Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Telecare Mental Health Services of Washington Inc

• Court: District Court, W.D. Washington
• Decided: February 15, 2023
• Docket: 2:21-cv-01339
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 8

9 EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, 10 Plaintiff,

11 v. No. 2:21-cv-01339-BJR 12 TELECARE MENTAL HEALTH ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S 13 SERVICES OF WASHINGTON, INC., MOTION TO COMEPL 14 Defendant.

15 On February 14, 2023, the Court held a hearing by videoconference on a motion brought 16 17 by Defendant Telecare Mental Health Services of Washington, Inc. (“Defendant”). The motion 18 seeks to compel Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“Plaintiff”) to produce 19 Claimant Jason Hautala’s unredacted medical records in possession of his primary treating 20 physician, Andrew Patel, M.D. Although Defendant had previously agreed not to seek discovery 21 related to Claimant’s mental health, that agreement was based on Plaintiff’s representation that its 22 emotional distress claims were based only on so-called “garden variety” emotional distress. During 23 his recent deposition, however, Claimant made statements indicating he had suffered from mental 24 25 distress, the severity of which very clearly placed his emotional distress claims beyond the realm 26 of the “garden variety.” Having done so, Claimant has effected a limited waiver of his right to

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO COMPEL - 1 1 || medical privacy. See Equal Emp. Opportunity Comm’n v. Big Five Corp., 2018 WL 2317613, at 2 || *4 (W.D. Wash. May 22, 2018) (“[C]ourts have generally found a waiver when the plaintiff has 3 |) done more than allege “garden-variety” emotional distress.”), and cases cited therein. The Court, 4 accordingly, orders Plaintiff to produce Dr. Patel’s unredacted medical records related to ° Claimant’s November 19, 2019 visit. The Court notes that Defendant’s motion to compel could and should have been brought g immediately after Claimant’s deposition, not after the close of fact discovery. Thus, the Court 9 || limits its order to produce Dr. Patel’s medical records related to Claimant’s November 19, 2019 10 || visit only, and will not consider ordering additional discovery based on Claimant’s deposition testimony. In addition, the Court explicitly orders counsel to maintain the records produced subject 2 to the “attorneys’ eyes only” confidentiality outlined in the parties’ stipulated protective order. SO ORDERED. 14 15 Dated: February 15, 2023. ° Asner eu, 17 Barbara Jacobs Rothstein 18 US. District Court Judge 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO COMPEL - 2