counseling sessions were mandated by his employers. The court has reviewed these records and determined that they do not contain information that would be relevant to any of Plaintiffs’ claims. Furthermore, Officer Sattelmair had a reasonable expectation that these records would remain confidential. Accordingly, the court concludes that none of Officer Sattelmair’s mental health records are discoverable. C. Officer Draper Officer Draper had one post-shooting mental health evaluation. The records consist of a letter, a posttraumatic stress interview (the “PTSD interview”), and a social history. The court has reviewed Officer Draper’s records and concludes that the letter and the PTSD interview may be relevant to Plaintiffs’ claims 6-0200-LFO, 1997 WL 224921, at *2 (D.D.C. Apr. 25, 1997) (<HOLDING>). CONCLUSION Based on the foregoing,
holding that the psychotherapistpatient privilege applied where an officer was required to undergo a psychological evaluation after killing a suspect and the psychotherapist merely opined whether the officer was fit to return to duty holding testimony of officer explaining how officer came to suspect appellant was not objectionable as hearsay because it was not offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted but to show why the officer got an arrest warrant for and arrested appellant holding that an officer may use deadly force when a fleeing suspect threatens the officer with a weapon holding that the psychotherapistpatient privilege applied to mandatory postshooting evaluation where no confidential information was disclosed by the psychologist to the police chief but only a yes or no as to whether the officer was fit to return to duty recognizing affirmative duty of a police officer to prevent the violation of constitutional rights by another officer