Eckhart v. Fox News Network, LLC
- Ronnie Abrams
- 1:20-cv-05593
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Eckhart v. Fox News, Magistrate Judge Gorenstein ordered production of complete records from visits involving a reported mental problem.
The order directly affects Jennifer Eckhart's obligation to produce complete records for visits involving a reported mental problem and Fox News Network, LLC and the other defendants' access to those records, subject to confidentiality designations.
What happened
In Eckhart v. Fox News Network, LLC, a discovery dispute concerned redactions in records from visits where the plaintiff reported a mental problem.
The court said redactions based only on relevance are generally not allowed, including when personal privacy concerns are involved, if a confidentiality order exists. It ordered the plaintiff to produce the entire record for each such visit, while allowing the records to be marked confidential.
Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein ordered production within 10 days, unless the parties mutually agreed to another date.
The detailed version
- Eckhart v. Fox News Network, LLC · No. 1:20-cv-05593
- Ronnie Abrams
- Dec. 28, 2022
Background
The order addressed a discovery dispute identified by Docket Nos. 220 and 224. The opinion states that the dispute involved redactions in records concerning visits during which the plaintiff complained about a mental problem.
Court’s Analysis
The court stated that the usual rule is that redactions based on relevance are not permissible. It further stated that this rule applies even when the redactions are based on personal-privacy concerns, provided that a confidentiality order is in place. The court noted that it regretted not making this point clear in its earlier ruling.
Order
The court ordered that, to the extent a practitioner was presented with a complaint by the plaintiff about a mental problem during a particular visit, the plaintiff must produce the entire record for that visit. The records may be designated as confidential. Production was required within 10 days, unless the parties mutually agreed to another date.
Effect
The order requires production of specified medical or visit records in the ongoing discovery process, while permitting confidentiality designations. It does not state that the court resolved the underlying claims in the case.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.