Summary
finding that mental health records were relevant since they might suggest whether plaintiff's mental injuries were due to circumstances prior to or as a result of incident at issue, or whether he suffered injuries at all, and interests of adequate and fair discovery favored discovery
Summary of this case from Drain v. Wells Fargo BankOpinion
CIVIL ACTION NO. 03-3919.
May 5, 2004
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Presently before the court is defendants' Motion to Compel the Production of Documents Relating to Plaintiff's Damages Claim, including but not Limited to Mental Health Records (the "Motion") (Doc. No. 20). Plaintiff filed a memorandum of law in opposition to the Motion (Doc. No. 21). Defendants' filed a Memorandum of Law with their motion and an additional Memorandum of Law in further support of their Motion (Doc. Nos. 20, 22.) For the reasons set forth below, defendants' Motion is GRANTED.
The Motion was referred to the undersigned for disposition by the Honorable James McGirr Kelly. (Doc. No. 23.)
On July 1, 2003, plaintiff Rashad Payne brought this action against the defendants alleging violation of his civil rights. Specifically, plaintiff "claims that Defendants violated his constitutional rights when his privacy rights were invaded after [the Department of Human Services ("DHS")] improperly released a confidential, privileged and private DHS investigation regarding plaintiff and members of his family" in response to a subpoena from plaintiff's estranged wife's attorney. (Pl.'s Mem. Opp. Mot. at 1.)
Defense counsel deposed plaintiff on February 4, 2004. Defense counsel requested that plaintiff bring with him all documents, including medical records, relating to plaintiff's claimed damages in this action. (Defs.' Mem. Supp. Mot. Ex. 1.) Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(a)(1)(C) requires the party seeking damages to provide:
a computation of any category of damages claimed by the disclosing party, making available for inspection and copying under Rule 34 the documents or other evidentiary material, not privileged or protected from disclosure, on which such computation is based, including materials bearing on the nature and extent of injuries suffered.
Plaintiff objects to the Motion "on the grounds that he is not seeking any damages as a result of psychological injury. Plaintiff's damages claim with respect to any mental suffering is limited to emotional distress, embarrassment, humiliation and anxiety." (Pl.'s Mem. Opp. Mot. at 1-2.) Plaintiff further argues that plaintiff "never testified that he sought psychiatric treatment as a direct result of the invasion of his privacy. His claims of any emotional damage as a result of Defendants [sic] actions are limited to damages that do not require an expert."Id. at 2. Plaintiff asserts that his "mental health prior to the incident and corresponding mental health records that have no nexus to the alleged constitutional deprivations in this case are not relevant." Id.
In his Complaint, plaintiff alleges as follows regarding his psychological injuries:
35. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants' actions, Plaintiff suffered and continues to suffer from serious mental anguish, psychological and emotional distress, and pain and suffering, some or all of which may be permanent.
37. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants' actions, Plaintiff was subjected to mental abuse without just or probable cause.
45. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants' illegal and unconstitutional actions, Plaintiff suffered pain, fear, anxiety, embarrassment, severe emotional trauma, and the loss of the enjoyment of life, all to his great detriment and loss.
49. As a direct and proximate result of the acts and omissions of Defendants, Plaintiff was forced to endure great pain and mental suffering, all to Plaintiff's great detriment and loss.
(Complaint ¶¶ 35, 37, 45, 49.)
When a plaintiff claims damages resulting from emotional distress, the opposing party is entitled to the plaintiff's mental health records. Sanchez v. U.S. Airways, Inc., 202 F.R.D. 131, 135 (E.D. Pa. 2001) (plaintiffs waived the patient-psychotherapist privilege by putting their emotional state at issue; plaintiffs' mental health records were relevant because they may disclose whether plaintiffs actually suffered emotional distress from Mr. Sanchez's termination, or whether the plaintiffs sought treatment for unrelated stress, the existence of which would mitigate the emotional distress claim against the defendant).
