Galindo et al v. City of San Mateo et al
Filing
43
ORDER re 41 , 42 Joint Letters of December 27, 2016. Signed by Judge Edward M. Chen on 1/3/2017. (emclc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/3/2017)
1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
7
JOSE GALINDO, et al.,
8
Plaintiffs,
10
ORDER RE JOINT LETTERS OF
DECEMBER 27, 2016
v.
9
CITY OF SAN MATEO, et al.,
Docket No. 41, 42
Defendants.
11
12
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
Case No. 16-cv-03651-EMC
13
14
15
Currently pending before the Court are two joint letters from the parties, dated December
27, 2016. Having considered those letters, the Court hereby rules as follows.
1.
Docket No. 41. The records in question shall be produced under a protective order.
16
The parties shall meet and confer on the terms of a stipulated protective order. The meet and
17
confer shall be in person or by telephone; a written meet and confer is not adequate. The parties
18
shall file a joint proposed stipulated protective order within one week of the date of this order.
19
Once the Court has approved of the proposed stipulated protective order, then Defendants may
20
designate documents confidential pursuant to the protective order. If there is a dispute about the
21
designation of a document, then the parties shall meet and confer and, if necessary, ask for a Court
22
ruling on the propriety of the designation. See, e.g., Model Prot. Order for Standard Litigation ¶
23
6.3 (discussing judicial intervention), available at http://cand.uscourts.gov/model-protective-
24
orders (last visited January 3, 2017). However, such dispute shall not delay production of
25
documents provisionally under a protective order.
26
2.
Docket No. 42. The Court adheres to its views as articulated in Fitzgerald v.
27
Cassil, 216 F.R.D. 632 (N.D. Cal. 2003), which follows the narrow approach to waiver of the
28
psychotherapist-patient privilege. Under the narrow approach to waiver, Ms. Hernandez has not
1
waived the psychotherapist-patient privilege. See id. at 639 (finding no waiver where plaintiffs
2
“stipulated that they will not affirmatively rely on any treating psychotherapist or other expert to
3
prove the emotional distress damages suffered,” where plaintiffs did not plead a cause of action for
4
intentional or negligent infliction of emotional distress, and where plaintiffs did “not allege[] a
5
specific psychiatric injury or disorder or unusually severe emotional distress extraordinary in light
6
of the allegations”).
7
This order disposes of Docket Nos. 41 and 42.
8
9
IT IS SO ORDERED.
10
12
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
11
13
Dated: January 3, 2017
______________________________________
EDWARD M. CHEN
United States District Judge
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?