In re: Frank Jakubaitis, 604 B.R. 562

Frank Jakubaitis (debtor) faced an adversary proceeding seeking revocation of chapter 7 discharges and turnover; plaintiffs included Padilla and the debtors’ chapter 7 trustees.
Plaintiffs noticed Jakubaitis’ deposition; on the eve of the deposition his counsel stated he was under prescription medication that made meaningful testimony impossible; he did not attend and was later compelled and sanctioned.
At a later deposition Jakubaitis sat but refused to answer questions about medications, side effects, diagnoses, and why medications were prescribed; plaintiffs sought an order compelling answers.
Bankruptcy court denied Jakubaitis’ second protective order: it allowed questions about medication identity, duration, and side effects, and also (in the written order) allowed questions about diagnoses and purpose of prescriptions, but barred inquiry into specifics of communications with psychotherapist.
Jakubaitis appealed, arguing the psychotherapist-patient privilege covers medication identity, timing, side effects, diagnoses, and prescription purposes; plaintiffs argued those topics were not privileged or were waived.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Scope of psychotherapist-patient privilege: do medication identity, timing, side effects, diagnoses, and prescription purpose fall within the privilege?	Questions about medications/diagnoses are covered by the privilege because they are intertwined with treatment/diagnosis.	Privilege protects only communications; medication identity, timing, and side effects are non-communicative facts discoverable.	Court: medication identity, timing, and side effects are not privileged; diagnoses and purpose of prescriptions are privileged.
Waiver of psychotherapist-patient privilege (express or implied)	Plaintiffs: Jakubaitis’ pre-deposition statements about medication effects waived or placed mental-health matters at issue, permitting inquiry into diagnoses/purpose.	Jakubaitis: made no selective disclosures and did not assert a mental-condition defense, so no waiver occurred.	Court: no express waiver; implied waiver not established because any earlier claim about medication effect was abandoned and plaintiffs lacked continuing need for privileged diagnosis/purpose information.

Jaffee v. Redmond, 518 U.S. 1 (1996) (recognized federal psychotherapist-patient privilege and characterized it as protecting confidential communications)
United States v. Ruehle, 583 F.3d 600 (9th Cir. 2009) (scope-of-privilege issues reviewed de novo)
Bittaker v. Woodford, 331 F.3d 715 (9th Cir. 2003) (describes two waiver doctrines and fairness-based implied-waiver test)
United States v. Amlani, 169 F.3d 1189 (9th Cir. 1999) (articulates three-part implicit-waiver framework applied in privilege contexts)
Caesar v. Mountanos, 542 F.2d 1064 (9th Cir. 1976) (distinguishes psychotherapist-patient privilege from broader privacy interests and supports balancing for privacy claims)
Columbia Pictures Television, Inc. v. Krypton Broad., 259 F.3d 1186 (9th Cir. 2001) (district court discretion to exclude evidence or limit defenses to prevent unfair prejudice)