This question comes from my dear friend, Todd, who will also co-officiate our wedding soon! Todd asks:

“Watching The Office where Michael’s journal is submitted in Jan’s wrongful termination deposition. He literally says he does not want it submitted. That should be the end of it, right?”

Thanks for the question, Todd! This is an excellent episode. I laugh every time at, “Tan almost everywhere. Jan almost everywhere.” It is also an excellent episode for Michael’s development as a character and standing up for himself.

When answering these questions, I like to establish where the players are and what rules apply. The Office is set in Scranton, Pennsylvania. Jan is suing Dunder Mifflin for employment discrimination and asking for $4 million. Dunder Mifflin is publicly traded and headquartered in New York. Most publicly traded companies are incorporated in Delaware, even if they are headquartered somewhere else. By this point in the series, Jan is living with Michael in Scranton, making her a Pennsylvania resident.

When a resident of one state sues the resident of another state and the amount at issue is over $75,000, this is called “diversity of jurisdiction” and the proper place to file a lawsuit is in federal court. Plus, employment discrimination suits often end up in federal court because they involve federal employment laws.

For this we’ll assume the federal rules apply. One of the federal rules regarding discovery states that “Parties may obtain discovery regarding any non-privileged matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or defense.”

Although Jan stole the diary, it would be non-privileged and relevant to her claims as it proves the timeline of her relationship with Michael. Despite its shady origin, the court would likely allow its admission.

In the show, once the diary is introduced during the deposition, the attorneys then copy the whole thing and distribute its entirety to both sides. This is because of something called the doctrine of completeness (Rule 106 in the Federal Rules of Evidence). It allows an adverse party (Dunder Mifflin) to require that “any other part” of a writing be revealed after part of the writing is introduced. In this case, since Jan introduced the diary entry about Jamaica, Dunder Mifflin’s attorney had every right to ask for the rest of the diary to be made available as well.

To answer the question, the stolen nature of the diary does not have any bearing on its admissibility. On a gut level, that may not seem right. There is a doctrine known as the “exclusionary rule” that applies in criminal cases, which prevents the government from using most evidence gathered in violation of the United States Constitution. However, Jan’s employment lawsuit against Dunder Mifflin is a civil case – not criminal, therefore the exclusionary rule does not apply.

If Michael felt wronged by Jan stealing his diary, which she admits to doing, he could press charges against her for criminal theft or file a civil lawsuit against her. However, she asks him to “call it even” by pointing out that he emailed a topless photo to everyone in the company. Michael agrees. Still, if he wanted to call the law offices of James P. Albini and see if he’ll take the case, Michael has that option.

I hope that answers your question, Todd. Thanks for sending!

Got a question? Submit it here. They can be legal what-if questions, questions on current events, or questions about the legality of actions in TV shows or movies you’ve seen. I never ever want to answer your personal legal questions, so don’t send those. Love you, but I don’t do that.

***

This piece first appeared in Sunday Morning Hot Tea. Subscribe so you don’t miss another piece.