prevail on a motion to compel?

Held.

Yes.

Discussion.

A party must demonstrate that requested information is relevant to a claim or defense in order to prevail on a motion to compel. Both negligent hiring and negligent supervision claims turn upon the type of wrongful conduct that actually precipitated the harm suffered by a plaintiff. A defendant cannot be held liable for its alleged negligent hiring, training, supervision or retention of an employee accused of wrongful conduct unless the defendant had notice of the employee’s propensity for the type of behavior causing the plaintiff‘s harm. Here, Plaintiff only alleged that Stobierski sexually harassed Plaintiff, but did not claim that Stobierski’s anger or emotional issues caused Plaintiff harm. Even if Defendant had notice of Stobierski’s anger-management history or psychological or psychiatric conditions, that did not mean it had notice of Stobierski’s propensity to commit acts of sexual harassment. Therefore, any evidence related to Stobierski’s anger-management issues or psychological or psychiatric conditions would not be relevant to Plaintiff‘s claims. Accordingly, the motion to compel the testimony of Stobierski is denied. Similarly, records related to any such treatment or issues would not be relevant to Plaintiff‘s claims. Therefore, the motion to compel the production of records relating to such treatment or issues is denied.