United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Seattle
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
L. ROBART UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
the court is Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission's (“EEOC”) motion for
reconsideration of the court's September 6, 2017, order
related to certain discovery disputes. (See MFR
(Dkt. # 42); 9/6/17 Order (Dkt. # 39).) The court has
considered the EEOC's motion, its prior order, the
relevant portions of the record, and the applicable law.
Being fully advised, the court DENIES the EEOC's motion.
for reconsideration are disfavored, and the court ordinarily
will deny such motions unless the moving party shows (a)
manifest error in the prior ruling, or (b) new facts or legal
authority which could not have been brought to the attention
of the court earlier through reasonable diligence. Local
Rules W.D. Wash. LCR 7(h)(1). Here, the EEOC has failed to
make either showing.
opening paragraph, the EEOC mischaracterizes the court's
ruling. The EEOC states that the court ruled that Mr. Oleg
Ivanov had “put all of his non-hearing medical records
and information at issue from January 2010 to the
present” and that he had waived his
psychotherapist-patient privilege if the record or
information “also refers to a non-psychological
condition of Mr. Ivanov.” (MTR at 1-2 (citing 9/6/17
Order at 19, n.12 & 26:3-8).) Again, on page five of its
memorandum, the EEOC incorrectly states that the court ruled
that Mr. Ivanov had placed “his entire non-hearing
impairment medical history at issue.” (Id. at
5.) The court's ruling was not so broad.
fact, the court does not require Mr. Ivanov to produce all of
his medical records, as the EEOC suggests, but rather only
those medical records and/or mental health records that
“relate to either Mr. Ivanov's hearing impairment
or any other condition that constitutes a disability
from January 1, 2010, to the present.” (9/6/17 Order at
26 (italics added).) Medical records of Mr. Ivanov's
hearing impairment are relevant to his Americans with
Disabilities Act (“ADA”) claims in this
proceeding and to Defendants' defenses. (See Id.
17-19.) Thus, the EEOC placed these records at issue when it
filed its action on Mr. Ivanov's behalf. (Id.)
In addition, there is evidence in the record of an
undisclosed disability. (See Id. at 18-19 (citing
evidence in the record).) As the court explained, Defendants
are entitled to discover information related to this
undisclosed disability (whether physical or psychological in
nature) because it is relevant to their defense to Mr.
Ivanov's claims and Mr. Ivanov has placed this
information at issue by virtue of the substance of his ADA
claims. (Id. at 17-19.) The court has not ordered
the EEOC to produce any of Mr. Ivanov's medical or mental
health records related to illnesses, injuries, or other
conditions that do not constitute a disability.
EEOC relies upon Lahrichi v. Lumera Corp., No.
C04-2124C, 2005 WL 2898145 (W.D. Wash. Nov. 1, 2005), but
that case does not support reconsideration of the court's
order. (See MTR at 2-5.) The Lahrichi court
found that medical records unrelated to the plaintiff's
damages claim were not discoverable because the plaintiff had
“not claimed . . . that his past PTSD or any other
psychological condition was exacerbated.” Id.
at *3. Nevertheless, the Lahrichi court found that
the plaintiff had waived his psychotherapist-patient
privilege “as to PTSD and other psychological treatment
records necessary to the evaluation of the involuntary
movement disorder exacerbation claim, because such claim
renders that disorder squarely at issue in this case.”
2005 WL 2898145, at *3. Similarly, Mr. Ivanov waived his
medical privacy rights and his psychotherapist-patient
privilege as to records related to his hearing impairment and
any undisclosed disability (whether physical or psychological
in nature)-not by virtue of his claim for garden variety
emotional distress damages-but because he placed his
disability or disabilities at issue due to the substance of
his claims under the ADA. (See 9/6/17 Order at
17-19.) Further, as noted above, there is specific evidence
in the record of an undisclosed disability that impacted Mr.
Ivanov's ability to work fulltime. (See Id.
at 18-19 (citing 7/20/17 Hoag Decl. ¶ 5, Exs. C, D;
7/31/17 Hoag Decl. ¶ 9, Ex. 5).) Defendants are entitled
to discover Mr. Ivanov's medical and/or psychological
records related to both his hearing impairment and any
undisclosed disabilities-either physical or psychological-as
more specifically described by the court in its September 6,
the court DENIES the EEOC's motion for reconsideration
(Dkt. # 42) of its September 6, 2017, order.
 The court further temporally limited
its order to only those records from January 1, 2010 to the
present. (9/6/17 Order at 26.)
 The EEOC also relies on Uhler v.
Van Cleave, No. C16-1278RSM, 2017 WL 553276 (W.D. Wash.
Feb. 10, 2017) (see MTR at 5), but the court's
decision is consistent with that case as well. In
Uhler, the court declined to allow discovery into
the plaintiffs' psychological, social or psychiatric
conditions, or substance abuse records, because the
plaintiffs only asked for garden variety emotional distress
damages, and because the plaintiffs had already admitted to
prescription drug and alcohol use on the day of the incident.
Id. at *6-7. However, the plaintiffs acknowledged
“that medical records related to their alleged
injuries, including records of preexisting conditions, are
relevant and should be produced.” Id. at *6.
Similarly here, the court agrees that Mr. Ivanov has not
waived his psychotherapist-patient privilege by virtue of his
garden variety emotional distress damages claim, but
Defendants are entitled to Mr. Ivanov's medical and/or
mental health records to the extent those records contain
information about his hearing-impairment or any undisclosed
disability. The EEOC has placed those records at issue here
by virtue of the substance of its ADA claims on Mr.
 The court also notes that the length
of the EEOC's motion for reconsideration violated the
court's Local Rules. See Local Rules W.D. Wash.
LCR 7(e)(1) (“Motions noted under LCR7(d)(1) . . .
shall not exceed six pages.”); see also id.,
LCR 7(d)(1) (referring to motions noted for the same day as
filing); id., LCR 7(h)(1) (stating that motions for
reconsideration “shall be noted for consideration for
the day it is filed.”). The court cautions counsel for
the EEOC to familiarize themselves with ...