Marsteller v. Butterfield 8 Stamford LLC, 3:14-cv-01371

Plaintiff sued employer and individual employees alleging Title VII sexual harassment and retaliation, FLSA and state wage claims, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and privacy torts; she alleges employees watched her change on a workplace camera and showed the video, causing severe emotional distress.
Defendants moved to compel (1) release of plaintiff’s medical records and (2) access to or copies of plaintiff’s social media communications responsive to discovery requests.
Plaintiff opposed, asserting psychotherapist-patient and other privacy privileges and that she did not post relevant social-media content.
The magistrate judge applied federal-law privilege principles because the case raises federal question jurisdiction and supplemental state-law claims.
The court found plaintiff waived the psychotherapist-patient privilege by asserting intentional infliction of emotional distress and ordered production of medical records (method chosen by plaintiff) with deadlines.
The court denied defendants’ request for social-media account access (passwords) as overly intrusive, but ordered production of social-media materials responsive to the specific discovery requests (statements of witnesses and communications relating to the incidents), supervised and certified by plaintiff’s counsel.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether plaintiff must produce medical/psychotherapy records	Psychotherapy records are privileged and should be protected	Records are relevant to claim of severe emotional distress and defendants are entitled to them	Waiver: privilege forfeited by asserting intentional infliction of emotional distress; production compelled (plaintiff may provide auth or records)
Whether defendants can obtain direct access to plaintiff's social-media accounts or responsive social-media content	Plaintiff says she did not post relevant content and account access is invasive	Defendants seek account access or copies of social-media communications responsive to discovery (witness statements, communications about incident)	Denied as to account access/passwords; granted as to production of responsive social-media materials limited to the requests served; counsel must supervise search and certify it

Falco v. Institute of Living, 757 A.2d 571 (Conn. 2000) (recognizing broad confidentiality of psychiatric communications under Connecticut law)
Cole v. Towers Perrin Forster & Crosby, 256 F.R.D. 79 (D. Conn. 2009) (party resisting discovery bears burden to show why it should be denied)
Jaffee v. Redmond, 518 U.S. 1 (1996) (recognition of psychotherapist-patient privilege under federal common law)
John Doe Co. v. United States, 350 F.3d 299 (2d Cir. 2003) (discussion of implied or "at issue" waiver of privileges)
Jacobs v. Conn. Cmty. Tech. Colleges, 258 F.R.D. 192 (D. Conn. 2009) (psychotherapist-patient privilege may be waived when mental condition is placed at issue)
Green v. St. Vincent's Med. Ctr., 252 F.R.D. 125 (D. Conn. 2008) (plaintiff asserting emotional-distress claims places mental state at issue and forfeits privilege)
Sanabria v. Martins, 568 F. Supp. 2d 220 (D. Conn. 2008) (asserting intentional infliction of emotional distress waives psychotherapist-patient privilege)
Craig v. Yale Univ. Sch. of Med., 838 F. Supp. 2d 4 (D. Conn. 2011) (severe emotional distress is required element of IIED under Connecticut law)
Giacchetto v. Patchogue-Medford Union Free Sch. Dist., 293 F.R.D. 112 (E.D.N.Y. 2013) (social-media posts relevant when they reference claimed emotional distress or treatment)
von Bulow by Auersperg v. von Bulow, 811 F.2d 136 (2d Cir. 1987) (federal-law principles govern asserted privileges in federal-question cases)