Try our Advanced Search for more refined results
Law Office of Michael O. Shea
-
Order | Filed: June 04, 2024 | Entered: June 04, 2024 Brooks v. SIMOS Insourcing Solutions LLC et al
Civil Rights: Jobs | Massachusetts
Order on Motion to Compel
District Judge Julia E. Kobick: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered.
The defendants’ motion to compel discovery 33 is DENIED without prejudice to renewal consistent with the following order. The plaintiff argues, and the Court agrees, that the medical records subject to the defendants’ motion fall within the scope of the psychotherapist-patient privilege. “Since this case is a diversity suit involving only [Massachusetts] state-law claims, [the plaintiff’s] claim that the documents here are protected by an evidentiary privilege is governed by [Massachusetts] state law under [Federal Rule of Evidence] 501.” Gill v. Gulfstream Park Racing Ass’n, Inc., 399 F.3d 391, 401 (1st Cir. 2005); see Fed. R. Evid. 501 (“[I]n a civil case, state law governs privilege regarding a claim or defense for which state law supplies the rule of decision.”). Pursuant to M.G.L. c. 233, § 20B, “in any court proceeding... a patient shall have the privilege of refusing to disclose, and of preventing a witness from disclosing, any communication, wherever made, between said patient and a psychotherapist relative to the diagnosis or treatment of the patient’s mental or emotional condition.” The statute “broadly protect[s] ‘the private interest that patients have in speaking freely during psychotherapy, and the public interest in encouraging troubled people to seek therapy.’” Commonwealth v. Waweru, 480 Mass. 173, 183 (2018). Accordingly, under Massachusetts law, medical records are protected by the psychotherapist-patient privilege “if they contain the communications or notes of communications between the patient and a psychotherapist.” Dep’t of Social Servs. to Dispense with Consent to Adoption, 399 Mass. 279, 287 (1987). Here, it is likely that the relevant medical records contain such communications or notes thereof, and they are thus protected by the privilege.
The defendants contend that the plaintiff has nevertheless waived the privilege by placing his mental condition at issue in this case. ECF 34, at 8-11. Their theory corresponds with one of the six statutory exceptions to the psychotherapist-patient privilege, M.G.L. c. 233, § 20B(c), which provides that the privilege is waived if “the patient introduces his mental or emotional condition as an element of his claim or defense, and the judge... finds that it is more important to the interests of justice that the communication be disclosed than that the relationship between the patient and psychotherapist be protected.” See Waweru, 480 Mass. at 184 (“The expansive scope of the privilege is limited by six specific exceptions defining when the privilege is waived and disclosure is permitted.”). Even assuming the plaintiff has introduced his mental condition as an element of his claim, the plaintiff argues, and the Court agrees, that the interests of justice are not satisfied here. See ECF 35, at 5-6; Koppel v. Moses, 639 F. Supp. 3d 201, 210 (D. Mass. 2022) (describing the interests of justice analysis under Massachusetts law). The defendants have not made “‘a specific showing that the truth-seeking function of the trial will be seriously impaired unless a disclosure of the communication is ordered.’” Koppel, 639 F. Supp. 3d at 210 (quoting Linscott v. Burns, No. C.A. 2003-00648, 2005 WL 351039, at *3 (Mass. Super. Jan. 27, 2005)). And the plaintiff has committed to forgo “‘cal[ling] the psychotherapist as a witness or introduc[ing] evidence of the communication through [his] own testimony or otherwise.’” Id. (quoting Linscott, 2005 WL 351039, at *3); see ECF 35, at 6 (“[T]he Plaintiff does not seek to offer the testimony of any mental health professional or expert at trial on the issue; does not seek to introduce the records of treatment at trial; and does not seek to introduce any evidence as to the substance of any communications between him and his providers.”). Accordingly, the interests of justice do not favor disclosure and the relevant records remain privileged. See Koppel, 639 F. Supp. 3d at 210.
To the extent the plaintiff wishes to preserve his claim of privilege going forward, however, he will—as he agrees to stipulate—comply with the following conditions: “(1) Mental health therapy and related records of the Plaintiff will not be offered or admissible at trial; (2) No witness will testify about patient-provider communications concerning any mental health counseling or treatment received by the Plaintiff; (3) No mental health expert will testify on behalf of the Pl... (truncated)
-
Order | Filed: May 24, 2024 | Entered: May 24, 2024 Dekarski v. A. Duie Pyle, Inc.
Civil Rights: Jobs | Massachusetts
Order
Judge Mark G. Mastroianni: ORDER entered. Settlement Order of Dismissal. (Figueroa, Tamara)
-
Order | Filed: May 24, 2024 | Entered: May 24, 2024 Dekarski v. A. Duie Pyle, Inc.
Civil Rights: Jobs | Massachusetts
Order on Motion for Order
Judge Mark G. Mastroianni: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered granting 45 Joint Motion for a Sixty-Day Nisi Order. A sixty-day settlement order of dismissal will enter. (Figueroa, Tamara)
Stay ahead of the curve
In the legal profession, information is the key to success. You have to know what’s happening with clients, competitors, practice areas, and industries. Law360 provides the intelligence you need to remain an expert and beat the competition.
- Archive of over 450,000 articles
- Database of over 2.1 million cases
- 62,000+ organization-specific pages.
- Daily and real-time news and case alerts on organizations, industries, and customized search queries.
- Significant legal events involving law firms, companies, industries, and government agencies.
- Learn more
TRY LAW360 FREE FOR SEVEN DAYS
Already a subscriber? Click here to login