tions between a client and an employee assistance professional); N.H. Rev. Code Ann. § 21-I:52-a (2000) (confidential communications between state employees and EAP representatives are privileged); Or.Rev.Stat. § 181.860 (1999) (prohibiting confidential communications in a peer support counseling session for emergency service providers or law enforcement personnel to be used in adjudicatory proceedings); R.I. Gen. Laws § 28-6.8-1 (2000) ("No employer shall release the name, address, or otherwise breach the confidentiality of information obtained through an employee's participation in an employer assistance program, except where the information is related to a crime which must otherwise be reported by law."); Tenn.Code. Ann. § 62-42-115 (2000) ("The confidential relations and communications between a licensed employee assistance professional and client are the same as those provided by law for licensed psychologists, psychological examiners, physicians, and social workers."); see also Lara v. City of Albuquerque, 126 N.M. 455, 458-59, 971 P.2d 846, 849-50 (Ct.App. 1998) (including within the state psychotherapist-patient privilege confidential communications to EAP counselors made for the purpose of diagnosis or treatment).

New Mexico's psychotherapist-patient privilege, for example, provides that "[a] patient has a privilege to refuse to disclose and to prevent any other person from disclosing confidential communications, made for the purposes of diagnoses or treatment of the patient's physical, mental or emotional condition . . . among the patient, the patient's physician or psychotherapist, or persons who are participating in the diagnosis or treatment under the direction of the physician or psychotherapist, including members of the patient's family." Lara v. City of Albuquerque, 126 N.M. 455, 458 (N.M.Ct.App. 1998) (citing Rule 11-504(B) N.M.R.A. 1998). In contrast to the significant public and private interests supporting recognition of the privilege, the likely evidentiary benefit that would result from the denial of the privilege is modest.

In Lara v. City of Albuquerque, et al., documents which included information concerning frequency or type of the employee's drug use, use on the job, and effects on family and work, were found to be confidential communications made for purposes of diagnosis or treatment. 126 N.M. 455, 458 (Ct.App. 1998) (involving psychotherapist-patient privilege under N.M.R.A. 11-504). However, information concerning the former employee's obligation to submit to random drug testing, his failure to report for the test, and the resulting consequences did not invoke the psychotherapist-patient privilege.

{16} New Mexico courts have recognized the private and public importance of a psychotherapist-patient privilege and acknowledged the rationale set forth in Jaffee. See Lara v. City of Albuquerque, 1999-NMCA-012, ¶ 12, 126 N.M. 455, 971 P.2d 846 (acknowledging the public and private interests furthered by the psychotherapist-patient privilege); Reaves v. Bergsrud, 1999-NMCA-075, ¶ 22, 127 N.M. 446, 982 P.2d 497 ("keeping [Defendant's] communications with his psychotherapist confidential not only furthers the privilege's policy of patient autonomy and privacy but Defendant's own privacy interests"); In re Doe, 98 N.M. 442, 447, 649 P.2d 510, 515 (Ct.App. 1982), overruled on other grounds by State v. Roper, 1996-NMCA-073, ¶ 12, 122 N.M. 126, 921 P.2d 322. The New Mexico Court of Appeals has commented on the "fear of betrayal" that exists when an individual is contemplating whether to consult a psychotherapist.

Further, New Mexico courts have noted the authority of some administrative tribunals to impose discovery sanctions in certain situations. See, e.g., Weiss v. New Mexico Bd. of Dentistry, 110 N.M. 574, 581, 798 P.2d 175, 182 (1990); Lara v. City of Albuquerque, 1999-NMCA-012, ¶¶ 18-21, 126 N.M. 455, 971 P.2d 846;Sandoval v. United Nuclear Corp., 105 N.M. 105, 107, 729 P.2d 503, 505 (Ct.App. 1986). Reading Rule 1-037(B) together with the procedural components of the Rules Governing Discipline, we hold that the disciplinary board and its duly appointed hearing committees are authorized to impose discovery sanctions under appropriate circumstances, such as those presented here.