Does NJ have case law similar to Allen v. Superior Court from California (see www.pasternaklaw.com/documents/AndYourCase-InDiscovery.pdf at 12 ) holding deposition questioning “less intrusive” than Plaintiff’s being forced to produce physical psychotherapy records of privileged communications?
See p 12 of article at above link where the CA App. Div. held:
“the court abused its discretion when it failed to require a less intrusive method of discovery...such as by conducting a deposition without the production of records”
Would this not be analogous to the “third prong” of the “Kozlov test” requiring “least intrusive means” that the NJ Supreme Court ordered in Kinsella v Kinsella prohibiting even in camera review unless prima facie showing that all 3 prongs of the “Kozlov test” have been satisfied?
Would this be analogous to the NJ Supreme Court’s holding in Kinsella v Kinsella that 1) John’s own testimony regarding Mary’s emotional effect on him is “less intrusive means” than “treating psychotherapist’s” records 2) psychologist assigned for purposes of the case would also be a “less intrusive means” than “treating psychotherapist’s” records?
This question is too complex for this forum. I suggest you speak to an attorney.
If you found this Answer helpful, please mark it as "Best Answer". Your feedback is greatly appreciated. Peter J. Lamont, Esq. Law Offices of Peter J. Lamont 623 Lafayette Avenue, Suite 2, Hawthorne, NJ 07506 Phone: (973) 949-3770 Fax: (866) 603-0471 Toll Free: (855) NJLAW01 (855) 655-2901 www.peterlamontesq.com Additional Offices in New York, Monument, CO, San Juan, PR and affiliates throughout the country. PLEASE NOTE: The above statements are provided for informational purposes only and do not constitute legal advice. Transmission of the information is not intended to create, and the receipt does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship between sender and receiver. You should not act or rely on any information contained on this site without first seeking the advice of an attorney.
I agree with my colleague. You need to retain legal counsel. You have asked this type of question several times in this forum, and it's not appropriate to keep doing this.
Leonard R. Boyer, Esq. 201-.675-.5577. If you found this Answer helpful, please mark it as "Best Answer" Please be advised that the answer above is only general in nature cannot be construed as legal advice, given that not enough facts are known. It is your responsibility to retain a lawyer to analyze the facts specific to your particular situation in order to give you specific advice. Specific answers will require cognizance of all pertinent facts about your case. Any answers offered on Avvo are of a general nature only, and are not meant to create an attorney-client relationship.