SCRANTON – The City of Scranton and the Scranton Police Department are seeking to dismiss a lawsuit brought a former Department member, who claimed her confidential personnel file and personal contact information were leaked without her knowledge by those entities, as part of discovery in an unrelated case.
Bryanna Gifford of Old Forge first 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 said.
“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 stated.
“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.”
UPDATE
The City of Scranton and the Scranton Police Department motioned to dismiss the complaint on Feb. 18.
“Based on those alleged facts, plaintiff brings the present lawsuit alleging that defendants violated her constitutional and civil rights (Count I) and intentionally inflicted emotional distress upon her (Count II). Plaintiff, however, has not named Duane Saunders in the present lawsuit, the individual who purportedly disseminated her confidential information. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), a court may dismiss a complaint for failure to state a claim,” the defendants’ motion stated.
“In accordance with local rules, plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted against defendants, plaintiff has failed to name Duane Saunders, the individual that actually disseminated plaintiff’s confidential information, and defendants are entitled to immunity. Accordingly, the complaint should be dismissed with prejudice. Plaintiff does not concur in this motion.”
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 are represented by Matthew G. Boyd of Ufberg & Associates, also in Scranton.
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