California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from Mendez v. Piper, H041122, H041681 (Cal. App. 2017):
26. Appellants cite Conn v. Superior Court (1987) 196 Cal.App.3d 774 for the proposition that an employee has "no right to take 'personal files' upon termination of employment." In that case, an employee who considered himself constructively terminated "took with him . . . three boxes of documents (over ten thousand pages in all), which he claimed were his 'personal files.' " (Id. at p. 777.) The trial court eventually found the employee in contempt for failing to comply with a court order "to return substantially all of the documents taken." (Id. at p. 780.) The trial court questioned the personal nature of some documents, which appeared to be letters from third parties about company business. (Id. at pp. 780-781.)
On appeal the employee asserted no personal right to the documents. Instead, he claimed unsuccessfully that: the "order was invalid because it exceeded the scope" of his former employer's request (Conn v. Superior Court, supra, 196 Cal.App.3d at p. 785); some documents were "protected by the attorney/client and work product privileges" (ibid.); and there were procedural defects in the contempt hearing (id. at pp. 785-786). The appellate court concluded that the trial court imposed a fine beyond its jurisdiction. (Id. at p. 788.) The opinion reflects no holding about the scope of an employee's right to retrieve truly personal files.
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.