Alterra Healthcare Corporation v. Estate of Shelley

Summary

The Supreme Court of Florida held that a private employer lacks third-party standing to assert its employees' constitutional privacy rights in nonpublic personnel records sought through discovery. The court explained that trial courts must nevertheless assess the relevance of requested records, weigh competing discovery and privacy interests, and use measures such as in-camera review, redaction, or protective orders when appropriate. The court approved the decision below in part and disapproved conflicting reasoning from the Fifth District Court of Appeal.

Holdings

1. A nonpublic employer generally lacks third-party, or jus tertii, standing to assert the constitutional privacy rights of its employees in personnel records sought through discovery.
2. Although a private employer lacks standing to assert its employees' privacy rights as such, it has standing to oppose production of employee-file information on the independent ground that the information is irrelevant to the pending litigation.
3. Trial courts must consider affected employees' privacy interests when evaluating the relevance and scope of discovery, and may balance privacy and disclosure interests, conduct an in-camera inspection, redact or withhold irrelevant private information, and require a description of withheld material.

Questions Presented

1. Whether a private employer has standing to assert the constitutional privacy rights of its employees in nonpublic personnel records sought through court-ordered discovery.
2. Whether an employer may oppose production of employee personnel records on the ground that the requested information is irrelevant to the litigation, even when the employer lacks standing to assert the employees' privacy rights.
3. Whether the trial court must consider and balance affected employees' privacy interests when determining the relevance and appropriate scope of discovery.

Disposition

approved