The opinion of the court was delivered by: John M. Facciola United States Magistrate Judge
This case was referred to me for resolution of Plaintiffs' Motion for Protective Order ("Motion for P.O."). For the reasons stated below, plaintiff's motion will be granted.
Plaintiffs are former employees of the Public Safety Communication Center ("PSCC")*fn1 of the Metropolitan Police Department ("MPD"). Amended Complaint ("Amended Comp.") at 4. "PSCC is the arm of the D.C. Police Department responsible for planning and coordinating the delivery of emergency communication services and trauma care to residents, workers, and visitors of the District of Columbia." Id. at 7. On January 15, 2003, PSCC received notice of a fire in the Dupont Circle area. Id. at 8. Although a fire truck was dispatched to the area, one person died in the fire. Id. An investigation immediately ensued. Id.
Plaintiffs claim that at the time of the investigation, Police Chief Ramsey ("Ramsey") was in the process of negotiating a new contract with the District of Columbia. Id. at 8. Plaintiffs further claim that as a result of the public furor that arose following the incident, Ramsey attempted to orchestrate a coverup. Id. According to plaintiffs, Ramsey stated on public radio that he intended to fire some of the plaintiffs, while the investigation into the incident was ongoing, and conspired with several of his managers to intentionally or recklessly disregard the decisions from the administrative review process by terminating the employment of a number of the plaintiffs in retaliation for speaking publicly about the tragedy. Id. at 9.
Additionally, plaintiffs allege that the terminations were directed solely at African-Americans and that a Caucasian manager was not fired. Id. at 13-14. Plaintiffs claim that when they notified Ramsey that his decision was racially motivated, he subsequently fired a co-defendant, Grossman, a Caucasian employee, to "disguise his partiality." Id. at 14. Finally, plaintiffs allege that Ramsey's previous employment decisions further demonstrate a pattern of racial motivation. Id.
Specifically, plaintiffs bring this action for 1) violation of their civil rights due to race discrimination, 2) violation of their constitutional rights under due process and free speech grounds, 3) violation of their contractual rights due to race discrimination under §1981, 4) retaliation, 5) violation of the D.C. Whistle-blower Protection Act, and 6) intentional infliction of emotional distress.
Defendants served plaintiffs with certain document requests, including the following requests for financial and medical information:
3. All medical reports or document or copies thereof relative to the injuries, damages, and/or the effects thereof sustained to the plaintiff as a result of the incident(s) alleged in the complaint.
4. Any and all medical records, notes, bills, or other documents related to any psychological, psychiatric, or other professional treatment for mental suffering claimed by plaintiff as a result of the incidents alleged in the complaint.
8. Copies of all wage and income records relative to the plaintiff, including W-2 forms and State and Federal Income Tax ...