299 F.R.D. 547
S.D. Ohio2014Background
- Plaintiff Karen Langenfeld sued Armstrong World Industries asserting FMLA, Title VII, and Ohio employment-discrimination claims, seeking economic and non-economic damages including emotional distress.
- Defendant sought discovery of Plaintiff’s medical and mental-health records via interrogatories, document requests, and proposed HIPAA releases; Plaintiff objected, asserting privilege and claiming only “garden variety” emotional distress with no treatment.
- The Magistrate Judge denied Defendant’s motion to compel, concluding the psychotherapist-patient privilege protected Plaintiff’s records because her claimed emotional distress fell within the “garden variety” exception.
- Defendant objected; district court reviewed under Rule 72(a) and concluded the Magistrate’s order was contrary to law in part and clearly erroneous in part.
- Court held Plaintiff’s deposition testimony describing ongoing stress and sleep deprivation put her mental state “at issue,” waived the psychotherapist-patient privilege for relevant records, and compelled execution of releases limited to relevant time and subject matter.
- Court ordered Plaintiff to amend interrogatory responses and execute releases within 30 days; discovery scope limited to records related to mental health, stress, and sleep deprivation (temporal and subject-matter limits applied).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Plaintiff must identify specific emotional/psychological symptoms responsive to Interrogatory No. 6 | Langenfeld gave a ‘‘garden variety’’ answer adequate; did not seek treatment | Defendant argued the interrogatory required specific symptoms, providers, diagnoses | Court: Plaintiff must amend and specify symptoms or state she abandons such claims |
| Whether medical records and provider identities are discoverable | Plaintiff claimed records are privileged and irrelevant because her distress is garden-variety and untreated | Defendant argued records relevant to causation and alternative stressors; releases efficient | Court: Records relevant if related to claimed mental state; provider identities not privileged; scope limited to treatment related to mental state/sleep issues within 10 years as narrowed |
| Whether psychotherapist-patient privilege applies and, if so, whether it was waived | Plaintiff claimed privilege not waived because damages are only garden-variety | Defendant argued by claiming ongoing distress/sleep deprivation Plaintiff put mental condition at issue and waived privilege | Court: Under federal law (Jaffee/Maday), Plaintiff waived privilege by putting mental state at issue (ongoing sleep deprivation constitutes a specific mental condition) |
| Whether Plaintiff must execute HIPAA releases or may produce records herself with in-camera review option | Plaintiff offered to obtain records herself and seek in-camera review for allegedly prejudicial or irrelevant material | Defendant sought direct releases as most efficient means | Court: Ordered execution of releases; protective order already in place; releases appropriate given waiver and limited scope |
Key Cases Cited
- Jaffee v. Redmond, 518 U.S. 1 (1996) (recognizing federal psychotherapist-patient privilege)
- Hancock v. Dodson, 958 F.2d 1367 (6th Cir. 1992) (federal privilege law governs in federal-question cases with pendent state claims)
- Maday v. Public Libraries of Saginaw, 480 F.3d 815 (6th Cir. 2007) (plaintiff waives psychotherapist privilege by putting emotional state at issue)
- In re Zuniga, 714 F.2d 632 (6th Cir. 1983) (psychotherapist privilege scope; identity/time of treatment not privileged)
- United States v. Hayes, 227 F.3d 578 (6th Cir. 2000) (discussing scope of psychotherapist-patient privilege)