LONGFELLOW v. ROBINSONS WHARF INC

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MAINE
MATTHEW LONGFELLOW, 	)
)
Plaintiff 	)
)
v. 	) 	2:25-cv-00573-LEW
)
ROBINSON’S WHARF, INC., 	)
)
Defendant 	)
DISCOVERY ORDER
In this case, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant wrongfully terminated Plaintiff’s
employment in 2024. The parties dispute whether Defendant is entitled to obtain Plaintiff’s
mental health records.
In accordance with the Court’s order issued following a discovery conference on
the issue, the parties filed summary written argument regarding Defendant’s request for the
records. During the conference and in his written submission, Plaintiff represented that his
claim for emotional distress damages is limited to “garden variety” emotional distress
damages. 	Defendant contends that Plaintiff’s allegations of “severe emotional distress,
humiliation, and mental anguish” are inconsistent with a claim for “garden variety”
emotional distress damages. 	Defendant also argues that Plaintiff’s explanation for some
of his work performance issues demonstrates that the records are relevant to issues other
than damages. Defendant further contends that Plaintiff did not assert a privilege in
response to the discovery requests and, therefore, Plaintiff has waived the privilege.
Case 2:25-cv-00573-LEW Document 22 Filed 04/23/26 Page 1 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
The 	Supreme 	Court 	has 	recognized 	a 	privilege 	protecting 	“confidential
communications between a licensed psychotherapist and her patients in the course of
diagnosis or treatment. . . .” Jaffee v. Redmond, 518 U.S. 1, 15 (1996). The Supreme Court
noted that the privilege served important interests, including the need for patients to talk
openly and freely in confidence for treatment to be successful. 	Id. at 10-11. When
recognizing the privilege, the Supreme Court did not envision that a trial court would
determine whether the privilege applied based on an assessment of relevance of the
information requested:
We reject the balancing component of the privilege implemented by [the
Court of Appeals] and a small number of States. Making the promise of
confidentiality contingent upon a trial judge's later evaluation of the relative
importance of the patient's interest in privacy and the evidentiary need for
disclosure would eviscerate the effectiveness of the privilege.
Id.
The privilege, therefore, applies to Defendant’s request for Plaintiff’s mental health
records unless Plaintiff waived the privilege. While Plaintiff did not directly raise the
psychotherapist-patient privilege in his response to the discovery requests, he did cite the
confidential nature of the requested information in his objection to Defendant’s requests
seeking information regarding his mental health treatment. 	Given the important reasons
for the privilege discussed by the Supreme Court in Jaffe, the Court is not inclined to
construe Plaintiff’s response to the discovery requests or Plaintiff’s failure to respond
timely to the discovery requests as a waiver of the privilege. 	The question is whether
Plaintiff’s claim for emotional distress damages constitutes a waiver of the privilege.
Case 2:25-cv-00573-LEW Document 22 Filed 04/23/26 Page 2 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
Plaintiff contends that his claim for “garden variety” emotional distress damages
does not constitute a waiver of the privilege. “‘Garden variety emotional damages are: the
distress that any healthy, well-adjusted person would feel as a result of being so victimized.
They are ‘those feelings that would likely be experienced by anyone who experienced what
the plaintiff alleges occurred.’” 	Doe v. Brunswick School Department, No. 2:15-cv-257-
DBH, 2016 WL 8732370, at *3 (Apr. 29, 2016) (quoting Flowers v. C.O. Owens # 1585,
274 F.R.D. 218, 225-26 (N.D. Ill. 2011)). 	This District has determined that a claim for
garden variety emotional distress “does not waive the psychotherapist-patient privilege.”
Id. (citing Morrisette v. Kennebec Cty., No. Civ. 01-01-B-S, 2001 WL 969014, at *1 (D.
Me. Aug. 21, 2001)); see also Stark v. Hartt Transp. Sys., Inc., No. 2:12-cv-195-NT, 2013
WL 358266, at *9-10 (D. Me. Jan. 28, 2013).
Here, Plaintiff has unequivocally represented that his emotional distress claim is
limited to “garden variety” emotional distress damages. 	Indeed, in his written discovery
argument, Plaintiff states that “[h]e is not seeking damages for emotional distress beyond
that which would likely be felt by any healthy, well-adjusted person as a result of the causes
of action alleged.” Consistent with the sound reasoning of prior decisions in this District,
Plaintiff’s claim for “garden variety” emotional distress damages does not waive the
Case 2:25-cv-00573-LEW Document 22 Filed 04/23/26 Page 3 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>

4
privilege.1 	Accordingly, 	Plaintiff 	is 	not 	required 	to 	produce 	records 	within 	the
psychotherapist-patient privilege.2
NOTICE
Any objections to this order shall be filed in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 72.
/s/ John C. Nivison
U.S. Magistrate Judge
Dated this 23rd day of April, 2026.
1 As the court in Stark noted, “[t]he psychotherapist privilege ‘does not extend to information regarding the
occurrence of treatment, including whether a psychotherapist treated [the privilege holder], the dates of
such treatment, and the length of treatment on each date.” 2013 WL 358266, at *10 n.5 (quoting Perry v.
City of New Haven, No. 3:11 CV 1485 (RNC), 2012 WL 3887061, at *2 (D.Conn. Sept. 6, 2012)).
2 To the extent Defendant contends that the requested information is relevant to non-damages issues, the
Court is not persuaded. The Court does not understand that Plaintiff will claim that the conduct that
Defendant cites as grounds for the termination of Plaintiff’s employment is the product of Plaintiff’s
medication or of a mental health-related issue. 	Further, to order disclosure on that basis would require the
Court to engage in the balancing of interests the Supreme Court rejected in Jaffe.
Case 2:25-cv-00573-LEW Document 22 Filed 04/23/26 Page 4 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>