Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-03074/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-03074-17/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:2000e Job Discrimination (Employment)

---

U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

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

U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CHRISTINA M. LESTER,

Plaintiff,

 v.

 NORMAN MINETA, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

No. C 04-03074 SI

ORDER RE: DISCOVERY

Via letter briefs, the parties seek resolution of two discovery disputes. First, plaintiff Christina

Lester seeks an order compelling defendants, Norman Mineta, et al., to re-answer Interrogatory #13 of

plaintiff’s Third Set of Interrogatories. Along with their reply to plaintiff’s letter brief, defendants

provide a lengthy answer to Interrogatory #13. The Court therefore DENIES plaintiff’s request as moot.

Second, defendants seek an order pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 35 allowing

defendants to conduct a psychological independent medical examination (“IME”), and a separate

psychiatric IME, of plaintiff. According to defendants, each exam would take 4-6 hours.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 35(a) gives a court authority to order one party to comply with

the other’s legitimate discovery request to submit to a physical or mental examination by a suitably

licensed examiner. The party moving for physical or mental examination must meet two requirements:

(1) the physical or mental condition of the party must be “in controversy” and (2) “good cause” for

examination must be established. Ragge v. MCA/Universal Studios, 165 F.R.D. 605, 608 (C.D. Cal.

1995). “‘Good cause’ for a mental examination requires a showing that the examination could adduce

specific facts relevant to the cause of action and necessary to the defendant’s case.” Id. at 609. It is

Case 3:04-cv-03074-SI Document 88 Filed 12/19/06 Page 1 of 4
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

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

2

within the broad discretion of the district court to determine whether a party must submit to examination.

Shirsat v. Mutual Pharmaceutical Co., Inc., 169 F.R.D. 68, 70 (E.D. Pa. 1996).

Defendants first requested that plaintiff submit to psychological and psychiatric exams on

October 25, 2006. Over the course of the following month, counsel for the parties engaged in a series

of letters, e-mails, and phone calls regarding the nature, scope, and appropriateness of the exams. As

of November 28, 2006, plaintiff appeared prepared to stipulate to the exams, on the condition that the

psychological exam would take no longer than 3-5 hours, and that the psychiatric exam would take no

longer than 3 hours. See Defs’ Ex. D (e-mail from Robert Greeley to Owen Martikan, November 28,

2006). Defendants’ last position during this meet and confer process appears to be that the psychological

exam would take 3-5 hours, and the psychiatric exam would take 4-6 hours. See id. (e-mail from

Martikan to Greeley, November 27, 2006). Thus the only disagreement between the parties appears to

be over the length of the psychiatric exam. Nonetheless, in the letter briefs filed with the Court, the

parties start from scratch, disputing every aspect of the proposed exams. 

Plaintiff first argues that defendants’ motion is untimely. The non-expert discovery cut-off was

November 22, 2006, and the expert discovery cutoff is March 23, 2007. Expert witnesses must be

designated, and expert reports delivered, by December 21, 2006. Plaintiff argues that the proposed Rule

35 exams should be considered non-expert discovery, and therefore should have been completed before

November 22, 2006. The Court disagrees. The local civil rules do not categorize Rule 35 examinations

as either “non-expert” or “expert” discovery. See Civil L.R. 26-2. Moreover, even if the proposed

exams were subject to the non-expert discovery cut-off date, this motion would be timely. Civil Local

Rule 26-2 provides that motions to compel may be filed up to 7 court days after the relevant discovery

cut-off date. Defendants filed their letter motion on November 29, less than 7 court days after the nonexpert discovery cut-off date. Defendants’ motion is not untimely.

The first requirement of a Rule 35 exam is that the mental condition of the plaintiff be “in

controversy.” One of plaintiff’s claims in this case is for violation of the Rehabilitation Act. This claim

is based on plaintiff’s claims that she had an ongoing psychological disability – namely Post Traumatic

Stress Disorder (PTSD), anxiety and depression. Plaintiff has sought treatment by both psychiatrists and

psychologists for these conditions. Thus plaintiff’s mental condition is in controversy in this case.

Case 3:04-cv-03074-SI Document 88 Filed 12/19/06 Page 2 of 4
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

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

There is also good cause to order Rule 35 examinations in this case; the exams are both

reasonable and necessary. Plaintiff first contends that defendants fail to establish that the examinations

will enable the experts to opine on plaintiff’s mental health during the period at issue. The Court

disagrees. In forensic psychological and psychiatric examinations, which are extremely common in legal

proceedings of all types, psychologists and psychiatrists use well-established tests and examination

techniques to determine the mental health and state of the subject at various points before, during, and

after the events at issue. An exam need not be contemporaneous with the events at issue to provide

relevant evidence. 

Plaintiff also contends that the specific tests proposed by the examining professionals are

inappropriate. The Court again disagrees. Both of the proposed examiners have impressive credentials,

and significant experience working on cases such as this. See Defs’ Exs. C, D. The exams they propose

appear calculated to enable them to provide comprehensive opinions. The Court, with its limited

psychological and psychiatric expertise, will therefore not limit the examinersto conducting certain tests.

Plaintiff next contends that the information sought through the proposed exams is fully available

in documents, testimony, and medical records already provided through the discovery process. The

Court agrees that the examiners should thoroughly review all available materials relevant to plaintiff’s

mental health prior to the exams, both as context and to avoid redundant testing. However, the Court

is unpersuaded that a comprehensive forensic psychological and psychiatric exam can be pieced together

using the scattered information already available. 

The Court thus returns to the original issue dividing the parties: the appropriate duration of the

exams. Based on Dr. Levy’s declaration (Defs’ Ex. A) and the final positions of the parties during the

meet and confer process, the Court finds that the psychological exam shall last no more than 5 hours,

and the psychiatric exam shall last no more than 6 hours. Both exams shall take as soon as possible,

based on the parties’ availability. Should plaintiff insist that the exams take place near her home, in

Sacramento, the parties shall split the examiners’ travel costs. Each examiner shall produce a full report

within 21 days of the exams; these reports are exempt from the December 21, 2006 expert report

deadline. The deadline to file dispositive motions is extended to January 31, 2007. 

For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS defendants’ Rule 35 motion (Docket No. 83), and

Case 3:04-cv-03074-SI Document 88 Filed 12/19/06 Page 3 of 4
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

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

DENIES plaintiff’s motion to compel (Docket No. 82).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 19, 2006 

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:04-cv-03074-SI Document 88 Filed 12/19/06 Page 4 of 4