district court logo

Brady v Bohm [2017] NZFC 8624

Published 15 August 2018

Application for order for production of documents for inspection — discovery — medical notes — Family Court Rules, rr 146. 150 & 151. The applicant sought orders for the production of documents for inspection, namely, records and correspondence relating to the first respondent's mental health, job notes by a Detective Sergeant and a Detective, a letter from a doctor that examined the child following an incident, medical notes and an emails from the first respondent to two people. The application for discovery was opposed. With respect to the notes made by the Detective and the Detective Sergeant, the court ruled that they should be made available as they were relevant to the proceedings. The information requested to do with the child's medical records and letter from the child's doctor was found to be information that was obtainable by the applicant and that the respondent should not be required to supply it. The court also refused to order the emails be turned over to the applicant and directed that they be made available to the court so that the relevance of each email could be ascertained. The court then considered whether to order that the first respondent's mental health records and correspondence be turned over. The court began by establishing that the documents relating to therapeutic treatment may be deemed to be confidential and may be subject to an order for limited inspection. The court noted, however, that this information had been voluntarily provided by the first respondent to a psychologist who prepared a s 133 report. The court found that the facts of the case were sufficiently comparable to previous cases that the court regarded as a guide that the court could inspect documents to act as a safety valve before they are released. The court accordingly ordered that the documents be made available to the court for inspection and consideration as to whether the document should be disclosed in it's entirety or whether elements of that document should be redacted. Judgment Date: 30 October 2017. * * * Note: Names have been changed to comply with legal requirements * * *