Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-01173/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-01173-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Margaret Dominguez, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Andrew Shaw, et. al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 10-1173-PHX-FJM

ORDER

The court has before it defendants' motion to compel plaintiff's medical records (doc.

40), plaintiff's response (doc. 45), and defendants' reply (doc. 50).

Defendants move to compel plaintiff S.D. ("plaintiff") to produce all of his treatment

records from Bright Alternatives, Inc. Defendants argue that plaintiff's counseling records

are relevant because the counselor acknowledges in a letter that her notes contain statements

plaintiff made to her regarding his version of the events during the May 2009 alleged police

assault. Plaintiff asserts that the records are protected by the psychotherapist-patient

privilege established in Jaffee v. Redmond, 518 U.S. 1, 116 S.Ct. 1923 (1970). Moreover,

plaintiff contends that because he voluntarily dismissed all claims related to mental health

damages, the records are no longer relevant.

Federal common law governs assertions of privileges in federal-question cases, even

when there are pendent state law claims. Fed. R. Evi. 501 advisory committee note; Agster

Case 2:10-cv-01173-FJM Document 52 Filed 08/12/11 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 2 -

v. Maricopa County, 422 F.3d 836, 839 (9th Cir. 2005). Here, it is clear that plaintiff's

treatment records are protected by the psychotherapist-patient privilege because he met with

a licensed counselor. Oleszko v. State Compensation Ins. Fund, 243 F.3d 1154, 1156-57 (9th

Cir. 2001) (extending the psychotherapist-patient privilege to counseling conducted by an

unlicensed counsel).

Defendants argue that plaintiff waived the privilege. When a plaintiff puts his

emotional condition at issue, he waives the privilege protecting his psychological records.

Maynard v. City of San Jose, 37 F.3d 1396, 1402 (9th Cir. 1994). Plaintiff voluntarily

dismissed all claims for emotional distress and any damages related to mental health issues,

so his emotional condition is no longer at issue. Defendants assert that plaintiff's mental state

at the time of the incident is still at issue. Because the counselor's letter states that plaintiff

"has an overactive fight-flight response," defendants contend those discussions are highly

relevant to plaintiff's behavior at the time of the incident. MTC, Exs. C, D. Upon further

review of the counselor's letter, however, it states that these symptoms began after the May

4, 2009 alleged police assault. Therefore, his discussions with the counselor are not relevant

to his mental state at the time of the incident. Moreover, the mere fact that plaintiff discussed

the incident with his counselor does not make the records relevant and discoverable. If that

were the case, practically all counseling records would be discoverable.

Therefore, we find that the records are protected by the psychotherapist-patient

privilege. Plaintiff has not waived the privilege because he dismissed all claims for

emotional distress and emotional damages. 

ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED DENYING defendants' motion to compel

(doc. 40).

DATED this 12th day of August, 2011.

Case 2:10-cv-01173-FJM Document 52 Filed 08/12/11 Page 2 of 2