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)

Download PDF
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 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?