Search by Case Name
Search by Case Number
Search by Keyword

#1999

IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS

In Re:

B & R ROOFING & SHEET METAL COMPANY,

DEBTOR(S)

NO. 92-40396-11

CHAPTER 11

SHERI ROBBEN,

PLAINTIFF(S),

v.

B & R ROOFING & SHEET METAL COMPANY,

ADV. NO. 93-7151

DEFENDANT(S)

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENA

This proceeding is before the Court on the motion of the Kansas Department of Human Resources (KDHR) to quash the plaintiff's subpoena to produce at trial all unemployment insurance records about her. The KDHR appears by counsel A.J. Kotich. The plaintiff appears by counsel Caleb Boone. The debtor appears by counsel Ruth Graham and Don Staab. The Unsecured Creditors Committee appears by counsel Lauren Lowry. The Court has reviewed the relevant pleadings and heard argument, and is now ready to rule.

The KDHR points out that the Kansas Employment Security Law (Law), K.S.A. 44-701 et seq., requires the information obtained in the administration of the Law to be held confidential, except to the extent necessary to properly present claims under it. K.S.A. 1992 Supp. 44-714(f). Transcripts of hearings held under the Law are not discoverable or admissible in any proceedings not under the Law. K.S.A. 1992 Supp. 44-714(f); ; Batt v. Globe Engineering Co., Inc., 13 Kan.App.2d 500, 501-04, 774 P.2d 371 (1989). United States District Judge Saffels has adhered to this rule in a tort and breach of contract case. Kuehn v. La Petite Academy, Inc., Case No. 82-2239, Memorandum and Order (D.Kan. June 6, 1983), slip op. at 8-10.

In opposing the KDHR's motion, the plaintiff has cited only cases which deal with the question whether a state administrative proceeding should be given preclusive effect, either for issues or claims, in subsequent judicial proceedings. See, e.g., Kendall v. C.F. Industries, Inc., 624 F.Supp. 1102, 1104-08 (N.D.Ill. 1986). The issue before this Court, by contrast, is whether the record from a state administrative proceeding may be introduced into evidence despite a state statute which prohibits its use. Both the statute and case law make clear that the KDHR's records are not discoverable and are inadmissible.

KDHR's motion to quash the plaintiff's subpoena is hereby granted.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated at Topeka, Kansas, this _____ day of March, 1994.













__________________________________

JAMES A. PUSATERI

CHIEF BANKRUPTCY JUDGE

 

Search by Case Name
Search by Case Number
Search by Keyword