Free Docket Annotation - District Court of Connecticut - Connecticut

H ase :91_—cv-00180-RNC Document 634 s. Filed 08/27/2007 _ Page 1 of3’ . --.--,...Q_.
li ‘
plaintiffs and absentee classmembers over a period of tina,
identifying data is needed. Thus, all four factors of the gpg;
test favor disclosure of the requested records.
This court in gpg stated that this conclusion is not .
_ inconsistent with Conn. Gen. Stat. §§ 52-l46c(c)(2} and 52- ` _ _
` _ l46f(5) which·provide that communications between a`psychologist
and patient are privileged unless “in a civil proceeding, a
. {A-
` person introduces the person's psychological condition as an
element of his claim . . .-, and the judge finds that it is more
important to the interests of justice that the communications be
I disclosed than that the relationship between the person and _ .
U psychologist be protected.“ ppg, 126 F.R.D. at 449-50. In Qgg,
\- it was noted that "'plaintiff`is deemed to have waived any -
I privilege-he may have had when he put his medical condition into l
issue by initiating this lawsuit.‘" gg. at 450, quoting In re .
Agent Grande Prod. Liab. Litigation, 91 F.R.D. 616, 618_(E.D.Nll:
- l l98l). Defendants in the present case argue, however, that •
disclosure of documents relating to absentee classmembers‘ mental
health is not permitted under §§ 52—l46c{2) and 52»l46f(5)
because these classmembers did not voluntarily become parties. .
-1 Seventy-nine of the ll5 classmembers in this law suit have been i
state—declared incompetent and have been involuntarily committed
to state psychiatric facilities. Plaintiffs‘ Reply at 4*__1 '
U _ Presumably, all mentally retarded or brain injured persons are I
F I _ _ l 1

_- H H meJEQllllllIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
_ -_-— ; 1-cv-00180-RNC Document 534_ Fnled 08/27/2007 Page 2_0f 3 ; ·
. _: : ,2 »
• .- I I JI
" -9- - E
_§? E incapable of nanaging their own affairs and tnerefore cannot
~-F I
-4 P . ‘ . . , - .. . - - . - -
_ £ . H themselves consent, EDG.O3Lf 42 or tne ll: classmemcers have only
.¥r T! . . - - .. ‘ . . . .. .
pe‘ W appointed guardians or ccnservators wnose consent to tne release
di l of confidential information is required under Conn. Gen. Stat. §
· ~ 52—l46e, absent consent by the patient. Plaintiffs' Reply at 4.
‘ i In this case as in Doe, where "disclosure is sought by 2 _
Q professionals whose purpose it is to protect the constitutional
1 .
A rights cf the plaintiff class, tb{is] court.finds that it is more
H
important to the interests of justice that the communications be
cl ,“ b t t, "nnd r the st ct t rs se
dis osed even a sent consen` ‘ e cri arame e t
1 forth in the protective order, than that the relationship between
Q patient and psychologist/psychiatrist be prctected." See Doe,_
i l26 F.E.D. at 450. See also Lora, T4 ?.R.D. at 586. Justice
I
_ . , - J': -
‘ will not be served if plaint;ffs' counsel is required to obtain
\ consent from all classmembers when only lS% of the retarded or
brain danaoed ersons have "oersonnel leoallv en geared to
; - - - -
I I
.w consent.“ See id.
l
li
§
· Summarv .
\ Plaintiffs‘ Motion for`0rders Relating to Discovery is
`wiia .- . . . . · . .
Eeeg. [ grantee, snoject to plaint;ffs' proposed protective order whrcn
..:·: . _ ·
edi i is hereby adopted. The records are to be limited to those of the
K
I . - . . . _, ., . .. .- . . . . ..
I named p-a;nt;ffs and all tnose lncrvacuals wno are EI&UmEtlC&LLf
n .
‘ I. .
[ brain injured or mentally retarded who are currently residing at
E l i
-T`?jZ";‘= ‘

H -
_`‘‘· ?¢*’a"• - NC ‘ Document 534 _ _ Z _
; 1 ‘ ' 7
··1G· Q
if EI
` ` Harwich cx Fairfield Hills Hospital. Ccmpliancs shall ba in
= . E
_ I E aczcsrdanca with tha schaduling usda: issued pazrsuant tc: this
1
H isuling. `
E scm caaaasa. if
’ Datacl at Eaztfcrd, Ccnaacticut, this /9 day of Octmbazr,
_ I
4 1290. ‘ 5
I ` I `
- zi/¢
I Fats: C. Dctsa
. · I;. ` ». ., . . · · - ·.
l - Uzutaa Statas Dlstxlct auaga
§{
J _ .
N V
{ - .
il . A
i|‘ ‘°°
I
I] l
1 .
fg p
w a {
· ' E