Lyon v. Paramount Global
- Clarke
- 1:22-cv-09229
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Lyon v. Paramount Global, Judge Clarke denied Defendants’ motion to compel medical records and a precise emotional-distress damages figure.
Jennifer Lyon must limit her emotional-distress evidence to garden-variety emotional distress, amend her disclosures and discovery responses, and refrain from presenting a specific damages figure to the jury. Defendants cannot obtain the disputed emotional-distress medical records through this motion and must meet and confer with Lyon about the disability-benefits records.
What happened
In Lyon v. Paramount Global, Defendants sought Jennifer Lyon’s medical records concerning emotional-distress damages and disability benefits, plus a revised damages calculation. Lyon said she would pursue only ordinary, limited emotional-distress damages and testify generally about them.
The court held that Lyon could withdraw her broader emotional-distress claims to preserve the confidentiality of her medical records. Because she chose that narrower approach, she cannot present medical evidence or testify beyond ordinary emotional distress, and she must update her disclosures to remove references to larger damages. She may state a damages theory but may not suggest a specific dollar amount to the jury.
Judge Jessica G. L. Clarke denied Defendants’ motion. The court also directed the parties to discuss the disability-benefits medical records and ordered Lyon to amend her disclosures and responses as required.
The detailed version
- Lyon v. Paramount Global · No. 1:22-cv-09229
- Clarke
- Oct. 12, 2023
Background
Defendants moved to compel Jennifer Lyon to produce three categories of information: medical records related to her alleged emotional-distress damages, medical records related to disability benefits she received after her employment ended, and a revised damages calculation. The lawsuit is an employment-discrimination case.
Defendants argued that Lyon had placed her physical and mental health at issue. They relied on allegations and discovery responses referring to interference with her physical health, stress medication, high blood pressure, risk of another stroke, a stress-related episode of chest pain that sent her to an emergency room, and a claimed $1,500,000 in emotional damages.
Emotional-distress records
Lyon changed her position and stated that she would seek only “garden variety” emotional-distress damages and testify generally about her emotional distress. The court explained that a plaintiff may withdraw or formally abandon broader emotional-distress claims to avoid waiving the psychotherapist-patient privilege—the protection for certain confidential mental-health communications.
The court accepted Lyon’s disavowal of non-garden-variety emotional-distress damages. As a result, she does not have to provide medical corroboration for the claimed injury, and Defendants cannot obtain her medical records on the basis that her entire physical and mental health is at issue. But Lyon is bound by her narrower position at trial. She may not testify beyond the ordinary emotional distress that might result from discrimination or offer privileged information or evidence of a psychiatric condition.
Damages calculation
The court rejected Defendants’ request for a precise calculation of Lyon’s garden-variety emotional-distress damages. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(e), Lyon must amend her disclosures and discovery responses to remove references to the more significant damages she previously sought. She must provide a damages theory, but not a precise amount, and she may not suggest a specific figure to the jury at trial.
Disability-benefits records and disposition
The parties also disputed whether Defendants were entitled to medical records related to disability benefits Lyon received after her employment ended. Because the parties apparently had not discussed that issue before asking the court to resolve it, the court directed them to meet and confer and determine whether they could reach an agreement.
Judge Jessica G. L. Clarke denied Defendants’ motion to compel and directed the parties to meet and confer about the disability-benefits records. The clerk was directed to terminate the motion listed as ECF No. 34.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.