Bangor & Aroostook Railroad v. Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen & Enginemen

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that the plaintiff did not waive the 24 psychotherapist-patient privilege where the “only claim asserted is for emotional distress 25 damages” and the plaintiff had “not asserted a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress 26 or any such claim for unusual or special damages”
• reviewing magistrate judge’s ruling on discovery matter de novo where magistrate judge’s decision “provides no discussion of the rationale for ordering disclosure”
• reviewing magistrate judge's ruling on discovery matter de novo where magistrate judge's decision “provides no discussion of the rationale for ordering disclosure”
• no 5 waiver where plaintiff did not assert IIED claim, would not rely on psychotherapist-patient 6 communications to prove damages, and no expert testimony would be submitted in support of 7 claim for emotional distress damages
• citation 1 “Plaintiffs oppose limiting discovery to any particular wing and argue that ‘[d]iscovery 2 || will narrow naturally once the bellwether decision is made.’” ECF No. 185 at 2 (quoting ECF No. 3 180 at 4

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).