Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_14-cv-01374/USCOURTS-azd-2_14-cv-01374-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Cristy Dawn Chacon,

Plaintiff,

v. 

Charles L. Ryan, et al.,

Defendants.

No. CV-14-01374-PHX-JJT (ESW)

ORDER

Pending before the Court are several motions, which the Court has reviewed and 

rules on as set forth below.

DISCUSSION

On September 10, 2015, the Court issued a Scheduling Order (Doc. 30). On 

March 14, 2016, while acting pro se, Plaintiff filed a “Motion to Propose New 

Scheduling Order” (Doc. 45) requesting the Court to extend certain disclosure and 

discovery deadlines. The Court granted Plaintiff’s Motion and extended (i) the initial 

disclosure deadline to July 2, 2016; (ii) Plaintiff’s expert witness disclosure deadline to 

August 2, 2016; (iii) Defendants’ expert witness disclosure deadline to August 16, 2016; 

(iv) the discovery deadline to August 31, 2016; and (v) the dispositive motion deadline to 

September 30, 2016. (Doc. 46 at 2).

On July 21, 2016, Plaintiff’s counsel filed a Notice of Appearance (Doc. 50). On 

July 28, 2016, Plaintiff, through counsel, filed a Notice of Expert Witness (Doc. 51) 

Case 2:14-cv-01374-JJT-ESW Document 58 Filed 09/29/16 Page 1 of 6
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

indicating that Dr. Jason Datta, MD has been retained as an expert witness for Plaintiff. 

In their “Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s Expert Witness Disclosure . . . .” (Doc. 52), 

Defendants request that the Court strike the Notice (Doc. 51) on the ground that Plaintiff 

failed to disclose the expert’s written report as required by Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 26(a)(2)(A). 

On August 23, 2016, approximately one week after Defendants filed their Motion 

to Strike (Doc. 52), Plaintiff filed a “Motion to Transport Inmate for an IME” (Doc. 53).1

 

The Motion indicates that Plaintiff’s expert witness, Dr. Datta,2 is to conduct the IME. 

(Id. at 1). On August 24, 2016, Plaintiff filed her “Response to Defendant’s Motion to 

Strike Plaintiff’s Expert Witness” (Doc. 54). Plaintiff’s Response explains that Plaintiff 

has not disclosed the expert witness’ report “because none yet exists.” (Id. at 2). 

Plaintiff further states: 

As counsel for the Defendant knows, Plaintiff is currently

seeking a Court Order allowing the Plaintiff to be

transported from Arizona State Prison (Perryville) to Dr.

Datta’s office for an independent medical examination

(IME). Until Dr. Datta examines the Plaintiff, he is

unable to prepare a meaningful report of his findings, 

conclusions, and opinion in regard to her medical

condition.

(Id.). Plaintiff, however, neglects to address the fact that the Court has not ordered 

Plaintiff to submit to an IME. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 35(a)(2) (an order for a physical or 

mental examination may be made only on motion for good cause shown and with notice 

to the person examined and all other parties). The Court will deem Plaintiff’s “Motion to 

Transport Inmate for an IME” (Doc. 53) as a de facto motion for an IME. 

1 Defendants filed the Motion to Strike (Doc. 52) on August 15, 2016. On August 23, 2016, Plaintiff filed the Motion to Transport (Doc. 53).

2 The Motion (Doc. 53 at 1) references “Dr. Jason Latta.” The Court presumes that the reference to “Latta” instead of “Datta” is a typographical error in light of 

Plaintiff’s Response (Doc. 54) to the Motion to Strike, which references “Dr. Datta.”

- 2 -

 

Case 2:14-cv-01374-JJT-ESW Document 58 Filed 09/29/16 Page 2 of 6
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

Before a motion for an IME may be granted, the Court must find that a party’s 

medical condition is in controversy and good cause exists. Schlagenhauf v. Holder, 379 

U.S. 104, 119-20 (1964). The Motion to Transport Inmate does not present any basis on 

which the Court could find good cause to order an IME.

