Chamlin v. Johnson & Johnson

Background

Matthew Chamlin brought a proposed class action against Johnson & Johnson and McNeil Nutritionals, LLC, alleging that the defendants used false and misleading labeling for a food product in violation of New York law. The discovery dispute concerned a subpoena served on non-party Susan Chamlin, Matthew Chamlin’s wife. The defendants moved to compel her to produce medical records that they claimed were relevant and not protected by privilege.

Susan Chamlin asserted New York’s doctor-patient privilege. The court explained that, under Federal Rule of Evidence 501, state law governs privilege when state law supplies the rule of decision. The applicable New York privilege is set out in Section 4504 of the New York Civil Practice Law and Rules.

Arguments and analysis

The defendants made two principal arguments. First, they contended that Susan Chamlin’s communications with her doctor were not privileged because Matthew Chamlin attended the relevant medical appointments. Second, they argued that the privilege had been waived because Matthew Chamlin testified at his deposition that he bought the defendants’ product for the first time only hours after receiving a recommendation from Susan Chamlin’s doctor. According to the defendants, this testimony placed the communications at issue because it could undermine Matthew Chamlin’s claim that he relied on the product’s packaging and that the labeling affected his purchase decision.

The court rejected the first argument. It explained that the presence of a third person does not necessarily destroy the New York doctor-patient privilege. The question is whether, considering the circumstances and especially the reason for the third person’s presence, the communication was intended to remain confidential. The court concluded that a spouse’s presence at a medical appointment is consistent with an intent to keep the communications confidential. It also found that Matthew Chamlin’s willingness to testify about the appointment was not compelling evidence of Susan Chamlin’s own intent because Matthew Chamlin did not hold the privilege.

The court also rejected the waiver argument. It found that the defendants had identified no authority showing that a non-party places her own privileged communications at issue merely because her spouse brings a lawsuit, or that a plaintiff who does not hold the privilege can place another non-party’s communications at issue. The court further found that Matthew Chamlin had not affirmatively raised any recommendation by Susan Chamlin’s doctor in his pleaded claims and had not indicated that he intended to rely on the doctor’s communications to support his claims or respond to a defense. The court held that relevance alone was not enough to overcome the privilege.

Ruling

Judge Debra Freeman denied the defendants’ motion to compel production of Susan Chamlin’s medical records. The order concluded that the records remained privileged and that no waiver based on placing the communications at issue had occurred.