Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-05411/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-05411-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 790
Nature of Suit: Other Labor Litigation
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

 *E-filed 9/28/06*

NOT FOR CITATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

MARIA VALENCIA,

Plaintiff,

 v.

BY THE BAY INVESTMENTS, INC., et al.

Defendants. /

Case No. C05-05411 HRL

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’

MOTION TO COMPEL

PSYCHOLOGICAL EXAMINATION

[Re: Docket No. 26]

Defendants’ Motion to Compel Psychological Examination was heard on September 26,

2006. Plaintiff did not appear. Having considered the defendants’ papers and arguments, the

Court grants Defendants’ Motion.

I. BACKGROUND

This is a Title VII sexual harassment case. Plaintiff alleges sexual harassment, touching

and improper conduct on the part of defendants Javaherian and Miranda at a Managers Meeting

and Awards Party in Reno, Nevada held by By the Bay, employer of plaintiff, Javaherian, and

Miranda. After the conference, plaintiff allegedly told her district manager and human resource

director about the incident. Plaintiff alleges that no significant action was taken and she was

forced to leave the company. As a result, she has allegedly incurred special and general

damages. 

Now defendants seek an order compelling a mental examination, contending that 

Case 5:05-cv-05411-HRL Document 33 Filed 09/28/06 Page 1 of 5
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1 Rule 35(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides, in relevant part:

When the mental or physical condition...of a party... is in controversy, the court...may order 

the party to submit to a physical or mental examination by a suitably licensed or certified

examiner...The order may be made only on motion for good cause shown and upon notice to

the person to be examined and to all parties and shall specify the time, place, manner,

conditions, and scope of the examination and the person or persons by whom it is to be made.

2

plaintiff has affirmatively put her mental condition in controversy. The examination is to be 

conducted by Dr. Paul S.D. Berg.

II. LEGAL STANDARD

“It is well established that a party seeking to compel the psychiatric evaluation of an

adverse party must demonstrate that (1) the adverse party’s mental condition is in controversy

and (2) there is good cause for the examination.” Ford v. Contra Costa County, 179 F.R.D. 579

(N.D. Cal. 1998) (citing Schlagenhauf v. Holder, 379 U.S. 104, 118 (1964)); see also FED. R.

CIV. P. 35(a).1 The “in controversy” and “good cause” requirements of Rule 35(a) “are not met

by mere conclusory allegations of the pleadings – nor by mere relevance to the case – but

require an affirmative showing by the movant that each condition as to which the examination is

sought is really and genuinely in controversy and that good cause exists for ordering each

particular examination.” Turner v. Imperial Stores, 161 F.R.D. 89, 91 (S.D. Cal. 1995) (quoting

Schlagenhauf, 379 U.S. at 118).

“Most cases in which courts have ordered mental examinations pursuant to Rule 35(a)

involve something more than just a claim of emotional distress.” Turner, 161 F.R.D. at 93. 

Indeed:

[C]ases suggest that courts will order plaintiffs to undergo mental examinations where

the cases involve, in addition to a claim of emotional distress, one or more of the

following:

1. A cause of action for intentional or negligent infliction of emotional

distress;

2. An allegation of specific mental or psychiatric injury or disorder;

3. A claim of unusually severe emotional distress;

4. Plaintiff’s offer of expert testimony to support a claim of emotional

distress; and/or

5. Plaintiff’s concession that his or her mental condition is ‘in controversy’

within the meaning of Rule 35(a).

Case 5:05-cv-05411-HRL Document 33 Filed 09/28/06 Page 2 of 5
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

Turner, 161 F.R.D. at 95. See also Ford, 179 F.R.D. at 580 (agreeing that the party requesting a 

mental examination must demonstrate the existence of one or more of the Turner factors) (citing

Turner, 161 F.R.D. at 95).

III. DISCUSSION

The Court finds that plaintiff’s mental condition is “in controversy” and there is good

cause for the psychological examination. Plaintiff falls under one of the categories laid out in

Turner by claiming unusually severe emotional distress. In her complaint, plaintiff alleges that

defendants’ actions have continued to cause her “severe and extreme emotional distress.”

(Complaint ¶¶ 20, 5). Moreover, in deposition testimony plaintiff reportedly alleges she suffers

from ongoing depression and neurosis. Further, according to defendant, plaintiff has sought

help from a mental professional. Because of the ongoing nature of her distress, the allegations

of depression and neurosis, and her professional treatment, plaintiff’s claims can justly be

characterized as unusually severe emotional distress. Therefore, her claims satisfy the Turner

test and are sufficient to place her mental condition “in controversy.” See Turner, 161 F.R.D. at

95.

Defendants have also shown good cause for the examination. There are no other means

for defendants to obtain the information a psychological examination would provide. Also, in

order to refute plaintiff’s claims, defendants must know the extent of her injures. 

IV. ORDER

The court ORDERS plaintiff to submit to a psychological examination on October 4,

2006 at 10 a.m. The examination will be held at the office of Dr. Paul S.D. Berg, Ph.D. located

at 400 29th Street, suite 315, Oakland, California 94609. Such examination shall include

evaluating and testing plaintiff’s claims of emotional damage, post-traumatic effects, and effects

of sexual discrimination. The examination shall also evaluate and test plaintiff’s employability

and potential for rehabilitation. The examiner may also conduct any other test which is

ordinarily deemed a part of a general psychological examination. Plaintiff shall answer all

Case 5:05-cv-05411-HRL Document 33 Filed 09/28/06 Page 3 of 5
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

4

proper questions submitted to her by the examiner, including relevant occupational history and

prior injuries and diseases for the purpose of making a proper diagnosis of the plaintiff’s

condition. Defendants shall bear the costs of the examination.

Dated: 9/28/06

 /s/ Howard R. Lloyd 

HOWARD R. LLOYD

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 5:05-cv-05411-HRL Document 33 Filed 09/28/06 Page 4 of 5
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

5

THIS SHALL CERTIFY THAT NOTICE WILL BE SENT TO: 

Patrick John Cimmarusti cimmarustip@cwllaw.com 

Curtis L. Metzgar ecwlg7@earthlink.net

Gregory Tokarczyk 

161 Jackson Street

Suite 200

San Jose, CA 95112

* Counsel are responsible for providing copies of this order to co-counsel.

Date: 9/28/06 /s/ JMM 

 Chambers of Magistrate Judge Howard R. Lloyd

Case 5:05-cv-05411-HRL Document 33 Filed 09/28/06 Page 5 of 5