ege is rooted in the imperative for confidence and trust, the evidentiary benefit of the denial of the privilege, and any consensus among the states, Jaffee v. Redmond, 518 U.S. 1, 10-15 (1996}—but none of these considerations weighs in favor of recognizing a new privilege to prevent discovery of the plea

ionship, unlike the confidential relationship of a doctor and patient or attorney and client, warrants no privilege beyond the terms of Rule 410. See Jaffee, 518 U.S. at 10. But the victims would enjoy an evidentiary benefit from the disclosure of plea negotiations to prove whether the United States viola

cione v. Hustler Magazine, Inc., 800 F.2d 298, 303 (2d Cir. 1986)... ce eeeeeesesseeseeeseeeeeees 13 ill HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_011466 --- PAGE BREAK --- Jaffee v. Redmond, 518 U.S. 1, 116 S.Ct. 1923, 135 L.Ed.2d 337 (1996) oe ceeeescesseeeseerseeesees 22 Kadant Johnson Inc. v. D’Amico, No. CIV.A. 10-2869, 2

d Cir. 1986)... ccccccecceeeeees 13 iil HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_014791 --- PAGE BREAK --- Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 749 Filed 03/17/17 Page 5 of 9 Jaffee v. Redmond, 518 U.S. 1, 116 S.Ct. 1923, 135 L.Ed.2d 337 (1996) oo... cece eeeeees 22 Kadant Johnson Inc. v. D'Amico, No. CIV.A. 10-2869, 2012 WL 219

antic University and Gloria C. Hakkarainen, M.D. are protected by the psychotherapist-patient privilege pursuant to the Supreme Court's decision in Jaffee v. Redmond, 518 U.S. 1, 116 S.Ct. 1923 (1996)("AII agree that a psychotherapist privilege covers confidential communications made to licensed psych

, C.M.A., the information sought by the Defendant is protected by the psychotherapist-patient privilege pursuant to the Supreme Court's decision in Jaffee v. Redmond, 518 U.S. 1, 116 S.Ct. 1923 (1996)("AII agree that a psychotherapist privilege covers confidential communications made to licensed psychi

the psychotherapist-patient privilege pursuant to Jaffee v. Redmond, 518 U.S. 1 (1996). First, the Court r