Brown v. Trovato
- Paul Engelmayer
- 1:23-cv-09895
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 7
In Brown v. Trovato, Judge Parker partly granted Trovato’s discovery motion and denied Brown’s protective-order motion over therapist records.
Marissa Brown must produce redacted current social-worker records concerning emotional harm from the alleged rape. Richard Trovato may receive and use those records only under the court’s confidentiality restrictions and only to defend this case.
What happened
Brown v. Trovato concerns Marissa Brown’s lawsuit alleging that Richard Trovato raped her in 2007. Brown seeks damages for assault and battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and a claim under New York City’s Victims of Gender-Motivated Violence Protection Act.
Trovato, who was representing himself, asked Brown to provide additional discovery, including medical and police records and information about witnesses and exhibits. The remaining dispute concerned whether Brown had to provide records from her current mental-health provider. Brown argued that those records were sensitive, unnecessary, and should be protected.
The court granted Trovato’s motion to compel in part and otherwise denied it, and denied Brown’s motion for a protective order. Judge Katharine H. Parker ordered Brown to produce redacted social-worker records concerning emotional harm from the alleged rape, while limiting Trovato’s use and disclosure of those records.
The detailed version
- Brown v. Trovato · No. 1:23-cv-09895
- Paul Engelmayer
- Sept. 23, 2024
Background
Marissa Brown sued Richard Trovato over an alleged rape in February 2007. She asserted common-law claims for assault and battery and intentional infliction of emotional distress, along with a claim under New York City’s Victims of Gender-Motivated Violence Protection Act. The opinion states that jurisdiction is based on the parties’ different citizenship because Brown lives in Louisiana and Trovato lives in New York.
Trovato denied raping Brown and, while representing himself, moved to compel responses to document requests and interrogatories. He sought information including the identities of trial and expert witnesses, confirmation that Brown had searched for and produced relevant medical and police records, proposed trial exhibits, and contact information for people with knowledge of her allegations.
Brown’s counsel stated that most of the requested documents and responses had already been provided. The remaining dispute concerned Trovato’s request for authorizations to obtain records from Brown’s current mental-health provider, a licensed social worker. Brown argued that the current records were unnecessary and sensitive, and offered to produce redacted records limited to matters concerning emotional harm from the alleged rape.
Legal standard
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 permits discovery of nonprivileged information relevant to a claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case. Rule 37 permits a party to ask the court to compel discovery. Rule 26 also permits a protective order for good cause, including to prevent embarrassment or oppression or to protect privileged information.
Because this case is based on diversity jurisdiction, the court applied state law to the privilege issue. The court discussed New York’s protection for communications between a client and a licensed social worker. It also noted that the privilege may be waived when a person places their mental state at issue in a civil case.
Court’s analysis
The court found that Brown had placed her mental state at issue by seeking damages for emotional harm. Because Brown did not object to producing portions of her current records concerning treatment for continuing emotional harm caused by the alleged rape, the court ruled that those portions had to be produced.
The court also ruled that Trovato did not need information about unrelated issues Brown may have discussed with her therapist. The court concluded that issues arising long after the alleged rape were not proportional to the needs of the case. It therefore permitted the current therapist’s records to be redacted so that they showed only information concerning emotional harm stemming from the alleged rape.
Although the court recognized that the records would be produced directly to the alleged rapist, it found that withholding relevant and proportional records would impair Trovato’s ability to defend himself. Trovato was required to keep the records confidential, could disclose them only to an attorney he retained to represent him in this case, and could use them only to defend the action. The court declined to enter the specific protective order proposed by Brown, stating that her counsel could make the appropriate redactions and produce the records through the normal process.
The court found Trovato’s remaining discovery complaints moot or without merit. It rejected his complaints about late production because discovery was ongoing and supplementation was required when additional records were produced. It also found that he provided no factual support for claiming Brown had withheld relevant evidence.
Disposition
The court granted Trovato’s motion to compel in part and otherwise denied it. It denied Brown’s motion for a protective order. Brown was ordered to produce the redacted social-worker records by October 17, 2024. The court also set dates for status reporting, expert reports, expert discovery, and a later letter concerning summary-judgment briefing or readiness for trial. The clerk was requested to terminate the motions at ECF Nos. 37 and 43.
Read the full 7-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.