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