OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiff Ronald Broden brings this action against defendant Boris Rubinstein, M.D., M.P.H., plaintiff’s former psychiatrist, alleging defendant improperly disclosed confidential information about plaintiff’s treatment to plaintiff’s parents. Now pending is defendant’s motion to dismiss the amended complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6). (Doc. #20). For the foregoing reasons, the motion is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. The Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1332. BACKGROUND For the purpose of ruling on the motion, the Court accepts as true all well-pleaded factual allegations in the amended complaint and draws all reasonable inferences in plaintiff’s favor, as summarized below. In 1999, plaintiff began receiving psychiatric treatment from defendant, a family friend, after plaintiff began experiencing feelings of depression. However, during the relationship, plaintiff alleges defendant socialized with plaintiff’s father at monthly dinners during which defendant discussed plaintiff’s treatment without plaintiff’s consent. At first, defendant provided therapy and medical treatment to plaintiff for a reduced fee, but after about four months, he provided his services for free. As early as 2002, plaintiff alleges he was no longer benefitting from defendant’s therapy services and vocalized that concern to defendant. Nevertheless, plaintiff contends he did not want to offend defendant and defendant failed to refer plaintiff to another provider, so plaintiff continued to see defendant for therapy. The parties’ relationship soured in 2018 when defendant allegedly delayed refilling plaintiff’s Klonopin prescription and cut therapy sessions short. Because of this, beginning in April 2019, plaintiff contends he wrote strongly worded emails to defendant expressing his “disdain…concerning DEFENDANT’S lack of care for PLAINTIFF as a therapist and doctor over the years.” (Doc. #3 (“Am. Compl.”) 24). In May 2019, plaintiff claims defendant called him to apologize for “fail[ing]” plaintiff and invited plaintiff and plaintiff’s parents to participate in one final therapy session. (Am. Compl. 25). Plaintiff’s father attended this session on May 22, 2019, during which plaintiff contends defendant cursed at plaintiff and terminated plaintiff as his patient. Soon thereafter, plaintiff posted negative online reviews about defendant and sent a series of “scathing” emails to defendant. (Am. Compl.
