## Facts

- An employee sued her employer under Title VII for sex discrimination and retaliation and sought damages including “mental distress.”
- In deposition, she testified she had seen a psychotherapist for emotional distress she attributed to the alleged discrimination.
- The employer moved to compel production of medical and psychotherapy records, including psychotherapy, substance-abuse treatment, and HIV testing records.
- At the discovery hearing, plaintiff’s counsel stated she would seek only non-medical emotional distress damages (e.g., humiliation and embarrassment) and would not seek compensation for medical or psychotherapeutic treatment.
- The magistrate judge denied the motion to compel substantive treatment records, allowed discovery only of the identities of therapists and dates of treatment, and barred plaintiff from offering evidence of emotional distress that required medical care.
- The employer objected under Rule 72(a), arguing the emotional-distress claim waived any applicable privileges.

## Issues

1. Whether a plaintiff waives the federal psychotherapist-patient privilege by seeking emotional distress damages in a Title VII case.
2. Whether, after the plaintiff limits her claim to non-medical “garden-variety” emotional distress, the defendant may compel production of psychotherapy records and other sensitive medical records (including substance-abuse and HIV testing records).
3. Whether the magistrate judge’s discovery limits were clearly erroneous or contrary to law under Rule 72(a).

## Decision

- The district court overruled the employer’s Rule 72(a) objections and affirmed the magistrate judge’s order.
- The court held the plaintiff did not waive the psychotherapist-patient privilege by pursuing only garden-variety emotional distress damages and not relying on treatment, diagnosis, or expert mental-health testimony.
- Discovery was limited to non-substantive information: the identities of psychotherapists and dates of treatment.
- The court barred discovery of the contents of psychotherapy communications and barred discovery of substance-abuse treatment and HIV testing records.
- The plaintiff was precluded from testifying to emotional distress that necessitated medical or psychotherapeutic care; her emotional-distress proof was limited to feelings such as humiliation, embarrassment, anger, disgust, and frustration.

## Legal Principles

- The federal psychotherapist-patient privilege protects confidential communications made for diagnosis or treatment and is not overcome merely because the information could be relevant.
- Waiver of an evidentiary privilege generally requires that the privilege holder place privileged communications directly at issue; a garden-variety emotional distress claim, without reliance on treatment or expert evidence, does not do so.
- Courts may condition preservation of the psychotherapist privilege on the plaintiff limiting emotional-distress damages and testimony to non-medical reactions and foregoing proof tied to treatment or diagnosis.
- Where emotional distress is limited in this manner, discovery may be confined to minimal non-substantive details (e.g., provider identities and treatment dates), and highly sensitive medical records with weak connection to the remaining issues may be denied.
- Under Rule 72(a), a magistrate judge’s nondispositive discovery ruling is modified only if clearly erroneous or contrary to law.

## Conclusion

The court upheld a discovery order that preserved psychotherapist-patient privilege when the plaintiff limited her Title VII damages claim to garden-variety emotional distress, permitting only therapist identities and treatment dates while barring disclosure of treatment content and unrelated sensitive medical records.


Santelli v. Electro-Motive, 188 F.R.D. 306 (N.D. Ill. 1999)