288 F.R.D. 439
N.D. Cal.2012Background
- Stallworth, a registered nurse for the County, sues for federal and state civil rights violations and IIED after reporting unsafe medical practices.
- Plaintiff alleges retaliation, transfer, and demotion at Valley Medical Center following her report in March 2009.
- Defendants include Andrea Brollini, Michelle de la Calle, the County, and the Santa Clara Personnel Board; removal to federal court based on federal question jurisdiction.
- Discovery disputes arise as Defendants served Interrogatories and RFPs; Stallworth objects to Interrogatory No. 12 and RFP Nos. 11–12.
- Court must decide whether Stallworth must respond, given relevance, psychotherapist privilege, and privacy concerns.
- Court concludes Stallworth need not respond to Interrogatory No. 12 or RFP Nos. 11–12.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the requests are relevant to Stallworth's IIED claim. | Stallworth—requests seek irrelevant information. | Defendants—information relevant to emotional distress and federal claims. | Requests are relevant to IIED and to §1983 claim. |
| Does the psychotherapist-patient privilege apply to the RFPs requesting medical records? | Privilege protects confidential communications in therapy. | RFPs seek records containing confidential communications; privilege applies. | Privilege applies to RFPs 11–12; waivers analyzed below. |
| Has Stallworth waived the psychotherapist-patient privilege through her IIED claim? | Broad or intermediate waiver doctrine could apply due to emotional-distress claim. | Waiver should be limited; only affirmative reliance on therapy communications constitutes waiver. | Under the narrow standard, Stallworth has not waived the privilege. |
| Is Interrogatory No. 12 subject to privilege or privacy balancing? | Interrogatory seeks provider identities, not confidential communications; privacy concerns apply. | Identities may aid in evaluating other stressors; privacy concerns secondary. | Interrogatory No. 12 is not privileged; privacy balancing favors non-disclosure. |
| Which law governs the psychotherapist privilege in this mixed state/federal case? | State and federal claims require appropriate privilege framework. | Federal privilege law controls because IIED and §1983 claims are involved. | Federal law of privilege applies. |
Key Cases Cited
- Jaffee v. Redmond, 518 U.S. 1 (1996) (psychotherapist-patient privilege protects confidential communications)
- Doe v. Attorney General, 941 F.2d 780 (9th Cir. 1991) (balancing privacy interests in disclosure of personal information)
- United States v. Martin, 278 F.3d 988 (9th Cir. 2002) (burden on party asserting privilege to establish elements, including no waiver)