Menefee v. Tacoma Public School District No. 10, 3:17-cv-06037

Background

Plaintiffs sought subpoenas for Defendant Sandra Holmes’s psychotherapy records (Tammy Tangen) and medical records from her physician (Dr. Brendon Hutchinson).
Parties conferred unsuccessfully; Holmes moved for a protective order under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 and 45; motion granted by the court.
Holmes had previously disclosed some medical/psychological information when applying for FMLA leave (Sept. 2013) and filed a worker’s compensation claim (preliminary decision March 27, 2014).
Plaintiffs argued Holmes waived privilege by disclosing treatment details to obtain leave and worker’s compensation and asserted relevance to the school district’s alleged deliberate indifference to student safety.
The court found the psychotherapist privilege applies but that Holmes had at least partially waived it as to materials tied to her worker’s compensation claim; it found no psychotherapist privilege claim over Dr. Hutchinson’s records (physician privilege not recognized federally as a blanket privilege).
Even where records were not privileged, the court concluded Plaintiffs’ broad, untailored request intruded on Holmes’s privacy and was disproportionate to Plaintiffs’ present showing; court granted a protective order but left open reconsideration if Plaintiffs later show a stronger connection.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether psychotherapist-patient privilege protects therapist records	Holmes waived privilege by disclosing treatment to obtain FMLA/worker’s comp	Privilege protects confidential therapy communications; disclosure may not waive privilege	Privilege applies, but partial waiver found as to worker’s compensation-related disclosures; FMLA disclosure did not waive privilege
Whether filing for worker’s compensation constitutes waiver of psychotherapist privilege	Waiver: Holmes put therapy at issue by relying on it for benefits	Privilege not necessarily waived unless substance of therapy was disclosed to third parties for monetary claim	Court: worker’s comp filing at least partially waived privilege because claim relied on psychotherapist’s findings; extent of waiver unresolved but relevant
Whether physician-patient privilege shields primary-care records	Plaintiff contends Holmes waived any protection by worker’s comp filing and physician participated in psychological treatment	Defendant claims privilege over medical records	Court: no federal physician-patient privilege; psychotherapist privilege inapplicable to primary-care physician absent evidence he acted as psychotherapist
Whether Plaintiffs’ need outweighs privacy burden; should discovery be compelled	Plaintiffs: records relevant to deliberate indifference and safety claims	Defendant: disclosure is highly intrusive, request is overbroad and not proportional	Court: Plaintiffs have not shown sufficient nexus; burden to Holmes outweighs benefit; protective order granted; discovery may be revisited if Plaintiffs later show stronger, tailored need

Key Cases Cited

Jaffee v. Redmond, 518 U.S. 1 (privilege protects confidential psychotherapist-patient communications)
Phillips ex rel. Estates of Byrd v. General Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206 (district courts have broad discretion in protective orders; good-cause standard)
Seattle Times Co. v. Rhinehart, 467 U.S. 20 (court discretion over protective orders and sealing discovery)
Oppenheimer Fund, Inc. v. Sanders, 437 U.S. 340 (relevance for discovery construed broadly)
Hallett v. Morgan, 296 F.3d 732 (trial court has broad discretion to permit or deny discovery; denial reversed only for clear prejudice)
Vanderbilt v. Town of Chilmark, 174 F.R.D. 225 (waiver where psychotherapist communications are put at issue and privilege cannot be used as both sword and shield)