Bryant v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, et al.
Filing
58
LETTER MEMORANDUM to Counsel. Signed by Magistrate Judge Matthew James Maddox on 9/15/2022. (dass, Deputy Clerk)
Case 1:21-cv-00545-MJM Document 58 Filed 09/15/22 Page 1 of 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
Chambers of
Matthew J. Maddox
United States Magistrate Judge
101 West Lombard Street, Chambers 3B
Baltimore, Maryland 21201
MDD_MJMChambers@mdd.uscourts.gov
(410) 962-3407
September 15, 2022
MEMORANDUM TO COUNSEL
RE:
La’Tonya Bryant v. Mayor & City Council of Baltimore, et al.
Civil No. MJM 21-545
Dear Counsel:
Pursuant to the Standing Order Concerning Discovery (ECF 41), the parties filed a letter
with the Court dated August 29, 2022, regarding a dispute concerning a subpoena (the “Subpoena”)
served by defendant Mayor and City Council of Baltimore (“Defendant”) upon Carolyn Wyatt,
M.D., a primary care physician of plaintiff La’Tonya Bryant (“Plaintiff”). ECF 50. On August 30,
2022, counsel for each party filed a letter detailing their respective positions. ECF 51 & 52. On
September 15, 2022, the Court conducted a telephone conference with counsel for the parties
regarding the dispute.
The Complaint in this matter asserts various claims of employment disability and age
discrimination, failure to accommodate, retaliation, and interference in violation of the Family and
Medical Leave Act. Among the relief sought by Plaintiff as asserted in the Complaint are
compensatory damages for psychological and emotional harms alleged to have resulted from
Defendant’s conduct. Plaintiff’s counsel points out that Plaintiff has decided not to designate her
former mental health counselor as an expert or rely upon the counselor’s opinion or records in this
litigation. ECF 51 at 2‒3.
The Subpoena, which was served on July 28, 2022, requests from Dr. Wyatt “[a]ny and all
medical records, including but not limited to mental health records,” and various other categories
of records “pertaining to the treatment and billing of [Plaintiff].” ECF 52 at 2. Since issuance of
the Subpoena, Defendant has agreed to limit the scope of the Subpoena to mental health records
created since November 8, 2018, the date that Plaintiff’s employment was allegedly terminated.
Plaintiff has objected to the Subpoena, and, in light of that objection, the parties have directed Dr.
Wyatt not to produce any records until the Court issues an order.
During the telephone conference on September 15, 2022, counsel advised the Court that
they do not know whether Dr. Wyatt is in possession, custody, or control of any of the records
sought in the Subpoena. If Dr. Wyatt does not have any of the requested records, then the dispute
over the Subpoena is moot.
Case 1:21-cv-00545-MJM Document 58 Filed 09/15/22 Page 2 of 2
Civil No. MJM 21-545
September 15, 2022
Page 2
For this reason, and others stated during the telephone conference, the Court will enter a
separate Order directing Dr. Wyatt to advise counsel for the parties whether she is in possession,
custody, or control of any of the requested mental health records, within five business days;
directing counsel for Defendant to provide Dr. Wyatt a copy of the Order; and directing counsel for
the parties jointly to advise the Court of Dr. Wyatt’s response to the Order.
Within five days of receipt of Dr. Wyatt’s response, counsel for Plaintiff shall advise the
Court and counsel for Defendant whether Plaintiff intends to amend her pleadings to exclude claims
for compensatory damages for psychological and/or emotional injuries or whether she intends to
designate an expert regarding her mental health. The parties shall confer regarding proposed
deadlines for any amended pleadings or Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2) disclosures before requesting that
the Court set any new deadlines. The parties shall also confer regarding any proposed
Confidentiality Order and jointly present for the Court’s consideration a proposed Confidentiality
Order before any mental health records are ordered to be produced.
Despite the informal nature of this letter, it is an ORDER of the Court and will be docketed
accordingly.
Very truly yours,
/S/
Matthew J. Maddox
United States Magistrate Judge
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?