F.L. v. Court of Appeals, 515 P.3d 421

David M. Chadwick was charged with multiple counts of sexual abuse of a child; F.L. is the alleged victim.
Chadwick moved for an in camera review of F.L.’s therapy/counseling records; the district court conducted the review, quoted excerpts in orders, and sealed the records.
On appeal the Court of Appeals unsealed the records sua sponte and counsel for Chadwick relied on them in an opening brief; the Court later resealed the records and ordered Chadwick to file a revised brief.
F.L. (then unrepresented) sought to intervene in the appeal as a limited-purpose party to assert privilege over her records; the Court of Appeals construed the motion as a request to file an amicus brief and allowed only amicus participation.
F.L. petitioned the Utah Supreme Court (certiorari denied as premature); she then sought extraordinary relief. The Supreme Court held the Court of Appeals abused its discretion and remanded to allow F.L. to intervene as a limited-purpose party to assert her Rule 506 privilege.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (F.L.)	Defendant's Argument (Court of Appeals / Chadwick)	Held
Availability of certiorari review of an intermediate appellate order	Certiorari should be permitted to review the Court of Appeals’ intervention ruling now	Certiorari is limited to final Court of Appeals decisions; intermediate orders are not certiorari-eligible	Certiorari unavailable for intermediate order; extraordinary writ is the proper vehicle
Standard of review for extraordinary relief	Treat petition as substitute for conventional appeal and apply conventional review	Apply deferential extraordinary-writ standard	Ordinary extraordinary-writ standard applies (deferential)
Whether F.L. may intervene as a limited-purpose party to assert privilege in her therapy records	Rule 506 allows the patient to "claim the privilege," so F.L. must be allowed to intervene (amicus insufficient)	Amicus participation is adequate; no right to intervene in the appeal	Court of Appeals erred: under State v. Brown and Rule 506, F.L. may intervene as a limited-purpose party; amicus status is inadequate
Appropriateness of extraordinary relief now	Intervention denial risks irreparable disclosure; no plain, speedy, adequate remedy later	Review after final decision could cure errors	Extraordinary relief granted because no adequate alternative exists and the Court of Appeals abused its discretion

State v. Epling, 240 P.3d 788 (Utah 2010) (certiorari review limited to final Court of Appeals decisions)
State v. Brown, 342 P.3d 239 (Utah 2014) (victims may be limited-purpose parties when law gives a proactive right to seek relief)
Society of Professional Journalists v. Bullock, 743 P.2d 1166 (Utah 1987) (extraordinary-writ petitioners must demonstrate appellate standing)
Snow, Christensen & Martineau v. Lindberg, 299 P.3d 1058 (Utah 2013) (disclosure of privileged information can cause irreparable injury supporting extraordinary relief)
Penunuri v. Sundance Partners, Ltd., 301 P.3d 984 (Utah 2013) (amicus briefs cannot expand issues or seek relief beyond the parties)
State v. Cramer, 44 P.3d 690 (Utah 2002) (recognizing crime victims’ privacy interests in privileged mental-health records)