Pretrial ruling — non-party discovery — confidentiality — Defamation Act 1992 — Privacy Act 2020, ss 53(b)(i) & 53(c)(i) — District Court Act 2016, s 106 — District Court Rules 2014, rr 8.7, 8.21, 8.22 & 8.30 — Vector Gas Contracts Ltd v Contact Energy Ltd [2014] NZHC 3171, [2015] 2 NZLR 670 — Mao v Mao [2020] NZHC 1292 — Deliu v Auckland Standards Committee 1 [2015] NZHC 2199 — Westpac New Zealand Ltd v Adams [2013] NZHC 3113 — R and L Valks Ltd v Bank of New Zealand Officer's Provident Association HC Wellington CP30/94, 8 November 1995. The plaintiff made an application for non-party discovery. He was attempting to sue the defendant in defamation, for saying that he (the plaintiff) had been physically threatening at a public meeting. After the allegations arose, the plaintiff became aware that the local council held a health and safety report relating to the incident. The council's Chief Executive subsequently declined the plaintiff's request to view the report and all associated correspondence, citing confidentiality. The Chief Executive did release five pieces of correspondence, but declined to release another four as well as the report. The Court found that only documents that were relevant to the question of whether or not the plaintiff really had been threatening at the meeting could be released. The documents that the plaintiff sought were relevant to this issue, and would go to the defendant's credibility. The documents were in the control of the defendant. Any privacy concerns could be alleviated by controls imposed by the District Court Rules. The Court ordered the release of the report as well as any internal council correspondence addressing the meeting. However the plaintiff would be required to pay the council's fair and reasonable costs of compliance with the discovery order. Judgment Date: 31 March 2023.