Mental Health Records at Issue in St. Joe's Assault Case
Alleged sexual assault victim Jane Roe said a request for her mental health records "smacks of victim blaming."
August 07, 2018 at 04:11 PM
4 minute read
In a student's case against Saint Joseph's University over its sexual assault investigation and discipline procedures, the alleged assault victim's mental health records are now a subject of debate.
The plaintiff, a student identified by the pseudonym John Doe, requested the mental health records of the alleged victim, a student identified by the pseudonym Jane Roe, in discovery.
In an Aug. 3 order, U.S. District Judge Paul Diamond of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania denied motions for summary judgment by the university, as well as Roe, who is facing a defamation claim. In the same order, among other discovery issues, Diamond said Roe must produce her mental health records, university disciplinary records and four days of telephone records.
Roe filed a motion for reconsideration Monday, contending she should not have to produce the records. Diamond had ordered both Roe and St. Joe's to provide all the required materials by Wednesday.
Before Diamond issued his order, Doe's lawyers argued in a letter to the court that Roe placed her mental health at issue in her deposition, in her initial complaint to the university and in her interview with the school's hired investigator, Elizabeth Malloy of Cozen O'Connor. According to the letter, the topics of flashbacks, post-traumatic stress disorder, substance abuse and self harm were introduced.
“Roe's mental health and treatment records are relevant and discoverable as to her perception of the events and the actions of Doe,” Doe's lawyers said.
But Roe's lawyer argued in her motion that Roe is an “unwilling participant” in the lawsuit. There was no voluntary waiver of her mental health privilege, Roe's motion said, because Roe is the defendant in the school's claim, not the plaintiff.
“Not only is her psychological condition not at issue in this case, she did not voluntarily choose to place it at issue,” it said.
Roe pointed to cases cited by Doe. In each of those cases, she argued, the plaintiff's records were at issue. And she said the request “smacks of victim blaming.”
“Plaintiff is seeking to 'muddy the waters' to somehow put the blame for plaintiff's actions on Jane Roe's reaction, which was not the 'correct' reaction or fast enough for plaintiff's liking,” the letter said.
While the university did not argue the matter of Roe's records in depth, it did acknowledge Doe's request in its own response.
“While this part of counsel's letter to you pertains to his request of Jane Roe, we are outraged, frankly, at the demand for Jane Roe's mental health and disciplinary records, just as we were outraged at the exploration, in depth, of her sexual history when she was deposed,” the university's filing said.
Since Doe brought the suit in May, the parties have been faced with several tight deadlines. Shortly after the complaint was filed, Diamond ordered the defendants to file their answers within 48 hours.
Doe had alleged in his complaint that he was treated unfairly by the school and its hired investigator. St. Joe's has called the case “frivolous,” said its disciplinary process is fair and argued that as a university, it is not bound to the same due process requirements as law enforcement.
A spokeswoman for St. Joe's did not respond to a call for comment. Neither did Susan Engle of Mintzer Sarowitz Zeris Ledva & Meyers, who is representing Roe.
Edward Schwabenland, Doe's lawyer, declined to comment other than to say the matters are being addressed in court.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllPhila. Med Mal Lawyers In for Busy Year as Court Adjusts for Filing Boom
3 minute read'Recover, Reflect, Retool and Retry': Lessons From Women Atop Pa. Legal Community
3 minute readEDPA's New Chief Judge Plans to Advance Efforts to Combat Threats to Judiciary
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1South Florida Attorney Charged With Aggravated Battery After Incident in Prime Rib Line
- 2'A Death Sentence for TikTok'?: Litigators and Experts Weigh Impact of Potential Ban on Creators and Data Privacy
- 3Bribery Case Against Former Lt. Gov. Brian Benjamin Is Dropped
- 4‘Extremely Disturbing’: AI Firms Face Class Action by ‘Taskers’ Exposed to Traumatic Content
- 5State Appeals Court Revives BraunHagey Lawsuit Alleging $4.2M Unlawful Wire to China
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250