United States v. Chee, 191 F. Supp. 3d 1150

Defendant Chee is charged with sexual contact with a child under 12 based on the sole eyewitness account of Juanita Bark regarding an incident on December 2, 2013.
Chee seeks Bark’s medical and mental-health records (diagnoses and prescribed medication from Dec. 2011 to present) to impeach her perception/credibility and prepare his defense.
Bark’s records are subject to a psychotherapist‑patient privilege; Bark and the government argue the records are privileged and not properly specified or shown relevant.
The Magistrate initially denied in part Chee’s subpoena request, then later granted a renewed subpoena motion but ordered an in camera review of Bark’s records.
Chee objected to the Magistrate’s denial; the district court reviewed the objection under the “clearly erroneous or contrary to law” standard and ordered an in camera review, finding the magistrate’s later in camera approach moots the objection.

Issue	Bark’s Argument	Chee’s Argument	Held
Whether psychotherapist‑patient records must be produced to defendant	Records are privileged and not shown sufficiently relevant or specific	Records are relevant to impeachment of Bark’s perception/credibility; subpoenas seek diagnoses/medication (Dec 2011–present)	Court ordered in camera review; objection denied as moot after magistrate granted subpoenas subject to in camera review
Whether Sixth Amendment confrontation/compulsory‑process rights override privilege	Privilege and privacy outweigh discovery absent specificity/materiality	Sixth Amendment and need for effective impeachment can overcome privilege where records integral to defense	Court applied balancing approach; authorized in camera review to assess materiality
Proper scope/process for compelled mental‑health discovery	Broad pretrial disclosure is improper; Rule 17(c) not a discovery tool	Seeks narrowed timeframe and specific categories to address specificity concerns	Court found defendant’s amended request insufficiently specific on record contents so in camera review required
Whether any privilege exceptions apply (e.g., waiver, court‑ordered exam, defense‑raised mental condition)	No exception present	Argued need to impeach/witness perception does not fit listed exceptions	Court found no categorical exception; ordered in camera review under balancing framework

Jaffee v. Redmond, 518 U.S. 1 (1996) (recognizes psychotherapist‑patient privilege under federal common law)
Pennsylvania v. Ritchie, 480 U.S. 39 (1987) (trial court review of confidential files may be required to determine materiality; pretrial, unsupervised disclosure not guaranteed)
Davis v. Alaska, 415 U.S. 308 (1974) (Confrontation Clause principles on cross‑examination scope)
United States v. Lindstrom, 698 F.2d 1154 (11th Cir. 1983) (privacy interest cannot automatically defeat defendant’s need to impeach key witness)
Society of Independent Gasoline Marketers v. U.S. Dep’t of Energy, 624 F.2d 461 (4th Cir. 1979) (balancing test factors for disclosure of mental‑health reports)
United States v. Brown, 479 F. Supp. 1247 (D. Md. 1979) (in camera review and narrowly tailored disclosure approach for psychiatric records)
U.S. v. MacKey, 647 F.2d 898 (9th Cir. 1981) (Rule 17(c) subpoena not a discovery tool)
United States v. Doyle, 1 F. Supp. 2d 1187 (D. Or. 1998) (refusing compelled disclosure of psychotherapy records; court review breaches privilege)
United States v. Hardy, 224 F.3d 752 (8th Cir. 2000) (defendant must specify evidentiary nature of materials sought; speculation insufficient)
In re Doe, 964 F.2d 1325 (2d Cir. 1992) (privilege requires weighing witness privacy in admissibility of psychiatric histories)