Source: http://jaffee-redmond.org/cases/fitzgerald.htm
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 10:47:40+00:00

Document:
familial status. In their complaint, Plaintiffs claim that Mr.
M.F.C.C.; and California Pacific Medical Center.
Plaintiffs' motion to quash the subpoenas.
allege the following facts: Mr. Fitzgerald and Mr. Yu informed Mr.
pushing, or carrying a plastic toy car in the courtyard with Mr.
Mr. Simmons used profanity in Declan's presence.
self-esteem. See id., Ex. B (Plaintiffs' initial disclosures).
experience, and arguing with his partner. See id.
Subsequently, Defendants sought to depose both Mr. Fitzgerald and Mr.
Mr. Simmons. See Cristol-Deman Decl., Exs. 1-2 (depositions of Mr.
from first date to and including the present."
Mot. at 1 (quoting subpoenas).
relevant and that they are privileged.
Plaintiffs argue that neither the psychological records of Mr.
Court agrees that the pure medical records are not relevant because Mr.
than that directly and immediately linked to emotional distress.
at issue in this suit.
However, the Court finds that the psychological records are relevant.
magnitude of the alleged distress.
6-26 Moore's Fed. Practice — Civil § 26.47 (emphasis added).
privilege is rooted in the imperative need for confidence and trust."
public good of transcendent importance."
under Rule 501 of the Federal Rules of Evidence."
Id. at 15 (citation omitted).
constitute a waiver. Importantly, however, it rejected the "balancing"
disclosure would eviscerate the effectiveness of the privilege. . .
is little better than no privilege at all."
psychotherapist-patient privilege to the attorney-client privilege.
waiver. See Sarko v. Penn-Del Directory Co., 170 F.R.D. 127 (E.D. Penn.
1997); Fritsch v. City of Chula Vista, 196 F.R.D. 562 (S.D. Cal. 1999).
Vanderbilt v. Town of Chilmark, 174 F.R.D. 225 (D. Mass. 1997); Hucko v.
fairness considerations. See, e.g., Fritsch, 197 F.R.D. at 566, 569.
emotional distress other than the defendant's conduct.
that was barred by Jaffee.
basis of that good faith defense that the privilege is waived.
County Dep't of Soc. Servs., 194 F.R.D. 445, 449 n. 6 (N.D.N.Y. 2000).
similar emotions. See id. at 309.
`in controversy' for purposes of [Rule] 35(a).
relying on Turner v. Imperial Stores, 161 F.R.D. 89, 92-97 (S.D.
psychotherapist-patient communications by the party seeking discovery.
the potential for abuse under the broad waiver approach is substantial.
Cf. Burrell v. Crown Cent. Petroleum, 177 F.R.D. 376, 383 (E.D. Tex.
232 (E.D. Penn. 1995) (taking note of same in context of Rule 35).
plaintiff's confidential communication with his or her therapist. Cf.
plaintiff will not present expert evidence at trial.
treatment by breaking the "imperative need for confidence and trust"
upon which psychotherapy is rooted. Jaffee, 518 U.S. at 10.
ensure `effective access to the judicial process.'" Hensley v.
here, Plaintiffs have not waived the psychotherapist-patient privilege.
even if the middle ground approach to waiver (i.e., "garden-variety"
see Certainty Thwarted, supra at 1375-76.
invasive than requiring one to submit to a Rule 35 examination.
requirement") (emphasis in original), overruled, 196 F.R.D. 562 (S.D.
Cal. 1999) (holding broad waiver rule applies).
Court conclude that the testimony amounts to expert testimony.
not expose a litigant to a medical examination.
Don." Id., Ex. 2 (Yu Depo. 54:10-55:8).

References: § 26
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.

 v. 
 v. 
 v.