Maureen E. Coughlin and Frank S. Mistretta v. Harry Lee A/K/A Jefferson Parish Sheriff

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• noting that all or some parts of a personnel file could be central to plaintiffs' effort to prove pretext in a discrimination case
• permitting discovery of personnel files in order for the plaintiff to find evidence of pretext in a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 case
• rejecting the contention that state public records law governs a claim of privilege but stating that the court would “consider state policies supporting a privilege in weighing the government's interest in confidentiality”
• remanding the matter because the district court did not consider whether the documents were privileged, did not inspect the documents in camera, and did not engage in a balancing of the competing interests
• remanding the matter because the district court did not consider whether the documents were privileged, did not inspect the documents in camera, and did not engage in a balancing of the competing interests
• “The district court appears to have limited discovery because it considered these files irrelevant to the plaintiffs’ freedom of speech case.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).