Case Update (26 May 2026): Speedie v. Speedie, motion to compel discovery in Hague Abduction Convention case
In this case, a Father filed a request to return the parties’ children from Washington State to Canada pursuant to the Hague Abduction Convention. In his petition, he filed an affidavit from a Canadian lawyer as to Canadian law, with citations to Canadian law and a notation that the affiant reviewed the pleadings and papers in the case, both parties’ initial disclosures and supplements, and all legal authority cited in or attached to the Affidavit. The Respondent Mother sought certain discovery from the Father, and believing him to have not produced discovery he was otherwise required to produce, she filed a Motion to Compel his compliance with her discovery request. More specifically, she sought: (1) copies of his medical, etc. records from 2023 to the present, (2) materials relied upon by the Canadian Lawyer affiant, and (3) a required meet and confer related to whether and how to take testimony from AN, a minor, apparently relevant to the case in some way.
The court, in denying the motion to compel concluded as follows. Medical records/mental health records are privileged, the Father made no allegation that would have placed his health at issue, and therefore he did not waive his privilege, therefore he is not required to produce those records. The Mother’s argument that the Father was unstable and placed the children in an unsafe environment was not persuasive, and did not suffice to defeat the Father’s privilege when he did not otherwise waive it. As to the Canadian Lawyer affiant, the Father argued that he is just that - an affiant under FRCP Rule 44.1, and not an expert witness. He cited to the relevant parts of Canadian law and attached any relevant and referenced documents. Therefore, the court found this request moot. Finally, the court, in stating that AN is a “minor whose relationship to the case has not been elucidated by the parties,” felt it was premature to address whether and how this child would testify or otherwise give evidence. Mother sought an in camera interview of the minor, while the Father sought in court open testimony, but, if in chambers, then on the record without counsel. But, the Father argued the court could wait until an evidentiary hearing to decide on any procedures for testimony. The court concluded that “it may become apparent that AN’s testimony is not needed, which would moot this request.”
Therefore, the Mother’s motion to compel was denied.
