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?