Free Motion to Compel - District Court of Connecticut - Connecticut

H se :91-ov-00180-RNQ Document 5I;2j-i2; . Filed 08/27/2007 Page10f3 . --.--,...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 he
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 classmemhers‘ 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 -lJE!IIIIlllllIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
_ .·· -cv-00180-RNC Document 532-1_2 Fnled 08/27/2007 , Page _2 of 3 ; ·
. _: : ,2 »
• .- _ I JI
_§? E incapable of nanaging their own affairs and tnerefore cannot
~-F I
_f” H themselves consent, and.onlv 22 of the ll5 classmembers have duly
Y! . . - - . . ` . . . . . ..
pa‘ 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 rigbts of the plaintiff class, tb{is] coort.finds that it is more
=i
important to the interests of justice that the communications be
disclosed," even absent consent, "under the strict parameters set
= forth in the protective order than that the relationship between
I 4. I ..
Q patient and psychclogist/psychiatrist be prctected.“ gee Qgg,_
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
i brain damaged persons have "personnel legally empowered to
I I
.w ccnsent.“ See id.
l
li
5
· Summarv .
\ Plaintiffs‘ Motion for`0rders Relating to Discovery is
`wiia .- . . . . · . .
deny. [ grantee, snoject to plaintaffs' proposed protective order which
..:·: . _ ·
edi i is hereby adopted. The records are to be limited to those of the
K
I . - . . . __ ., . .. .- . . . . ..
I named plaintiffs and Eli tnose lnorvlcuals wno are EI&UHEtlC&llf
n .
` I. .
[ brain injured or mentally retarded who are currently residing at
E l i
-T`?jZ";‘= ‘

_‘··- ·: rR1€C ‘ Document 532-12 _ _ I _
; 1 ‘ ' 7
··J.G· 1
if EI
` ` Harwich cx Fairfield Hills Hospital. Ccmpliancs shall ba in
= . i
_ I E aczcsrdanca with tha schaduling usda: issued pazrsuant tc: this
1
H ésuling. `
E scm caaaasa. if
’ Datacl at Eaztfcrd, Ccnaacticut, this /9 day of Octmbazr,
_ I
4 1290. ‘ 5
I ` I `
- zi/¢
I Fats: C. Dctsa
. · is- ` ». .. . . . . - -.
l - Uzutaa Statas Dlstxlct auaga
§{
1} C .
N V
g _ .
i|‘ ‘°°
I
if l
1 .
f. p
w 2 {
-‘;T:f.... Y, ` -