Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-03651/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-03651-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1981 Civil Rights

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOSE GALINDO, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

CITY OF SAN MATEO, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 16-cv-03651-EMC 

ORDER RE JOINT LETTERS OF 

DECEMBER 27, 2016

Docket No. 41, 42

Currently pending before the Court are two joint letters from the parties, dated December 

27, 2016. Having considered those letters, the Court hereby rules as follows.

1. Docket No. 41. The records in question shall be produced under a protective order. 

The parties shall meet and confer on the terms of a stipulated protective order. The meet and 

confer shall be in person or by telephone; a written meet and confer is not adequate. The parties 

shall file a joint proposed stipulated protective order within one week of the date of this order. 

Once the Court has approved of the proposed stipulated protective order, then Defendants may 

designate documents confidential pursuant to the protective order. If there is a dispute about the 

designation of a document, then the parties shall meet and confer and, if necessary, ask for a Court 

ruling on the propriety of the designation. See, e.g., Model Prot. Order for Standard Litigation ¶

6.3 (discussing judicial intervention), available at http://cand.uscourts.gov/model-protectiveorders (last visited January 3, 2017). However, such dispute shall not delay production of 

documents provisionally under a protective order.

2. Docket No. 42. The Court adheres to its views as articulated in Fitzgerald v. 

Cassil, 216 F.R.D. 632 (N.D. Cal. 2003), which follows the narrow approach to waiver of the 

psychotherapist-patient privilege. Under the narrow approach to waiver, Ms. Hernandez has not 

Case 3:16-cv-03651-EMC Document 43 Filed 01/03/17 Page 1 of 2
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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

waived the psychotherapist-patient privilege. See id. at 639 (finding no waiver where plaintiffs 

“stipulated that they will not affirmatively rely on any treating psychotherapist or other expert to 

prove the emotional distress damages suffered,” where plaintiffs did not plead a cause of action for 

intentional or negligent infliction of emotional distress, and where plaintiffs did “not allege[] a 

specific psychiatric injury or disorder or unusually severe emotional distress extraordinary in light 

of the allegations”).

This order disposes of Docket Nos. 41 and 42.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 3, 2017

______________________________________

EDWARD M. CHEN

United States District Judge

Case 3:16-cv-03651-EMC Document 43 Filed 01/03/17 Page 2 of 2