District Court, W.D. Washington, 2025

Claudia Arias v. University of Washington Tacoma et al.

Claudia Arias v. University of Washington Tacoma et al.
District Court, W.D. Washington · Decided December 18, 2025
Claudia Arias v. University of Washington Tacoma et al.

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA CLAUDIA ARIAS, CASE NO. 3:25-cv-05079-DGE Plaintiff, ORDER ON THE PARTIES’ JOINT 12 v. DISCOVERY DISPUTE STATEMENT (DKT. NO. 58) 13 UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON TACOMA et al., Defendants.

This matter comes before the Court on the Parties’ joint discovery dispute statement regarding disclosure of Dr. Pratt’s records (Dkt. No. 58). The Court held a hearing on December 18, 2025. Counsel for Plaintiff identified Dr. Pratt as being a treating provider who, while seen with the intent to “evaluat[e] [Plaintiff’s] symptoms in support of” certain claims (id. at 2), was not retained by counsel for litigation purposes. Accordingly, pursuant to the Court’s oral ruling, the Court finds and ORDERS that: 1. Work product protection does not apply. Dr. Pratt interacted with Plaintiff for the purpose of providing Plaintiff treatment and did not agree to assist Plaintiff with 1 litigation. Plaintiff’s counsel acknowledged Plaintiff engaged Dr. Pratt in a quasi- 2 relationship in between being a treating provider and possibly an expert witness.

3 Accordingly, records from Dr. Pratt cannot “be fairly said to have been prepared or 4 obtained because of the prospect of litigation.” In re Grand Jury Subpoena (Mark 5 Torf), 357 F.3d 900, 907 (9th Cir. 2004).

6 2. Plaintiff is alleging more than “garden variety” emotional distress damages.

7 Because Plaintiff is alleging more than garden variety emotional distress damages, 8 any psychotherapist-patient privilege between Plaintiff and Dr. Pratt is waived. See 9 Carrig v. Kellogg USA, Inc., No. C12-837RSM, 2013 WL 392715, at *2–3 (W.D.

10 Wash. Jan. 30, 2013).

11 3. Records from Dr. Pratt are relevant and proportional. Dr. Pratt shall promptly 12 produce all responsive records.

13 4. A corresponding order directed to Dr. Pratt will be issued upon presentment by 14 Defendants.

16 Dated this 18th day of December, 2025. a David G. Estudillo 19 United States District Judge

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.