K. v. Sonoma County
- Robert Illman
- 3:22-cv-01202
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Michelle K. v. County of Sonoma, Judge Illman ordered Dr. Crossleysmith to testify because Gina Centeno’s privilege was waived or did not apply.
Dr. Virginia Crossleysmith must appear for a deposition, and the court ruled that Gina Centeno’s psychotherapist-patient privilege does not prevent questioning about the communications at issue.
What happened
In Michelle K. v. County of Sonoma, the court considered a dispute about whether Dr. Virginia Crossleysmith could be deposed about her communications with defendant Gina Centeno.
Dr. Crossleysmith was concerned that testifying might violate California’s psychotherapist-patient confidentiality rules and expose her to prosecution. The defendants argued that the deposition should proceed.
Judge Robert M. Illman ordered Dr. Crossleysmith to appear. He ruled that Centeno waived the privilege by giving third parties a letter from Dr. Crossleysmith, and that the privilege also did not apply because the communications were made in furtherance of crimes.
The detailed version
- K. v. Sonoma County · No. 3:22-cv-01202
- Robert Illman
- May 27, 2025
Background
The court addressed a joint letter brief concerning the deposition of Dr. Virginia Crossleysmith and whether the psychotherapist-patient privilege protected defendant Gina Centeno’s communications with her. The defendants sought to take Dr. Crossleysmith’s deposition. Dr. Crossleysmith was concerned that appearing for the deposition could violate her obligations under California’s psychotherapist-patient confidentiality requirements and subject her to prosecution.
The court decided the matter without a hearing under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 78(b) and Civil Local Rule 7-1(b).
Privilege Ruling
The court found that Centeno waived the psychotherapist-patient privilege by giving third parties a letter authored by Dr. Crossleysmith. According to the court, the letter described facts and circumstances concerning Centeno’s care of foster children, her mental and emotional status, her therapy related to the foster children, diagnoses, and other topics. The court found that submitting the letter to investigating agencies and personnel waived the privilege.
The court also ruled that the privilege did not apply because the communications were made in furtherance of a crime, fraud, or tort. The opinion states that the letter was submitted to government agencies investigating Centeno for abuse of foster children in her care, and that Centeno had since been convicted of harassing and abusing those children and was incarcerated. Based on those circumstances, the court found that the communications with Dr. Crossleysmith were made in furtherance of those crimes.
Disposition
Judge Robert M. Illman ordered Dr. Crossleysmith to appear for her deposition. The court stated that the psychotherapist-patient privilege had been waived and, in any event, did not apply because the communications were made in furtherance of a crime.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.