Opinion ID: 1198869
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Motion for Production of Sims's Psychiatric Records

Text: In October 2001, the court granted a renewed request by Sims for the assignment of counsel; it appointed Jeffrey B. Korn, Esq., et al. Shortly thereafter, the remaining defendants served on Sims a demand for production of, inter alia, [a]ll psychiatric records of [Sims] since [Sims's] incarceration in 1993. (Defendants' Request for Documents, dated October 23, 2001, at 2.) The demand attached a document for Sims's signature to authorize the State's Office of Mental Health (OMH) to release any and all records or documents of any kind in [OMH's] possession pertaining to Nathaniel Sims, including but not limited to all medical, psychological and psychiatric reports and records, hospitalization records, doctors' notes, nurses' notes, correspondence, x-rays, charts and diagrams, laboratory and pathological reports and tests, and documents of any kind concerning examination and analyses, surgical and non-surgical procedures, diagnosis and prognosis, history and statements, bills and charges. ( Id., Attachment.) Sims, through his new attorneys, objected to the document request on the ground that the records requested were protected by the psychotherapist-patient privilege. The magistrate judge to whom the case was assigned for supervision of pretrial proceedings initially granted defendants' request, ruling as follows: The Defendants are entitled to production of the Plaintiff's psychiatric treatment records. Although courts differ as to whether the assertion of a garden variety emotional distress claim requires a waiver of the psychiatrist-patient privilege, the Plaintiff's claim that he has become frightened of all knives as a result of the Defendants' alleged misconduct is not, in my judgment, such a garden variety claim. Magistrate Judge's Order dated January 2, 2002 (First M.J. Order). Sims's attorneys promptly moved for reconsideration of the magistrate judge's order, stating that Sims had not intended to place his mental or emotional state in issue, and stating, we hereby withdraw any claim Mr. Sims may have asserted to recover for `non-garden variety' emotional distress injuries, including `Plaintiff's claim that he has become frightened of all knives as a result of the Defendants' alleged misconduct.' (Letter from Jeffrey B. Korn to Magistrate Judge Frank Maas dated January 7, 2002 (Korn Letter), at 1 (quoting First M.J. Order).) The letter elaborated: In Jaffee v. Redmond , the Supreme Court held that confidential communications between a licensed psychotherapist and her patients in the course of diagnosis or treatment are protected from compelled disclosure under Rule 501 of the Federal Rules of Evidence. 518 U.S. 1, 116 S.Ct. 1923, 135 L.Ed.2d 337 (1996). This privilege may be waived only where a party places his mental or emotional condition at issue by relying upon the condition as an element of his claim or defense. 3 Jack B. Weinstein & Margaret A. Berger, Weinstein's Federal Evidence § 504.01 (2d ed.1997). Here, however, Mr. Sims never intended to place his mental or emotional state at issue, and that condition is not an element of his Section 1983 claim. Indeed, Defendants' sole basis for asserting otherwise is Mr. Sims's undefended deposition testimony, elicited by defense counsel when Mr. Sims was a pro se litigant. At his deposition, Mr. Sims testified truthfullyand unguardedlyas to the emotional ramifications of the incident that is the subject of this action. ( See Sims Dep. at 55-56 (attached hereto as Exhibit 1).) But Mr. Sims did not plead in his complaint, or testify at his deposition, that he was seeking to recover for those emotional injuries i.e., he did not put them at issue for purposes of this litigation. ( See Complaint, filed Feb. 15, 2000 (attached hereto as Exhibit 2); Sims Dep. at 55-56.) In order to clarify the issue, we hereby withdraw any claim Mr. Sims may have asserted regarding non-garden variety emotional distress injuries. Mr. Sims will not offer any evidence or make any argument at trial about those injuries, and will not seek any recovery for them. In light of this representation, there is no longer any basis for a finding of waiver. (Korn Letter at 1 (emphasis in original).) After reviewing this request and the response from defense counsel, the magistrate judge reversed his previous ruling, stating: To the extent that Mr. Sims intends to testify generally that he was upset as a result of an assault, I consider his claim garden variety and not one which would warrant the broad disclosure sought by the defendants. If, on the other hand, he will seek to recover damages for some generalized fear that he had prior to the assault, the psychiatric records must be disclosed. Finally, the defendants do not need the psychiatric records to establish whether Mr. Sims was sent to the PSU for security reasons. If that were the case, some evidence of it surely would exist outside his psychiatric file. Magistrate Judge's Order dated January 10, 2002 (Revised M.J. Order) (emphasis in original).