Dzintars et al v. Fireman's Fund Insurance Company et al
Filing
58
ORDER re 47 MOTION to Quash filed by Julie Maas. The Court will conduct an in-camera review of the records at issue. Third-party witness Julie Maas's is directed to submit the records at issue to the Court by e-mail to sara_luoma@mtd.uscourts.gov within 14 days of the date of this order. Signed by Judge Brian Morris on 1/29/2025. (MMS)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA
BUTTE DIVISION
EGON DZINTARS; and RITA
DZINTARS,
CV-24-45-BU-BMM
Plaintiffs,
ORDER
vs.
FIREMAN’S FUND INSURANCE
COMPANY; ILLINOIS UNION
INSURANCE COMPANY; ALLIED
WORLD INSURANCE COMPANY;
and DOES 1-5,
Defendants.
INTRODUCTION
Defendant Illinois Union Insurance Company (“Illinois Union”) served a
subpoena on third-party witness Julie Maas, MS, LPC (“Maas”) on November 13,
2024. The subpoena seeks information about mental health services Maas provided
to Plaintiff Rita Dzintars. Maas moves to quash the subpoena. (Doc. 47.) Illinois
Union opposes. (Doc. 57.)
BACKGROUND
The Court is familiar with the facts of this case and will not repeat them at
length here. This case arises from the tragic death of Alexa Dzintars, which stemmed
1
from a holiday party held by Leverich Partners Inc. (“SAV”). (Doc. 1, ¶¶ 15–20.)
Plaintiffs Egon Dzintars and Rita Dzintars, Alexa’s parents, sued various entities
related to Alexa’s death. (Id., ¶¶ 21–9.) Defendant Fireman’s Fund issued a
commercial liability policy to Baxter that was in effect on December 14, 2019. (Id.,
¶ 5.) Defendant Illinois Union issued a liquor liability policy that covered the Robin
Bar at the time of the incident. (Id., ¶ 7.) Defendant Allied World issued an additional
insurance policy that covered the Robin Bar at the time of the incident. (Id., ¶ 9.)
The parties to the underlying action attended mediation and agreed to a
settlement on August 17, 2022. (Id., ¶¶ 27, 30.) The parties all agreed to a summary
of the material terms of the settlement agreement. (Id., ¶ 34.) Egon Dzintars signed
the release and sent it to the parties. (Id., ¶ 36.) Baxter and the Robin Bar responded
approximately a week later with a new release with a term that the parties had not
discussed previously. (Id., ¶ 38.) The new term prohibited Plaintiffs from pursuing
other proceedings and restricted Plaintiffs from using any information obtained in
the suit to the detriment of the defendants in the underlying action. (Id.) The mediator
and Dzintars’s counsel advised that the new term posed ethical and logistical
problems. (Id., ¶¶ 39, 44.)
SAV sent a settlement check on August 26, 2022, pursuant to the release
signed by Dzintars. (Id., ¶ 43.) Baxter, the Robin Bar, and Plaintiffs agreed on
September 12, 2022, to a modified version of the term proposed by Baxter and the
2
Robin Bar. (Id., ¶ 48.) Dzintars’s counsel wrote Fireman’s Fund, Allied World, and
Illinois Union (collectively “Insurance Company Defendants”) on September 14,
2022, and September 19, 2022, to advise them of their obligation to pay the
settlement by September 21, 2022, pursuant to the settlement agreement. (Id., ¶¶ 49,
51.) Insurance Company Defendants failed to respond and make payment by that
date. (Id.) Dzintars’s counsel wrote another letter to Insurance Company Defendants
on September 22, 2022. (Id., ¶ 55.) The letter advised Insurance Company
Defendants that pressuring Dzintars to agree to the new, unbargained-for release
terms by delaying payment constituted bad faith. (Id.)
