Saint Luke Inst., Inc. v. Jones

• Decision Date: 20 November 2020
• Docket Number: No. 62, Sept. Term, 2019,62, Sept. Term, 2019
• Citation: 241 A.3d 886,471 Md. 312
• Parties: SAINT LUKE INSTITUTE, INC. v. Andre JONES
• Court: Court of Special Appeals of Maryland

471 Md. 312

241 A.3d 886

SAINT LUKE INSTITUTE, INC.

v.Andre JONES

No. 62, Sept. Term, 2019

Court of Appeals of Maryland.

November 20, 2020

Argued by Ellis J. Koch (Law Offices of Ellis J. Koch, Rockville, MD), on brief, for Petitioner.

Argued by Jerry Kristal (Weitz & Luxenberg, P.C., Cherry Hill, NJ; Jonathan Ruckdeschel, Z. Stephen Horvat and Jacqueline G. Badders, The Ruckdeschel Law Firm, LLC, Ellicott City, MD), on brief, for Respondent.

Argued before: Barbera, C.J.; McDonald, Watts, Hotten, Getty, Booth, Biran, JJ.

Booth, J.

In this case, we are asked to determine the legal standard to be applied under the Maryland Confidentiality of Medical Records Act, Maryland Code (2000, 2019 Repl. Vol.), Health General ("HG") §§ 4-301 through 309 ("Confidentiality Act"), when a private party in a civil case seeks discovery of a patient's mental health records where the patient has not authorized the disclosure. We are also asked to determine whether the custodian of the records has standing to raise the patient's privacy rights or other legal opposition to disclosure on the patient's behalf. These questions arise in the context of a civil case filed in Massachusetts in which the plaintiffs allege that they were sexually abused by a brother or member of a religious order while they were minor children residing in a children's group home that employed the brother. The Massachusetts plaintiffs filed a proceeding in Maryland seeking discovery of the brother's mental health records that they believe are in the custody of Saint Luke Institute, Inc. ("SLI"), a facility located in Maryland. After considering the plaintiffs’ motion for a court order to produce the records and SLI's opposition to disclosure, the Circuit Court for Prince George's County entered an order directing that SLI produce the brother's mental health records under seal to a Massachusetts court. Prior to ordering the disclosure of the records, the circuit court did not review the pleadings in the Massachusetts case, nor did the court conduct an in camera review of the records. SLI appealed the order to the Court of Special Appeals, which reversed the judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings.

For the reasons more fully set forth in this opinion, we affirm the judgment of the Court of Special Appeals and remand this proceeding to the circuit court for that court to undertake an in camera review of the mental health records and to determine what portion of the records are relevant in accordance with its statutory obligation under HG § 4-307, and to enter an order transferring the portion of the records determined to be relevant under seal to the Massachusetts court for that court's determination as to what should be released to counsel.

I.Background

A. Massachusetts Action

This case arises from a discovery motion related to a civil lawsuit pending in the Massachusetts Superior Court involving four consolidated cases alleging negligent hiring and supervision of Brother Edward Anthony Holmes, who was a member of the Congregation of Sacred Hearts ("CSH"), and who is now deceased. In 2017, Petitioner, Andre Jones, the lead plaintiff, filed a lawsuit in the Massachusetts Superior Court, Trial Division in Suffolk County ("Massachusetts Court"), naming as defendants the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Boston and the CSH ("Massachusetts Action").¹ Although the Massachusetts complaint is not included in the record of the proceedings in this case, according to proffers made by counsel for Mr. Jones, the suit alleges that Mr. Jones was sexually assaulted by Brother Holmes when he was a minor, while he was placed in his care at the Nazareth Child Care Center in Jamaica Plain, Massachusetts ("Nazareth"). According to Mr. Jones, the complaint in the Massachusetts Action includes counts alleging negligent hiring and negligent supervision of Brother Holmes by the defendants.²

Mr. Jones asserts that documents produced by the defendant CSH in discovery in the Massachusetts Action noted that Brother Holmes underwent psychotherapy at SLI in the early 1990s. SLI, located in Maryland, is a "Catholic organization with 40 years of experience treating Catholic clergy" and "offers a full range of psychological screening, treatment and educational services for Catholic clergy." Mr. Jones alleges that, according to the documents produced by the CSH, two psychiatric evaluation reports on Brother Holmes were written by SLI employees, dated June 28, 1991 and November 8, 1993.

