327 P.3d 218
Ariz. Ct. App.2014Background
- PCS and Johnson sought review of a Maricopa County Superior Court order issuing a U.S. Act summons to PCS’s custodian to testify and produce Johnson’s treatment records for a Wisconsin criminal proceeding.
- The court held the summons proper under the Uniform Act (A.R.S. §§ 13-4091 to -4096) and declined to rule on whether the records were privileged under Arizona medical/privacy laws or the psychologist-client privilege.
- Wisconsin had certified that Johnson’s prosecution was pending and that the custodian’s testimony was material, with Wisconsin law offering protection from arrest and process.
- Arizona initially held hearings, found the custodian material and necessary, and determined no undue hardship for travel; subsequent certifications reaffirmed the request with a hearing date set for March 26, 2014.
- The court ultimately ordered the custodian to appear or submit records; Johnson and PCS sought special-action review, and the issue became moot as the March 26 deadline passed, but the court granted review for guidance on non-moot issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the superior court properly issued the summons under the Uniform Act | Johnson/PCS argued lack of authority to issue summons without privilege review | State argued proper application of the Act and witness/subpoena framework | Yes; summons issued in conformity with the Uniform Act |
| Whether privilege or medical privacy analyses were required before issuing the summons | Records may be privileged or confidential under Arizona law and should be reviewed first | Wisconsin review governs privilege; Arizona courts should not resolve privilege now | No pre-issuance privilege review required; Wisconsin determines privilege; disclosure allowed |
| Which jurisdiction determines the psychologist-client privilege for these records | Arizona law governs privilege; Tracy requires Arizona review | Wisconsin should decide privilege under Wisconsin law | Wisconsin determines privilege; Arizona may not withhold records solely on Arizona privilege grounds |
| Whether the subpoena can also function as a document production subpoena under the Uniform Act | Uniform Act may not authorize production subpoenas | Uniform Act permits subpoenas for witnesses and documents in appropriate form | Authorized to issue a subpoena for production of documents as part of the Act |
Key Cases Cited
- Tracy v. Superior Court (Navajo Nation), 168 Ariz. 23 (1991) (professional privileges reserved for the requesting jurisdiction; privilege reviewed in the requesting forum)
- Blazek v. Superior Court, 177 Ariz. 535 (App. 1994) (special-action jurisdiction for privilege/disclosure issues)
- In re California Grand Jury Investigation, 471 A.2d 1141 (Md. App. 1984) (out-of-state privilege analysis based on where communications occurred)
- Golden v. Dupnik, 151 Ariz. 227 (App. 1986) (extradition-like procedures; limits on inquiry into guilt beyond prima facie showing)
- State v. Sullivan, 205 Ariz. 285 (App. 2003) (agency/ court interpretation guided by Supreme Court precedents on privileges)