Baxter and the Robin Bar represented at a hearing on a motion to enforce the
settlement agreement that no settlement had been reached. (Id., ¶ 61.) The Montana
state district court took the motion to enforce the settlement under advisement on
September 27, 2022. (Id., ¶¶ 58, 61.) The Robin Bar and Baxter sent an email on
February 1, 2024, offering to settle the case with the standard release previously
proposed by Plaintiffs. (Id., ¶ 63.) Illinois Union and Allied World sent settlement
checks on February 13, 2024. (Id., ¶ 69.) Fireman’s Fund sent its settlement check
on March 6, 2024. (Id., ¶ 70.)
Plaintiffs now have brought the following claims against Insurance Company
Defendants: (1) unfair trade practices in violation of Mont. Code Ann. § 33-18-201;
(2) common law bad faith; (3) negligent infliction of emotional distress; (4)
3
intentional infliction of emotional distress; and (5) punitive damages. (Id., ¶¶ 71–
102.) Claim 4 is relevant to the present motion.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
The Court possesses broad discretion to manage discovery. Kelley v. Billings,
No. CV 12-74-BLG-RFC-CSO, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 50370, at *3 (D. Mont. April
8, 2013) (citing Hunt v. County of Orange, 672 F.3d 606, 616 (9th Cir. 2012) An incamera review involves a private review of documents by the court. The decision to
review materials in-camera is left to the sound discretion of the trial court. United
States v. Zolin, 491 U.S. 554, 572 (1989). An in-camera review is not appropriate
merely because a party objects to assertions of privilege. See id. at 571–572. And, a
mere objection, or even a suspicion, is not a basis upon which the parties can shift a
burden to a court that they should bear themselves. Id. A court should conduct an incamera review only after the movant has provided a sufficient factual basis to
support a good faith belief that in-camera review will reveal improperly withheld
material. Id at 572.
DISCUSSION
I.
Arguments
Maas argues that the subpoena issued by Illinois Union Insurance Company
should be quashed because it seeks privileged information protected by the
therapist-patient privilege. (Doc. 48 at 3–4.) Maas contends that disclosing the
4
records would violate the confidentiality and trust essential to the therapeutic
relationship with Ms. Dzintars. (Id.) Maas asserts that the records requested have
already been summarized in a treatment summary previously provided, and it is
unclear what additional information would be necessary. (Id. at 2.)
Illinois Union argues that the therapist-patient privilege does not apply as
Ms. Dzintars has placed her mental condition in issue by claiming emotional
distress damages, thus waiving any privilege. (Doc. 57 at 6–7.) Illinois asserts that
the provided "Diagnosis & Treatment Plan" proves insufficient as it covers only a
single day and does not provide comprehensive information about Ms. Dzintars's
emotional state or treatment progress. (Id. at 4.)
II.
Discussion
The Court recognizes the importance of the therapist-patient privilege and
the need to protect confidential communications in therapeutic settings. See Jaffee
v. Redmond, 518 U.S. 1, 15 (1996). The Court acknowledges also that when a
plaintiff places their mental condition at issue, as Ms. Dzintars has done by
claiming emotional distress damages, the privilege may be waived to the extent
necessary for the defense to evaluate the claims. See Williams v. Redwood
Toxicology Lab’y, 2022 WL 3285426 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 11, 2022).
The Court must balance the need for discovery with protecting sensitive
information. An in-camera review of the counseling records is warranted to
5
determine their relevance and discoverability in this case. Zolin, 491 U.S. at 572.
This review will allow the Court to assess whether the records contain information
pertinent to the claims and defenses in this case while also considering the privacy
concerns raised by Ms. Maas.
CONCLUSION
The Court will conduct an in-camera review of the records at issue.
ORDER
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED:
1.) Third-party witness Julie Maas’s is directed to submit the records at
issue to the Court by e-mail to sara_luoma@mtd.uscourts.gov within 14
days of the date of this order.
DATED this 29th day of January, 2025.
6
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?