Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-02591/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-02591-6/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

AREZOU MANSOURIAN, LAUREN MANCUSO,

NANCY NIEN-LI CHIANG, and

CHRISTINE WING-SI NG, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

BOARD OF REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY

OF CALIFORNIA AT DAVIS, et al.,

Defendants.

CIV S-03-2591 FCD PAN 

ORDER 

-o0oDefendants move to compel compliance with subpoenas

served October 2005 upon Sutter Davis Hospital and the U.C. Davis

Student Health Center for the psychological records of plaintiff

Nancy Nien-li Chiang from August 1, 1998 to present. Plaintiff

opposes the motion. The February 15, 2006, hearing on this

matter is vacated and the court issues this order.

Plaintiffs filed their complaint December 18, 2003,

Case 2:03-cv-02591-KJM-EFB Document 89 Filed 02/09/06 Page 1 of 3
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

2

alleging discrimination based on defendants’ 2001 termination of

the women’s wrestling program at U.C. Davis. Ms. Chiang was a

student enrolled at U.C. Davis and a wrestler on the women’s team

when it was terminated. The complaint seeks, inter alia,

“monetary damages for . . . emotional distress, lost self-esteem

and confidence, humiliation, and other compensatory damages that

result from being denied equal opportunity on the basis of sex.” 

Complaint, at pp. 54-55. 

Plaintiff seeks to withhold her psychological records due

to the potential embarrassment of disclosing information about an

“unrelated” mental health disorder. She argues this information

is irrelevant to her emotional distress claim because she will

refrain in this litigation from attributing any relationship

between the two, will stipulate to only “garden variety” distress

in this action, and will refrain from relying on her own records

or calling her own psychological experts. These measures do not,

however, extinguish the clear relevance of plaintiff’s

comprehensive psychological records to her emotional distress

claim and to defendants’ right to prepare a defense. Fed. R.

Civ. P. 26(b)(1) (“[p]arties may obtain discovery regarding any

matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the claim or defense

of any party”); Fitzgerald v. Cassil, 216 F.R.D. 632, 634 (N.D.

Cal. 2003) (“[t]he psychological records are relevant in

determining causation for . . . or the magnitude of the alleged

distress”). 

However, plaintiff maintains, and this court finds, that 

Case 2:03-cv-02591-KJM-EFB Document 89 Filed 02/09/06 Page 2 of 3
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

3

plaintiff’s psychological records are protected by the 

psychotherapist-patient privilege. Jaffee v. Redmond, 518 U.S. 1

(1996). The consequence of plaintiff’s resistance to any waiver

of this privilege–this is the third time this court has addressed

Ms. Chiang’s efforts to withhold her psychological records–is

that Ms. Chiang’s emotional distress claim be stricken from the

complaint and she be precluded from pursuing or recovering any

damages attributable to injury to her psychological or emotional

state. Defendants may, within ten days of service of this order,

move to strike any other of Ms. Chiang’s claims to which the

evidence barred by assertion of her privilege may be relevant,

e.g., fitness for participation in the program. The subpoenas

are quashed.

So ordered.

Dated: February 8, 2006. 

 /s/ Peter A. Nowinski 

 PETER A. NOWINSKI

 Magistrate Judge

Case 2:03-cv-02591-KJM-EFB Document 89 Filed 02/09/06 Page 3 of 3