Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_03-cv-00869/USCOURTS-cand-3_03-cv-00869-8/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Civil Rights Act

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAMES H. WASHBURN JR.,

Plaintiff,

 v.

ALEX FAGAN JR., WALTER CONTRERAS,

and CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN

FRANCISCO, et. al.,

Defendants. /

KEVIN ROY JORDAN,

Plaintiff,

 v.

ALEX FAGAN, JR., JASON KRISTAL, and

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN 

FRANCISCO, et. al.,

Defendants. /

No. C-03-00869 MJJ (EDL)

No. C-03-1194 MJJ (EDL)

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO QUASH

DEPOSITION SUBPOENA OF DR. RAND

LENHART

On March 28, 2005, Plaintiffs served a deposition notice on Dr. Rand Lenhart, an employee

of Law Enforcement Psychological Services who evaluated Defendant Officer Fagan as part of a

routine pre-employment psychological examination. On May 27, 2005, Dr. Lenhart filed a Motion

to Quash the deposition subpoena, arguing that the subject matter of the subpoena is not relevant to

establishing Monell liability, is protected by the psychotherapist-patient privilege and is an

unjustified infringement on Dr. Lenhart’s and Officer Fagan’s privacy rights. Plaintiffs filed a Joint

Case 3:03-cv-00869-MJJ Document 167 Filed 06/29/05 Page 1 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

Opposition to the motion on June 7, 2005, arguing that they did not seek to discover privileged

information. Instead, Plaintiffs sought to depose Dr. Lenhart regarding: (1) any follow-up by the

San Francisco Police Department pertaining to Dr. Lenhart’s expressed concerns; (2) the reasoning

behind Dr. Lenhart’s explicit instructions regarding Officer Fagan’s candidacy; (3) the factual basis

for Dr. Lenhart’s specific findings in his report; (4) the characteristics of an officer candidate that

would raise “red flags;” (5) how Dr. Lenhart obtains the information to rate candidates; (6) the

sample size used for comparison of candidates; (7) the typical distribution of letter grades; and (8)

the typical distribution of categories of candidate suitability. Defendant submitted a reply on June

14, 2005. Because this motion was appropriate for decision without oral argument, the Court

vacated the June 28, 2005 hearing. 

Dr. Lenhart’s deposition is relevant under Monell v. New York City Dep’t of Soc. Servs.,

436 U.S. 658, 694 (1978). Further, the psychotherapist-patient privilege does not apply because

Officer Fagan undertook the evaluation with the knowledge that Dr. Lenhart would report his

conclusions to the police department. See Siegel v. Abbotstown Borough, 2004 WL 230892, *4

(M.D.Pa.) (holding that plaintiff officer could not claim the psychotherapist-patient privilege

because he undertook the psychological evaluation knowing it would be released to the police

department for use in the hiring process); Siegfried v. City of Easton, 146 F.R.D. 98, 101

(E.D.Pa.1992) (same). Moreover, even if the psychotherapist-patient privilege protects the

substance of Officer Fagan’s statements to Dr. Lenhart, at least to the extent that they are not

reflected in the written report provided to the City, Plaintiffs generally do not seek that information

from Dr. Lenhart. 

Finally, neither Dr. Lenhart’s nor Officer Fagan’s right of privacy precludes Dr. Lenhart’s

deposition. The Court balances the privacy and other interests at stake. Pagano v. Oroville

Hospital, 145 F.R.D. 683, 698-99 (E.D.Cal. 1991). Here, the privacy interests at stake are not great

because Plaintiffs seek only general information regarding the evaluation proceedings, rather than

substantive and potentially privileged information pertaining to Dr. Lenhart’s discussions with

Officer Fagan. In addition, the public has a strong interest in making sure that the City does not hire

officers who are ill-equipped for their position of public trust.

Case 3:03-cv-00869-MJJ Document 167 Filed 06/29/05 Page 2 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

3

Accordingly, Dr Lenhart’s Motion to Quash is denied. However, because the relevance of

Dr. Lenhart’s testimony is the notice that his report provided to Defendant City, rather than his

uncommunicated thoughts, his deposition shall be limited to questioning concerning the following

subject matter: (1) the follow-up measures taken by the San Francisco Police Department in

response to Dr. Lenhart’s report regarding Officer Fagan’s suitability to the extent that Dr. Lenhart

is aware of any; (2) the characteristics in officer candidates that raise a red flag of psychological

unsuitability; (3) Dr. Lenhart’s methods for obtaining the information and data to rate one candidate

against other candidates; (4) the sample size of other candidates against which any particular

evaluation is measured; (5) the typical distribution of letter “grades” for candidates; and (6) the

typical distribution of categories of candidate suitability. Dr. Lenhart’s deposition shall be limited to

three hours, but “speaking” objections are not permitted. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(d). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 28, 2005 

ELIZABETH D. LAPORTE

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:03-cv-00869-MJJ Document 167 Filed 06/29/05 Page 3 of 3