Rankin v. Liberty Mutual
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Rankin v. Liberty Mutual. Read the opinion of the Court — 50 F.3d 1 →
Opinion
USCA1 Opinion
March 27, 1995 [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
____________________
No. 94-1850
SHARON E. RANKIN,
Plaintiff, Appellant,
v.
LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY,
Defendant, Appellee.
____________________
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
[Hon. Joseph A. DiClerico, U.S. District Judge] ___________________
____________________
Before
Torruella, Chief Judge, ___________
Boudin and Stahl, Circuit Judges. ______________
____________________
Sharon E. Rankin on brief pro se. ________________
Joan Ackerstein, Jackson, Lewis, Schnitzler & Krupman and Janet _______________ _____________________________________ _____
K. Adachi on brief for appellee. _________
____________________
____________________
Per Curiam. Plaintiff-appellant Sharon E. Rankin, __________
pro se, challenges the district court's judgment dismissing ___ __
her complaint with prejudice as a sanction for her failure to
comply with discovery orders. The complaint alleged racial
discrimination, nepotism, and workplace harassment in
violation of Title VII, as well as pendent state law claims
for intentional infliction of emotional distress and
defamation.
The district judge dismissed the case upon motion
by the defendant because over a two year period plaintiff had
repeatedly ignored discovery deadlines without "justifiable
excuse," and "steadfastly refused to comply with discovery
orders even though she was given several warnings from the
court and the magistrate judge that [further] failure[s]
could lead to dismissal." Order at 9. The court found that
plaintiff's actions had "unnecessarily wasted the resources
of the defendant and the court" and impeded attempts to move
toward a resolution of the case on the merits. Id. ___
On appeal, plaintiff challenges the propriety of
the court's discovery orders compelling the deposition
testimony of her treating psychiatrist, Dr. Gaticales, and
production of related medical records. She resisted the
orders below on the ground that the doctor's knowledge and
records were protected from disclosure by New Hampshire's
psychotherapist-patient privilege. The magistrate determined
that while the federal court would recognize the privilege in
this case,1 on balance the defendant's need for the
discovery of relevant matters outweighed plaintiff's interest
in confidentiality. See Hampers, 651 F.2d at 19 (holding ___ _______
that court should weigh any injury from disclosure against
the benefit to be gained for the "correct disposal of
litigation" when deciding on applicability of a state-created
privilege in a federal question case). The district court
several times affirmed the magistrate's decision.
The balance struck by the court was well within its
discretion to resolve conflicts over the permissible scope of
discovery. See In re San Juan Dupont Plaza Hotel Fire ___ ___________________________________________
Litig., 859 F.2d 1007, 1019 (1st Cir. 1988) (holding that a ______
trial court has broad discretion in managing discovery to
balance conflicting interests in discovery of confidential
information). Plaintiff's complaint made her emotional
condition a central issue in the case. She alleged that
defendant's discrimination and intentional torts had caused
____________________
1. No issue has been raised in this appeal regarding the
magistrate's preliminary determinations, (1) that federal
common law governs the assertion of the privilege with
respect to both the federal and pendent state claims, and (2)
that the factors listed in In re Hampers, 651 F.2d 19, 22-23 _____________
(1st Cir. 1981), favor recognition of the state-created
privilege in this case. In light of our disposition we need
not address these preliminary matters. See United States v. ___ _____________
Butt, 955 F.2d 77, 80 n.3 (1st Cir. 1992) (leaving open the ____
question whether the federal rules recognize a
psychotherapist-patient privilege); United States v. Barrett, _____________ _______
766 F. 2d 609, 616 (1st Cir.) (same), cert. denied, 474 U.S. ____________
923 (1985).
-3-
her permanent psychological injury which had disabled her
from all employment since May 9, 1990, rendered her unable to
seek work, and required her to submit to continuing
psychiatric care. She sought compensatory damages for her
alleged emotional disability in addition to punitive damages,
front pay, back pay and employment benefits. To mount a
defense, obviously defendant needed discovery from Dr.
Gaticales who, as plaintiff's treating psychiatrist
throughout the period of alleged disability, had unique
firsthand knowledge and opinions about the plaintiff's
condition. Cf. Nelson v. Lewis, 534 A.2d 720, 722 (N.H. ___ ______ _____
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Rankin v. Liberty Mutual, (1st Cir. 1995).
Rankin v. Liberty Mutual (Rankin v. Liberty Mutual) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
National Hockey League v. Metropolitan Hockey Club, Inc.
427 U.S. 639 (Supreme Court, 1976)
Harris v. Forklift Systems, Inc.
510 U.S. 17 (Supreme Court, 1993)
In Re L. Joyce Hampers
651 F.2d 19 (First Circuit, 1981)
United States v. James W. Barrett
766 F.2d 609 (First Circuit, 1985)
In Re San Juan Dupont Plaza Hotel Fire Litigation. Petition of the Plaintiffs' Steering Committee
859 F.2d 1007 (First Circuit, 1988)
Dr. Armando Barreto v. Citibank, N.A.
907 F.2d 15 (First Circuit, 1990)
United States v. Herbert Alan Butt, A/K/A Alan Butt, United States v. James T. Semon, United States v. Herbert Alan Butt, A/K/A Alan Butt
955 F.2d 77 (First Circuit, 1992)
Nelson v. Lewis
534 A.2d 720 (Supreme Court of New Hampshire, 1987)
Sabree v. United Brotherhood of Carpenters & Joiners of America, Local No. 33
126 F.R.D. 422 (D. Massachusetts, 1989)
Ziemann v. Burlington County Bridge Commission
155 F.R.D. 497 (D. New Jersey, 1994)