Opinion
05 Civ. 7626 (KMK) (JCF).
May 17, 2006
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This is one of approximately 80 related cases arising out of arrests that took place in connection with protests at the Republican National Convention in New York City in August 2004. The defendants now seek an order compelling plaintiff Heike Jarick to (1) produce unredacted psychological treatment records and (2) identify all persons who have provided her with medical services and execute authorization for the release of all medical and pharmacy records. The plaintiff has submitted for my in camera inspection both redacted and unredacted copies of her psychological records. She argues that the redacted portions refer to highly sensitive personal matters and are of marginal relevance at best. Ms. Jarick further contends that information that might be obtained from her medical providers is wholly irrelevant to her claims in this litigation.
In one of the related cases, Hershey-Wilson v. City of New York, No. 05 Civ. 7026 (KMK), the Honorable Kenneth M. Karas, U.S.D.J., outlined the standards that govern the discovery of psychological treatment records where a plaintiff has alleged emotional and mental distress:
[T]o the extent that somebody is claiming, for example, psychological trauma, even if she doesn't intend to substantiate the claim, or to quantify her damages through the use of an expert, just based on her own testimony of what she felt, what she felt she was harmed by, what emotional pain and suffering she claims to have been inflicted upon her, opens the door to the possibility that the defendant should be allowed to explore either alternate causes for such psychological trauma and other mental health damages, and also to rebut the claim for the amount of damages that the plaintiff might seek from a jury.
(Transcript of oral argument dated April 20, 2006 ("Tr."), at 29). At the same time, Judge Karas noted that some records may be so sensitive and yet so marginally relevant that they may be properly withheld from discovery. (Tr. at 30-32). Consequently, he suggested that records alleged to fall into this category be submitted for in camera review (Tr. at 31), as has been done here.
The plaintiff's attorney describes his client's claims as follows:
Ms. Jarick claims loss of her liberty, dignity, and productivity; physical injury to her wrists; and as a result of defendants' actions experienced emotional distress that manifested itself in paranoia, increased alcohol consumption, anxiety, depression, the need to begin taking psychiatric medication, fear of the police, fear to ride her bicycle, fear to travel overseas due to her immigrant status and her nervousness regarding her then-pending prosecution and the xenophobic mood of this nation at this stage in our history, and concern regarding her exposure to possibly hazardous materials while in custody; Plaintiff has also experienced a chill to the exercise of her rights to free speech and association as a result of the incident.
(Letter of Jeffrey A. Rothman dated March 27, 2006, at 3). These are allegations of serious, specific psychiatric injuries for which the plaintiff sought and received treatment. Accordingly, the details of her prior treatments are highly relevant, and the plaintiff cannot pick and choose which stressors she will reveal and which she will redact.
Ms. Jarick shall therefore produce her psychological treatment records in unredacted form, except that she may delete social security numbers, telephone numbers, and the identity of any insurance plan participant other than herself.
A similar analysis of the defendants' request for medical records leads to a different conclusion. The only physical injury Ms. Jarick claims is trauma to her wrists from being placed in handcuffs that were excessively tight. Therefore, the only medical providers that she need identify are those who have treated her for any disease or injury of the wrist area. Otherwise, medical care she received in the past is entirely irrelevant.
The defendants also seek all of the plaintiff's pharmaceutical records on the theory that there might have been some interaction between psychiatric drugs that she took and other medications. (Letter of Jeffrey A. Dougherty dated April 14, 2006, at 4). This is pure speculation by counsel, unsupported by any affidavit from a medical expert. Therefore, the record of the plaintiff's medications, other than those related to her psychological treatments, need not be disclosed.
Conclusion
For the reasons set forth above, the defendants' application to compel the plaintiff to produce the full records of her psychological treatment is granted except for the limited redactions identified above. The defendants' application to require the plaintiff to identify all providers of medical services and provide all pharmaceutical records is denied.
SO ORDERED.