The produced documents highlighted and summarized a "caution" contained in the 1993 report generated by SLI, stating, "[t]here are no reported signs that [Brother Holmes] has been sexually inappropriate. However, we would caution [ ] [Brother Holmes] and his order: there are many signs of risk that should not lightly be dismissed." The report also noted that Brother Holmes had "not worked through his experience of being molested as a child."

After Mr. Jones learned of the existence of the 1991 and 1993 reports, he requested that the reports and associated records be produced by the defendants in the Massachusetts Action. Mr. Jones was informed that the mental health evaluation reports had been destroyed by the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Boston and the CSH in the early 2000s.

Unable to obtain the mental health evaluation reports directly from the defendants, Mr. Jones and the other plaintiffs sought production of the records from SLI by filing a Motion for the Issuance of Letters of Rogatory and a Commission³ to Take the Deposition of a Non-Resident Witness Custodian of Records. The Massachusetts Court entered an order granting the motion and issued a Commission and Letters Rogatory.

The Letters Rogatory requests "as a matter of comity" that an appropriate Maryland Court "issue process to compel [t]he [c]ustodian of [r]ecords for St. Luke Institute ... to appear" for a deposition in Maryland and to produce documents. The Letters Rogatory acknowledges that SLI is located out of state and is therefore not subject to the jurisdiction of the Massachusetts Court, and that its appearance "can be compelled only by process issued by the appropriate authority in the State of Maryland." The Letters Rogatory explained that "the production of documents and things for copying and inspection are left entirely to your Court's procedure ." (Emphasis added). The Letters Rogatory reflect that the documents to be produced are "all documents related to Brother Edward Anthony Holmes, including but not limited to, psychotherapy examinations/risk assessments that were conducted on June 28, 1991 and November 8, 1993 at St. Luke Institute."

B. Maryland Circuit Court Proceeding

After the Letters Rogatory was issued by the Massachusetts Court, Mr. Jones sought a subpoena from the Circuit Court for Prince George's County requesting that SLI produce Brother Holmes’ mental health records. SLI filed a motion to quash the subpoena, arguing that under HG § 4-307, mental health records may only be disclosed to a private party in litigation by a court order, not through a subpoena.

Apparently realizing the error in attempting to obtain the records by subpoena as opposed to a court order, Mr. Jones filed a cross-motion for a court order to produce the mental health records. In connection with the motion for a court order, counsel for Mr. Jones filed a memorandum in which counsel described the underlying Massachusetts Action, including the allegations of sexual abuse, and represented that the litigation included counts for negligent hiring and negligent supervision. In the memorandum, Mr. Jones alleged that he was sexually assaulted by Brother Holmes after being removed from the custody of his parents and placed at Nazareth. The memorandum stated that three other individuals had made similar allegations of sexual assault by Brother Holmes while the plaintiffs were residents of Nazareth, and that those cases had been consolidated with Mr. Jones’ case in the Massachusetts Action. Mr. Jones described the discovery that had been undertaken by the parties, explaining that defendant CSH had produced written documents consisting of handwritten and typed notes from SLI, which referenced two psychiatric evaluations that were performed on Brother Holmes, dated June 28, 1991 and November 8, 1993. Counsel for Mr. Jones attached to the motion copies of the handwritten and typed notes that had been produced by CSH. Mr. Jones argued that the "relevance of these psychiatric evaluations and mental health records to the underlying case [were] self-evident." Specifically, Mr. Jones contended that "[w]hat was known about Holmes’ propensity to sexually abuse minors in his care and when that was known is a central issue in the case." Counsel proffered that Mr. Jones had requested that CSH produce the underlying records or reports but was informed that the mental health reports had been destroyed by CSH in the early 2000s.

In the memorandum, Mr. Jones asserted that Brother Holmes’ sexual abuse of minors at Nazareth was "public knowledge," and attached as exhibits copies of three articles from Boston newspapers,⁴ which reported that Brother Holmes pleaded guilty in 2006 to repeatedly raping and assaulting two boys in the 1970s and 1980s and that he was sentenced to five years and one day for the crimes. The articles recite that Brother Holmes was a member of CSH and had been assigned to work at Nazareth, which was run by the Archdiocese of Boston. The sex crimes occurred while the children were living at the Nazareth facility. Mr. Jones also pointed out that Brother Holmes died in August 2011.

SLI filed a memorandum in opposition, arguing that the circuit court would need to examine pleadings in the Massachusetts Action to properly determine whether Brother Holmes’ mental condition had been raised and whether such evidence was relevant.

In a memorandum opinion and order dated January 23, 2019, the circuit court granted Mr. Jones’ cross-motion for an order to produce Broth...