Opinion ID: 1198869
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Respondents' Alternative Arguments

Text: The suggestions advanced by respondents as alternative bases for upholding the order for disclosure of Sims's mental health records fare no better. Their contention that  Sims's allegation of the improper use of force raises the question of whether Sims, due to uncontrolled aggression, a persecution complex, or some other psychological problem, started the fight by attacking the correction officers, in which case the Respondents would not be liable  (respondents' brief on appeal at 21-22 (emphases added)), provides no basis for disclosure of Sims's psychiatric records. If Sims started the fight by attacking respondents, respondents presumably would not be liable for the injuries alleged here regardless of whether or not Sims was motivated by such a mental condition. Further, a privilege may be forfeited with respect to a claim or defense,  In re Grand Jury, 219 F.3d at 182 (emphasis added). Thus, respondents' notion that a party forfeits his psychotherapist-patient privilege simply because he allegesor even impliesthat the attack on him was unprovoked is farther-reaching than perhaps respondents envision. If that principle were adopted, it would also be applicable to Blot and Caraballo, who contend that it was Sims who started the fight without provocation from them. On respondents' theory, in any assault or excessive-force case both the plaintiffs and the defendants could be required to disclose their respective mental health records. Disclosure, rather than protection of confidentiality, would become the norm. Finally, we reject respondents' contentions that anybody who requests damages for pain and suffering has waived the psychiatric privilege because the psychiatric records might conceivably disprove the experiencing of the pain and suffering (Oral Arg. Tr. 19), that any claim of even . . . `garden variety' injury waives the psychotherapist-patient privilege (respondents' brief on appeal at 42), and that a plaintiff's mental health is placed in issue whenever the plaintiff's claim for unspecified damages may include[] some sort of mental injury (respondents' brief on appeal at 21). In reality respondents simply seek to have the privilege breached whenever there is a possibility that the psychiatric records may be useful in testing the plaintiff's credibility or may have some other probative value. To accept these contentions would inject the balancing component that Jaffee foreclosed, and would disregard the principle that [p]arties ... do not forfeit [a privilege] merely by taking a position that the evidence might contradict, Salerno, 505 U.S. at 323, 112 S.Ct. 2503. If this principle were not the rule, then in virtually every case a forfeiture might be found, as in virtually every case the party opposing the privilege could argue that the psychological record might reveal evidence that the party asserting the privilege is testifying falsely.