HomeMy WebLinkAbout2023-cv-1341 - Erbacher v. City Of Fort Collins, et al. - 106 - Order re Discovery Dispute
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 23-cv-01341-CNS-NRN
CODY ERBACHER,
Plaintiff,
v.
CITY OF FORT COLLINS and
JASON HAFERMAN;
Defendants.
ORDER ON DISCOVERY DISPUTE RELATING TO MENTAL HEALTH THERAPY
RECORDS
N. REID NEUREITER
United States Magistrate Judge
This matter came before the Court on a discovery dispute on November 21,
2024. One of the issues addressed was mental health or therapy records of Defendant ,
Jason Haferman, a former police officer for the City of Fort Collins (the “City”). The Joint
Discovery Dispute Statement relating to the issues raised at the hearing is found at ECF
No. 80-1.
Plaintiff became aware that Defendant Haferman was receiving ongoing mental
health therapy for PTSD and anxiety, conditions some of his co -workers believed were
hindering his ability to do his job properly. Plaintiff asked for production of “all records in
the City’s possession that relate to former Officer Haferman’s job suitability/fitness for
duty, his treatment (if any) for his PTSD or anxiety, and complete copies of any
Haferman psychological evaluations or assessments.” ECF No. 80-1.
Case No. 1:23-cv-01341-CNS-NRN Document 106 filed 01/10/25 USDC Colorado
pg 1 of 4
2
At the November 21, 2024 hearing, the Court directed the City to file the
requested records under level 2 restriction, allowing for in camera review, following
which the Court would issue an order.
On December 5, 2024, the Court had a follow-up discovery conference regarding
documents that had been submitted under restriction, found at ECF Nos. 82, 83, and
88. At the conclusion of the hearing, the Court ordered that certain documents—those
found in ECF Nos. 82 and 83—be produced to Plaintiff as confidential and “attorneys
eyes only.” These were documents referencing Defendant Haferman’s mental hea lth
condition or treatment that had been in the possession of the City of Fort Collins Police
Department (the “Police Department”) and were arguably relevant to the Monell claims
in this case. As to the restricted documents at ECF No. 88, the Court took the issue
under advisement. See ECF No. 100.
The Court has now reviewed in camera the materials submitted at ECF No. 88.
These were medical records of Defendant Haferman that had not been in the
possession of the City or its Police Department. These medical records include mental
health therapy records of Defendant Haferman.
Defendant Haferman’s counsel argues that these records cannot be relevant to
pending Monell claim because the neither City nor the Police Department knew their
contents. In addition, Defendant Haferman maintains that, notwithstanding any potential
marginal relevance of documents, the records should be protected from discovery
based on Defendant Haferman’s privacy interests and the psychotherapist-patient
privilege.
Case No. 1:23-cv-01341-CNS-NRN Document 106 filed 01/10/25 USDC Colorado
pg 2 of 4
3
In Jaffee v. Redmond, 518 U.S. 1 (1996), the United States Supreme Court
recognized a psychotherapist-patient privilege under Rule 501 of the Federal Rules of
Evidence. In Jaffe, the defendant police officer had shot and killed an individual to
prevent the stabbing of another person. The decedent’s family sued the officer alleging
constitutional violations and seeking damages. After the shooting, the officer sought
counseling from a licensed clinical social worker. The plaintiffs sought to obtain
information regarding the substance of the counseling sessions. The defendant refused,
citing psychotherapist-patient privilege. The Supreme Court noted that the
psychotherapist-patient privilege, like the attorney–client and spousal privileges, flows
from society's desire to facilitate certain relationships of confidence and trust. Jaffee,
518 U.S. at 10.
Effective psychotherapy . . . depends upon an atmosphere of confidence
and trust in which the patient is willing to make a frank and complete
disclosure of facts, emotions, memories, and fears. Because of the sensitive
nature of the problems for which individuals consult psychotherap ists,
disclosure of confidential communication made during counseling sessions
may cause embarrassment or disgrace. For this reason, the mere possibility
of disclosure may impede disclosure of the confidential relationship
necessary for successful treatment.
Id. Per the Supreme Court, these are the important societal interests the
psychotherapist-patient privilege works to protect.
So it is in this case and with these particular documents. Defendant Haferman
was a seeing a therapist to address his anxiety and the PTSD that arose from his work
as a police officer. The potential disclosure of such records might have the adverse
consequence of discouraging others in Defendant Haferman’s situation from seeking
counseling or therapy. The materials are covered by the psychotherapist-patient
privilege which is recognized under Rule 501. See Id. In addition, the Court finds these
Case No. 1:23-cv-01341-CNS-NRN Document 106 filed 01/10/25 USDC Colorado
pg 3 of 4
4
documents are not relevant to any claim or defense because the City and the Police
Department did not have access to them and therefore did not know their contents.
There is other evidence, including testimony and internal Police Department documents,
which may show the Police Department’s knowledge of Defendant Haferman’s mental
or emotional struggles. But the documents at issue in this discovery dispute, found at
ECF No. 88, are not relevant, are privileged, and need not be disclosed.
SO ORDERED,
Date: January 10, 2025 ____________________
N. Reid Neureiter
United States Magistrate Judge
Case No. 1:23-cv-01341-CNS-NRN Document 106 filed 01/10/25 USDC Colorado
pg 4 of 4