Quantcast

Ex-Scranton police officer says her personal info was leaked in discovery process for unrelated court case

PENNSYLVANIA RECORD

Friday, November 22, 2024

Ex-Scranton police officer says her personal info was leaked in discovery process for unrelated court case

Lawsuits
Jasonjmattioli

Mattioli | The Mattioli Law Firm

SCRANTON – A former member of the Scranton Police Department claims her confidential personnel file and personal contact information were leaked without her knowledge by the City of Scranton and the Department, as part of discovery in an unrelated case.

Bryanna Gifford of Old Forge filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania on Jan. 26 versus the City of Scranton and the Scranton Police Department.

“The plaintiff was a police officer with the Scranton Police Department between March 20, 2017 and June 23, 2020. On Aug. 7, 2020, unknown to the plaintiff, a letter was sent by the defendants’ legal counsel Jenna Kraycer Tuzze to Duane Saunders. Saunders is a plaintiff in an unrelated matter against the City of Scranton and the Scranton Police Department and as part of the discovery requested by Saunders, the City of Scranton and the Scranton Police Department sent confidential information regarding the plaintiff,” the suit says.

“Gifford is a non-party to the suit involving Saunders and any information about her was and remains irrelevant to Saunders’ case. Upon information and belief, the information sent by the City of Scranton and the Scranton Police Department to Saunders was irrelevant to Saunders’ pending action against the City of Scranton. Upon information and belief, the circumstances surrounding Saunders’ case dealt with a DUI that he was charged with prior to the plaintiff being employed by the Scranton Police Department.”

The plaintiff added that in an enclosure to the letter addressed to Saunders, information released by the defendants included portions of the plaintiff’s confidential employment file and contained without redaction of any kind including, but not limited to, plaintiff’s cell phone number, address and social media accounts – and that at no time did the defendants seek a protective order to protect the plaintiff’s privacy and confidential information.

“The plaintiff’s confidential information, specifically, but not limited to, her cellular telephone number and address, was then disseminated on various social media outlets by Saunders. As a result of the dissemination by the defendants, the plaintiff and her family have been harassed and her privacy has been invaded further,” the suit states.

“Additionally, the plaintiff has suffered extreme emotional distress, which requires medical treatment in the past and into the future. Further, the plaintiff has to live with the fear of reprisal as a result of the dissemination of this confidential information that was released by the defendants. The dissemination resulted in harassing phone calls, text messages, social media messages and drive-by intimidation at her and her family’s homes resulting in reports being made to the police.”

For counts of constitutional and civil rights violations and intentional infliction of emotional distress, the plaintiff is seeking the following relief:

• Judgment in favor of the plaintiff against the defendants;

• The entering of an order declaring defendants’ conduct unconstitutional;

• Compensatory and punitive damages against the defendants;

• Reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1988 and any other applicable provisions of law;

• The entering a permanent injunction, upon proper motion, requiring defendants to adopt appropriate policies related to the dissemination of personnel and other confidential information; and

• Such other and further relief as may be just and proper under the circumstances, including but not limited to appropriate injunctive relief, plus a trial by jury.

The plaintiff is represented by Jason J. Mattioli and Michael J. Ossont of The Mattioli Law Firm, plus Michael R. Goffer of the Law Office of Goffer & Cimini, all in Scranton.

The defendants have not yet obtained legal counsel.

U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania 3:22-cv-00137

From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com

More News