mental condition at issue in a civil action waives the federal common law psychotherapist-patient privilege, and, if so, whether the privilege has been so waived here. We answer both questions in the affirmative. We find that a party waives the privilege by placing her mental condition at issue for several reasons. First, our Court, which recognized a qualified federal common law psychotherapist-patient privilege prior to Jaffee, see Mines v. City of Philadelphia, 158 F.R.D. 337 (E.D.Pa.1994); Siegfried v. City of Easton, 146 F.R.D. 98 (E.D.Pa.1992), has previously held that a litigant may waive the privilege in this manner. . See Topol v. Trustees of University of Pennsylvania, 160 F.R.D. 476, 477 (E.D.Pa.1995); see also Price v. County of San Diego, 165 F.R.D. 614, 622 (S.D.Cal.1996) (<HOLDING>). Second, the Supreme Court specifically
recognizing privilege under federal rules recognizing privilege holding privilege was waived only as to matters specifically at issue in court action recognizing application of federal deliberative process privilege to internal state communications recognizing federal common law privilege for psychotherapistpatient communications but holding that litigant waived privilege by raising issue as to her psychological state