Opinion
16 Civ. 3572 (KMK)(PED)
09-09-2020
Galgano, Plaintiff, v. County of Putnam, et al. Defendants.
ORDER PAUL E. DAVISON, U.S.M.J.:
This Order addresses a dispute regarding whether plaintiff is obligated to release treatment records of his psychotherapist, Mr. James Blechman. The parties have submitted letter-briefs, [Dkts. 372, 378, 380.] Familiarity with the record is assumed.
Communications between a patient and his psychotherapist are privileged. Jaffee v. Redmond, 518 U.S. 1, 15 (1996). It is well-settled, however, that a party waives medical privileges when he "puts his medical condition into issue." Ottawa Office Integration Inc. V. FTF Bus. Sys., Inc., 132 F.Supp. 2d 215, 220 (S.D.N.Y. 2001). In Sims v. Blot, 534 F.3d 117, 134 (2d Cir. 2008), the Court of Appeals determined that a plaintiff who wishes to avoid releasing otherwise privileged therapy records "may withdraw or formally abandon all claims for emotional distress in order to avoid forfeiting his psychotherapist-patient privilege." Applying Sims, courts in this district confine the mental health claims of plaintiffs who do not release their treatment records to garden variety emotional distress. E. g. Suregova v. Vill. of Rye Brook, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 147769 (S.D.N.Y Dec. 22, 2011)(Karas, J.) Notably, restricting a plaintiff to a "garden variety emotional distress"claim significantly limits the damages which may be recovered. See Lore v. City of Syracuse, 670 F.3d 127, 177-78 (2d Cir. 2012).
In view of plaintiff's arguably broader descriptions of his emotional distress, plaintiff may withhold Mr. Blechman's therapy records only provided that he enters into a stipulation formally disavowing any claim for non-garden-variety emotional injuries and expressly agreeing not to offer evidence regarding his therapy or any diagnosis he may have received. See e.g. Weber v. Res. Training Ctr., Inc., 2014 U.S. Dist. Lexis 176848 at * 5 (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 23, 2014)(requiring affidavit); Jacobs v. Conn. CMTY. Tech. Colleges, 258 F.R.D. 192, 197 (D. Conn. 2009). Dated: September 9, 2020
Because the treatment records are privileged, defendants' argument that the records may be discoverable because they are relevant for other purposes is without merit. See Mercedes v. City of New York, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 176963 at *2-3 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 12, 2018).
White Plains, New York
SO ORDERED
/s/_________
Paul E. Davison, U.S.M.J.