Smith v. Superior Court
Decision Date | 17 April 1981 |
Citation | 118 Cal.App.3d 136,173 Cal.Rptr. 145 |
Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Parties | Gerald Walker SMITH, Petitioner, v. SUPERIOR COURT OF the STATE OF CALIFORNIA, IN AND FOR the COUNTY OF SAN MATEO, Respondent, Linda R. SMITH, Real Party in Interest. Civ. 50983. |
Charles A. Pinkham, Jr., Burlingame, for petitioner.
Jack K. Berman and Robert I. Kligman, Attorneys at Law, San Francisco, for real party in interest.
Gerald Smith, the petitioner in a marital dissolution action and a licensed psychologist, seeks a writ of mandate or prohibition to restrain respondent court from enforcing a discovery order requiring him to produce the names, addresses and telephone numbers of certain patients and former patients. This court issued an alternative writ at the direction of the Supreme Court. 1
The sole issue presented is whether the discovery order violates the psychotherapist-patient privilege (Evid.Code, § 1010 et seq.).
In the dissolution action, real party in interest, petitioner's wife, served the following interrogatory upon petitioner: "With reference to each person whom you have seen professionally since January 1, 1978, list the following: (a) Name of patient; (b) Address of patient; (c) Telephone number of patient; (d) How much money have you received from that patient since January 1, 1978, through May 31, 1979?"
When petitioner objected to this interrogatory on the basis of the psychotherapist-patient privilege, real party in interest filed a motion to compel an answer. In his declaration in opposition to real party in interest's motion, petitioner stated:
At the hearing on the motion, counsel for real party in interest stated that the information sought was relevant to the issue of spousal support. Counsel alleged that, while petitioner's bank deposit slips showed yearly deposits of approximately $16,000, appointment books in real party in interest's possession revealed an income of approximately $60,000 per year and that "monies were deposited in safety deposit boxes during the whole course of the marriage."
The trial court urged the parties to work between themselves and find a compromise that would both preserve the patients' anonymity and secure for the wife more detailed information regarding petitioner's income. After the parties failed to reach an agreement, respondent court, in its memorandum of decision, ruled:
Evidence Code section 1014 2 in pertinent part provides: "Subject to Section 912 and except as otherwise provided in this article, the patient, whether or not a party, has a privilege to refuse to disclose, and to prevent another from disclosing, a confidential communication between patient and psychotherapist if the privilege is claimed by: (a) The holder of the privilege; (b) A person who is authorized to claim the privilege by the holder of the privilege; or (c) The person who was the psychotherapist at the time of the confidential communication, ..." Section 1015 provides: "The psychotherapist who received or made a communication subject to the privilege under this article shall claim the privilege whenever he is present when the communication is sought to be disclosed and is authorized to claim the privilege under subdivision (c) of Section 1014." Thus, under the conditions set out in section 1015, petitioner must assert the privilege of his clients to prevent disclosure of privileged communications.
In its 1965 comment to section 1014, the Legislature recognized that the unique nature of the psychotherapist-patient relationship requires a greater degree of protection than that afforded the physician-patient relationship. The Legislative Committee Comment states:
The Legislative Committee Comment continues: (See also In re Lifschutz (1970) 2 Cal.3d 415, 431, 434-435, fn. 20, 85 Cal.Rptr. 829, 467 P.2d 557.)
This statutory privilege is to be construed in favor of the patient (id. at p. 437, 85 Cal.Rptr. 829, 467 P.2d 557), and, indeed, is in part based upon the constitutional right to privacy (id. at p. 432, 85 Cal.Rptr. 829, 467 P.2d 557).
Since, as the parties properly concede, information sought by the discovery order does not fall within any of the exceptions to the privilege (see §§ 912, 1016-1028), the sole issue in this case is whether it may be defined as a confidential communication protected by the privilege.
A confidential communication is...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Alameda County v. Superior Court (Darlene W.)
...of Privilege: Waiver and the Litigator, 84 Michigan Law Review 1605 (1986).) Petitioner relies on our decision Smith v. Superior Court (1981) 118 Cal.App.3d 136, 173 Cal.Rptr. 145, a marital dissolution action in which we held that the names of the husband's psychiatric patients were not di......
-
People v. Gonzales, S191240.
...the fact that treatment has been sought may itself be considered confidential information (see, e.g., Smith v. Superior Court (1981) 118 Cal.App.3d 136, 140–142, 173 Cal.Rptr. 145)—when treatment is entered into pursuant to a condition of parole the parole officer and supervising parole aut......
-
People v. Gonzales
...the fact that treatment has been sought may itself be considered confidential information (see, e.g., Smith v. Superior Court (1981) 118 Cal.App.3d 136, 140–142, 173 Cal.Rptr. 145)—when treatment is entered into pursuant to a condition of parole the parole officer and supervising parole aut......
-
People ex rel. Herrera v. Stender
...says nothing regarding the reason for legal counsel or the content of the communication with the attorney” (Smith v. Superior Court (1981) 118 Cal.App.3d 136, 142, 173 Cal.Rptr. 145), we acknowledge that the situation may be different for a practice that specializes in a specific area of th......
-
Chapter 4 - §10. Psychotherapist-patient privilege
...because it reveals the existence and, in a general sense, the nature of a mental disorder. Smith v. Superior Ct. (1st Dist.1981) 118 Cal.App.3d 136, 141-42; 2 Witkin, California Evidence (5th ed.), Witnesses §225. This includes asking a person whether he has ever received psychiatric treatm......
-
Table of Cases null
...Smith v. Ohio, 494 U.S. 541, 110 S. Ct. 1288, 108 L. Ed. 2d 464 (1990)—Ch. 5-A, §2.1.1(1)(b)[3][a] Smith v. Superior Court, 118 Cal. App. 3d 136, 173 Cal. Rptr. 145 (1st Dist. 1981)—Ch. 4-C, §10.2.2(3)(d); §10.3.1 Smith v. U.S., 324 F.2d 879 (D.C. Cir. 1963)—Ch. 5-A, §3.3.4(1) Snibbe v. Sup......