3

 Further, “Rule 35 does not 

allow for a physical examination of oneself . . . .” Berg v. Prison Health Services, 376 F. 

App’x 723, 724 (9th Cir. 2010); see also Smith v. Carroll, 602 F.Supp.2d 521, 526 (D. 

Del. 2009) (stating that Rule 35 “does not vest the court with authority to appoint an 

expert to examine a party wishing an examination of himself”). 

Finally, although Rule 35 does not provide a deadline for conducting an IME, a 

number courts have held that if a Rule 35 examining physician is intended to be called as 

an expert witness at trial, the physician’s report must be disclosed by the deadline for 

disclosing expert witness reports pursuant to Rule 26(a)(2). See, e.g., Diaz v. Con–Way 

Truckload, Inc., 279 F.R.D. 412, 419 (S.D. Tex. 2012) (“[A]fter considering the 

language, purpose, and relevant use of Rules 26 and 35, the Court is of the opinion that 

Rules 26 and 35 should be read in conjunction with each other when determining the 

3 The only statements in the Motion to Transport that may be construed as a 

justification for an IME are the following: “The whole basis of this litigation is that 

Plaintiff has not received adequate medical care at the Department of Corrections 

because they lack the equipment, technology and the specialists for her particular 

condition. There is no way to perform an independent medical examination at the

prison because they don’t have the equipment necessary.” (Doc. 53 at 1-2). To the 

extent Plaintiff seeks an IME to obtain medical care or a second opinion, such purposes 

do not constitute good cause under Rule 35. See Green v. Branson, 108 F.3d 1296,

1304 (10th Cir. 1997) (upholding denial of inmate’s Rule 35 motion where the

“primary purpose was to obtain medical care and to complain of deliberate indifference

to his serious medical needs”); Gannaway v. Prime Care Medical, Inc., 150 F.Supp.3d 

511, 523 n.4 (E.D. Pa. 2015) (Rule 35 “does not permit a party to seek his own medical 

examination, and a prisoner cannot use Rule 35 as a mechanism for obtaining a second 

medical opinion when he disagrees with the course of treatment prescribed by prison 

medical personnel.”).

- 3 -

 

Case 2:14-cv-01374-JJT-ESW Document 58 Filed 09/29/16 Page 3 of 6
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

proper timing for a Rule 35 examination and report.”); Rowland v. Paris Las Vegas, No. 

13cv2630–GPC (DHB), 2015 WL 4662032, at *4 (S.D. Cal. 2015) (“[T]he timing of a 

motion for an IME is dictated by the terms of the scheduling order regarding expert 

witness discovery . . . .”) (citation omitted); Minnard v. Rotech Healthcare Inc., No. S–

06–1460 GEB GGH, 2008 WL 150513, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 15, 2008) (“The purpose of 

the retained expert is to advocate within reasonable grounds on behalf of the person for 

whom retained. The expert will not simply be parroting the facts of an examination. . . . 

The Rule 35 exam and the retained expert’s opinions are inextricably intertwined.”); 

Shumaker v. West, 196 F.R.D. 454, 456 (S.D.W.Va. 2000) (“Defendant's belated attempt 

to seek a Rule 35 examination days before his expert disclosures were due fails to comply 

with Rule 26 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.”); but see Waggoner v. Ohio Cent. 

R.R., Inc., 242 F.R.D. 413, (S.D. Ohio 2007) ( “Rule 35 examinations, and the issuance 

of reports following those examinations, proceed independently of Rule 26(a)(2).”) 

(citing Furlong v. Circle Line Statue of Liberty Ferry, Inc., 902 F.Supp. 65 (S.D.N.Y.

1995)).

Moreover, because an IME is a discovery tool, a Rule 35 motion “should be 

brought in time to conduct the examination before the discovery cut-off date.” Jay E. 

