This quarter U.S. Magistrate Judge Marian W. Payson considered whether a claim limited to garden variety emotional distress precludes discovery of the claimant's mental health records, and District Judge Lawrence J. Vilardo faced an array of substantive and procedural issues worthy of a law school exam in deciding whether a corporation not named in a contract had standing to proceed with its suit in the Western District of New York.

Mental Health Records

In Mitchell v. Siersma, No. 14-CV-6069G, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 109751 (W.D.N.Y. July 14, 2017), plaintiff Patrick Mitchell moved to preclude discovery of his mental health history records after he limited his claim to garden variety emotional distress. Defendant law enforcement personnel (collectively defendants) opposed the motion arguing that Mitchell's claim of emotional distress was beyond the garden variety type and subject to discovery.

Mitchell filed this action against the defendants for unlawful arrest and imprisonment, illegal entry into his dwelling, and falsification of an arrest report. Mitchell asserted that he suffered emotional distress as a result of the defendants' conduct. During his deposition, Mitchell testified that he was being treated by a psychiatrist for emotional distress. Notably, he stated that he “always, always, always [has to] make sure the outside door [to his apartment] is latched.” 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 109751 at *3. After his deposition, Mitchell filed this motion for a protective order precluding further discovery regarding his mental health records because such information is protected by the psychotherapist-patient privilege. Following oral argument, Mitchell provided a signed statement that he was claiming only “garden variety” emotional distress, not severe emotional distress, and would not present any expert witness testimony regarding such claims. He noted he understood “garden variety” emotional distress is “nothing more than the distress that any healthy, well-adjusted person would likely feel as a result of the challenged actions.” 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 109751 at *3.

Defendants opposed this motion, arguing that the Mitchell's claimed emotional distress is more severe than garden variety and he is seeking to recover damages beyond the garden variety distress. They pointed out that Mitchell's persistent, compulsive behavior to constantly lock his door is behavior inconsistent with garden variety emotional distress. As a result, defendants claimed they are entitled to discover his medical records because claims for severe emotional distress waive psychotherapist-patient privilege for discovery purposes.