Lebovitz v. Hartford Insurance, 918 F. Supp. 2d 422

Plaintiff seeks $2,000,000 in stacked uninsured motorist benefits under a Pennsylvania policy; case removed to federal court on diversity grounds.
Defendant subpoenas Plaintiff’s marriage counseling records from Dr. Deborah West; Plaintiff consents, but ex-wife Pilar Tanning does not consent to release.
Magistrate Judge ordered redaction of non-Plaintiff material from Dr. West’s records; Dr. West resists production and moves to quash.
Court analyzes Pennsylvania privileges and privacy rights to determine if records may be produced; finds no applicable statutory or broad privacy privilege
Discovery is within Rule 26(b)(1); privilege questions are governed by Pennsylvania law; if needed, special master or testimony could resolve scope and costs.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Discoverability despite non-consent	Plaintiff consent covers release; records are relevant to defenses.	Ms. Tanning’s non-consent and privacy interests require production with limits.	Order not clearly erroneous; Dr. West must comply with the subpoena.
Applicability of Pennsylvania psychologist privilege to a social worker	No broad extension should bar disclosure of Dr. West’s records.	Psychologist privilege should prevent release of communications and records.	Pennsylvania social workers lack a statutory/recognized privilege; privilege not extended to Dr. West.
Privacy-based privilege under Pennsylvania law	Ms. Tanning’s privacy rights shield records.	Privacy rights do not categorically bar production and must be weighed with need for discovery.	No broad privacy privilege overrides the discovery order; limitations balanced with Ms. Tanning’s interests.
Validity of the Magistrate Judge’s Order and remedies	Order should be reconsidered or narrowed; possible in camera review.	Order appropriately balances interests; no error.	Order not clearly erroneous or contrary to law; potential for in camera review or Special Master if needed.

In re L.F., 995 A.2d 356 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2010) (Pa. social worker privilege not clearly established)
Commonwealth v. Simmons, 719 A.2d 336 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1998) (social worker privilege not uniformly recognized)
In re June Grand Jury (Petition of Lanni), 490 Pa. 143 (Pa. 1980) (privacy-based grand jury privilege discussed)
In the Matter of T.R., J.M., C.R. and C.R. (Appeal of A.W.), 557 Pa. 99 (Pa. 1999) (privacy rights under Pennsylvania Constitution discussed)
Miller v. Roberts, 38 Pa. D. & C.3d 74 (Pa. Dist. & Ct. 1985) (counselor privilege extension contested)
Hahnemann Univ. Hosp. v. Edgar, 74 F.3d 456 (3d Cir. 1996) (comments on Pennsylvania confidentiality of psychiatric records)
Commonwealth v. Kyle, 367 Pa. Super. 484 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1987) (due process and privilege interplay; in camera review context)
Jaffee v. Redmond, 518 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1996) (federal privilege framework; state law controls when only state claims)
U.S. v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683 (U.S. 1974) (judicial review of privilege claims; in camera consideration)