2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12822
D. Md.2011Background
- Plaintiff Patrick Richardson sues Sexual Assault/Spouse Abuse Resource Center, Inc. (SARC) and others in the District of Maryland regarding privileged materials in SARC's file about Sherri Richardson.
- Defendants produced the SARC file (bates 1-85) for in camera review to resolve privilege claims at the December 7, 2010 hearing and related submissions.
- Defendants claimed psychotherapist-patient privilege for pages 1-32, 37-71, 83-85 and attorney-client privilege for pages 73-82; pages 33-36 and 72 were not privileged.
- Ms. Powers, an unlicensed counselor, worked with Ms. Richardson under the supervision of a licensed counselor; the court evaluated whether the psychotherapist-patient privilege extends to her communications.
- The court held that certain pages contain confidential communications in the course of diagnosis or treatment; it also determined Powers had standing to assert the privilege on Richardson’s behalf and that waiver did not occur.
- The court ordered production of non-privileged pages (8-11, 31-39, 72) relevant to Plaintiff's document requests.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether psychotherapist-patient privilege applies to Powers' communications with Richardson | Powers was unlicensed, so privilege should not apply. | Unlicensed counselors acting under supervision may be covered by the privilege. | Yes; privilege extends to Powers under supervision. |
| Whether Powers had standing to assert the psychotherapist-patient privilege | Privilege belongs to Richardson; SARC cannot assert it if Richardson does not object. | Psychotherapist may assert privilege on behalf of patient when appropriate; Powers acted as such. | Powers had standing to assert the psychotherapist-patient privilege. |
| Whether attorney-client privilege applies to pages 73-82 (Legal Helpline forms) | Helpline communications are not confidential or legal in nature. | Helpline communications seeking legal assistance are confidential attorney-client communications with the attorney or subordinates. | Yes; attorney-client privilege applies to pages 73-82. |
| Whether waiver occurred for the psychotherapist-patient privilege | Richardson disclosed interactions with SARC in state court and related materials, constituting waiver. | Disclosures were minimal and did not reveal confidential substance; no waiver. | No waiver; privilege not waived. |
| Whether waiver occurred for the attorney-client privilege | Disclosures of the Service Summary and related communications constituted waiver. | Disclosures were intentional but limited in scope; only disclosed communications waived, not undisclosed ones. | Undisclosed communications not waived; scope limited to disclosed material. |
Key Cases Cited
- Jaffee v. Redmond, 518 U.S. 1 (Supreme Court, 1996) (confidential communications in psychotherapy privilege)
- Vasconcellos v. Cybex Int'l, Inc., 962 F. Supp. 701 (D. Md. 1997) (recognizes extension of psychotherapist-patient privilege)
- In re Grand Jury Proceedings (Gregory P. Violette), 183 F.3d 71 (1st Cir. 1999) (contours of privilege; notes within treatment context)
- Jacobs v. Conn. Cmty. Tech. Colls., 258 F.R.D. 192 (D. Conn. 2009) (extends privilege to related treatment communications)
- Lowe, 948 F. Supp. 97 (D. Md. 1996) (EAP counselors may be covered under privilege)
- In re Zuniga, 714 F.2d 632 (6th Cir. 1983) (privacy of disclosures and scope of privilege)
- United Shoe Machinery Corp., 89 F. Supp. 357 (D. Mass. 1950) (classic test for attorney-client privilege requirements)
- Jones, 696 F.2d 1069 (4th Cir. 1982) (four-element test for attorney-client privilege)