In Lanning v. Southeastern Pennsylvania Trans. Auth., 1997 WL 597905 (E.D. Pa. Sept. 17, 1997), the plaintiffs sought compensation for injury to their emotional well-being and the defendant moved for production of the plaintiffs' psychological records. Id. at *2. The plaintiffs opposed the motion on the grounds that they were not seeking damages for psychological injuries, would not offer expert testimony to support their claim for emotional distress, did not seek recovery for treatment of emotional distress, and had not alleged "an independent tort-like action for emotional distress." Id. at *1. The court rejected these arguments and stated as follows:
Our focus in determining whether or not plaintiffs have waived their psychotherapist-patient privilege is on the nature of plaintiffs' claims. Despite plaintiffs' attempts to limit damages regarding emotional distress, the claim for emotional distress remains a part of plaintiffs' action. As the district court has stated: "We are not persuaded . . . that waiver of the privilege should be made to turn on the nature of the plaintiff's evidence [anecdotal evidence versus expert testimony] rather than on the nature of her claim. . . . If a plaintiff seeks damages for alleged emotional or psychological injuries, the defendant's case ought not to be limited by the plaintiff's decision not to introduce available medical or psychological testimony that bears directly on the truth of the claim."Id. at *2 (quoting Thorne v. Universal Prop., Inc., 1987 WL 7683, at *2 (E.D. Pa. Mar. 10, 1987) (Pollack, J.)). See also Womack v. Stevens Transport, Inc., 2000 WL 1007072 (E.D. Pa. June 29, 2000) (same).
At his deposition, plaintiff testified that he first spoke with a therapist associated with the Employees' Assistance Program ("EAP") with the police department. (Pl.'s Dep. at 155.) The EAP referred him to Delaware Valley Services. Id. at 156. Plaintiff testified as follows regarding the timing and subject matter of his therapy:
Q. [by Defense Counsel]: When did you first see a therapist?
A. [by plaintiff]: With my whole divorce I seen some people at EAP. . . . And they in turn referred me to Delaware Valley where I was going to see a therapist just to talk about all my issues with work and with this situation and everything.
Q. When did you first go to Delaware Valley Services?
A. It was . . . in the summer of 2002.
. . .
Q. Who do you see now?
A. His name is Dr. Dikan.
Q. [by Defense Counsel]: Mr. Pileggi, I note that I don't have any of those records, the psychological records. . . . Well, to the extent they support your client's claim for damages, the rules require you to get them and give them to me.
A. [by Plaintiff's Counsel]: Yes.
. . .
Q. [by Plaintiff's Counsel]: Does any of the treatment you received [sic] as a direct result of this incident?
A. [by Plaintiff]: We talked about . . . the whole custody issue, and this incident occurred while I was in treatment.
(Pl.'s Dep. at 155-57.)
Plaintiff in the instant matter alleges that he suffered and continues to suffer "serious mental anguish, psychological and emotional distress," "fear, anxiety, embarrassment, severe emotional trauma, and the loss of enjoyment of life." (Complaint ¶¶ 35, 45.) Plaintiff's deposition testimony reveals that he sought psychological counseling during a relevant time period both before and after the incident in question. The mental health records sought by defendants are relevant as they may suggest whether plaintiff's emotional injuries are due to circumstances prior to or a result of the incident at issue, or whether he suffered such injuries at all. Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(1). In the interests of adequate and fair discovery and the search for truth, the court will grant defendants' Motion.
AND NOW, this 5th day of May, 2004, upon consideration of defendants' Motion to Compel the Production of Documents Relating to Plaintiff's Damages Claim, including but not Limited to Mental Health Records (Doc. No. 20), and all pleadings related thereto, and for the reasons stated above, it is hereby
ORDERED
1. The Motion is GRANTED;
2. Plaintiff shall produce copies of his records from any and all mental health providers plaintiff has seen in the past two years; and
Defendants limited their request to this two year time period and this court finds that the limitation is reasonable based upon the deposition testimony of plaintiff quoted in the body of this Memorandum and Order.
3. Such records shall be produced within fourteen days from the date of this Order.