Grenig, Jeffrey S. Kinsler, HANDBK. FED. CIV. DISC. & DISCLOSURE § 10:8 (3d ed.); see 

also Schlagenhauf, 379 U.S. at 117 (“The discovery devices sanctioned by Part V of the 

Federal Rules include . . . physical and mental examinations of parties (Rule 35).”); Bush 

v. Pioneer Human Services, No. C09-0518 RSM 2010 WL 324432, at *5 (W.D. Wash. 

2010) (“the [Rule 35] examination must be conducted sufficiently before the discovery 

cutoff to give the examined party time to review the report (if requested), and depose the 

examiner if necessary”); Diaz, 279 F.R.D. at 418 (“Similar to Rule 35, Rules 30, 31, 33, 

and 34 do not provide a specific deadline by which to submit these discovery requests 

because it is understood that all discovery tools are generally subject to the overall 

discovery deadline.”) (emphasis in original). 

- 4 -

Case 2:14-cv-01374-JJT-ESW Document 58 Filed 09/29/16 Page 4 of 6
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

Here, Plaintiff filed the Motion to Transport (Doc. 53) on August 23, 2016—

twenty-one days after the expert witness disclosure deadline (August 2, 2016) and only 

eight days before the discovery deadline (August 31, 2016). The Court finds that, if 

deemed a Rule 35 motion for an IME, Plaintiff’s Motion to Transport (Doc. 53) is 

untimely as Plaintiff has shown a lack of diligence. See Diaz, 279 F.R.D. at 420 (denying 

request for IME as untimely where Defendant “showed a lack of diligence by seeking a 

Rule 35 examination after the Rule 26 deadline to designate experts and produce 

reports”).

For the above reasons, the Court denies Plaintiff’s “Motion to Transport Inmate 

for an IME” (Doc. 53). Consequently, this denial precludes Plaintiff’s compliance with 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2)(B) as Plaintiff has stated that the preparation 

and disclosure of Dr. Datta’s report was dependent on the IME. (Doc. 54 at 2). 

Accordingly, the Court will grant Defendants’ request (Doc. 52) to strike Plaintiff’s 

Notice of Expert Witness (Doc. 51).

Defendants request an extension of the August 16, 2016 deadline in which to 

disclose Defendants’ expert witnesses. (Doc. 52). In explaining the reason for the 

request, Defendants state that they “are unable to make a rational determination as to

whether or not the expense of procuring an expert witness is worth the cost, as they are 

left entirely in the dark by Plaintiff’s improper disclosure.” (Doc. 52 at 7). Because the 

Court has stricken Plaintiff’s Notice of Expert Witness (Doc. 51) and denied Plaintiff’s 

“Motion to Transport Inmate for an IME” (Doc. 53), the justification for Defendants’ 

request is moot. The request (Doc. 52) is therefore denied.

The final motion pending before the Court is the parties’ “Expedited and 

Stipulated Motion for Extension of Time to File Dispositive Motions (Second Request)” 

(Doc. 57). The parties request that the dispositive motion deadline be extended to 

December 29, 2016. In light of the above rulings, the Court does not find good cause for 

such a lengthy extension. The Court, however, extends the dispositive motion deadline to 

October 31, 2016.

- 5 -

Case 2:14-cv-01374-JJT-ESW Document 58 Filed 09/29/16 Page 5 of 6
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 

CONCLUSION 

Based on the foregoing, 

IT IS ORDERED denying Plaintiff’s “Motion to Transport Inmate for an IME” 

(Doc. 53). 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED granting in part and denying in part Defendants’ 

“Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s Expert Witness Disclosure and to Extend Deadline for 

Defendants to Disclose Expert Witness” (Doc. 52). 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED granting in part and denying in part the parties’ 

“Expedited and Stipulated Motion for Extension of Time to File Dispositive Motions 

(Second Request)” (Doc. 57). The dispositive motion deadline is extended to October 31, 

2016. 

Dated this 29th day of September, 2016. 

- 6 - 

Case 2:14-cv-01374-JJT-ESW Document 58 Filed 09/29/16 Page 6 of 6