ORDER RE DISCOVERY DISPUTE JOINT REPORT NO. 2

Re: Dkt. No. 62

HOWARD R. LLOYD, Magistrate Judge.

At issue in Discovery Dispute Joint Report No. 2 is plaintiff's document Request No. 1,1 in which he seeks all documents pertaining to three patients he saw during the Fall of 2012 while attending Palo Alto University (University). The request includes written records as well as DVD recordings of patient sessions.

Defendant argues that the requested documents are irrelevant because they say that this case concerns plaintiff's conduct vis-à-vis the University faculty, not patients. The University further contends that the documents are protected by privacy rights and the psychotherapist-patient privilege. Nevertheless, defendant is willing to look for and produce responsive materials, with patient-identifying information redacted.

Plaintiff argues that the documents are relevant to show that there was no basis for low evaluations of his performance and competence. Thus, he contends that the documents will also demonstrate that the decision to dismiss him from the University was arbitrary, capricious, and made in bad faith. He agrees that steps may be taken to protect patient privacy at trial, but he prefers to have unfettered access to the materials now.

This court finds that the requested documents fall within the broad scope of relevance under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1) and that disclosure may be made to plaintiff with minimal (if any) intrusion on privacy or privilege. Even so, the court also finds that disclosure of patient identities is unnecessary. Accordingly, with respect to written records, defendant shall conduct a diligent inquiry and reasonable search for responsive documents and produce them with patient-identifying information redacted. As for the DVD recordings, while the court appreciates defendant's assertion that "redaction" might not be possible, for discovery purposes the court strikes the following compromise: defendant shall produce to plaintiff audio-only recordings of the sessions. It remains an open issue whether any of these materials (hereafter "Patient Material") may be admissible at trial—and, further steps may well be necessary to protect patients' rights before any disclosure of the Patient Materials to anyone other than the parties and the court can be made. Meanwhile, defendant shall submit to the court copies of the patients' signed consent forms. (Identifying information such as names, birthdates, addresses, etc. may be redacted beforehand. If deemed necessary, defendant may submit the forms along with a request for sealing in compliance with Civ. L.R. 79-5.) And, unless otherwise ordered, plaintiff's use of the Patient Material shall be subject to the following restrictions:

SO ORDERED.