Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_03-cv-05914/USCOURTS-cand-3_03-cv-05914-9/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 370
Nature of Suit: Other Fraud
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Fraud

---

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

 Law Offices (SPACE BELOW PROVIDED FOR FILING STAMP ONLY)

 FLYNN & STILLMAN

 224 Birmingham Drive, Suite 1A4

 Cardiff, California 92007

 Tel. (888) 235-4279

 Fax (888) 235-4279

 PHILIP H. STILLMAN, Bar # 152861

Attorneys for plaintiff, PENTALPHA MACAU COMMERCIAL OFFSHORE LIMITED 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

PENTALPHA MACAU COMMERCIAL

OFFSHORE LIMITED, a Macau, PRC

corporation,

Plaintiff,

vs.

DAMODER REDDY, an individual; and DOES

1 through 10 inclusive,

Defendants.

DAMODER REDDY, an individual,

Counterclaimant,

vs.

PENTALPHA MACAU COMMERCIAL

OFFSHORE LIMITED,a Macau, PRC

corporation, et al.

Counterdefendants ________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CASE NO.: 03-5914 MMC (EDL)

JOINT EX PARTE APPLICATION OF

PENTALPHA MACAU COMMERCIAL

OFFSHORE LIMITED AND GARY RHEA FOR

AN ORDER FOR MENTAL EXAMINATION OF

DAMODER REDDY PURSUANT TO RULE 35 

Date: none set

Time: none set

Hon. Elizabeth D. LaPorte

ORDER ON

Case 3:03-cv-05914-MMC Document 152 Filed 09/27/05 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

1

 Pentalpha and Mr. Rhea request that this Court take judicial notice of Reddy’s Third

Amended Counterclaim.

Ex parte Motion for Rule 35(a) Exam -1-

INTRODUCTION

Counterdefendants Pentalpha Macau Commercial Offshore Limited and Gary Rhea jointly

request an Order from this Court pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 35(a) for a mental examination by Dr.

Randall B. Smith, a clinical psychologist, on October 18, 2005 at 9:30 a.m. at his office at 1375

Sutter Street, Suite 304, San Francisco, CA. Dr. Smith has a very busy practice, and books

appointments months in advance. His curriculum vitae is attached hereto. Because of the discovery

cut-off on December 12, 2005 and the upcoming February 2006 trial date, Dr. Smith has held open a

date of October 18, 2005 for Mr. Reddy’s examination. Because of the need to hold the October 18

date and the lack of any real argument (as shown by the allegations in Reddy’s Third Amended

Counterclaim) that the parties are not entitled to a Rule 35(a) examination, Pentalpha and Mr. Rhea

are requesting the order by ex parte application, or in the alternative, on a shortened briefing

schedule if the Court believes that an Order Shortening Time is more appropriate.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

A. The Allegations In the Third Amended Counterclaim Justifiying A Mental Examination.

Reddy’s operative pleading in this case is his Third Amended Counterclaim (“TAC”).1 The

Fifth Cause of Action in the Third Amended Counterclaim is a claim for “intentional infliction of

emotional distress.” See TAC, ¶¶ 35-39. In his emotional distress claim, Reddy contends that he has

suffered “severe emotional distress causing him lost income, depression, [and] anxiety. . . in the

amount of $1 million.” TAC, ¶ 35. As a result of the acts of among others, Pentalpha and Mr. Rhea,

Reddy alleges that he “has suffered and continues to suffer humiliation, mental anguish, and

emotional and physical distress, loss of income and has been injured in mind and body in an amount

of $2 million.” TAC, ¶ 37. Reddy also alleges that his “emotional injuries include anxiety, phobias,

and fear of harassment and verbal abuse.” Id. Reddy further alleges that his emotional distress has

“prevented [him] from attending to his usual occupation” and he is therefore seeking additional

damages for lost income and benefits.” TAC, ¶ 38.

Case 3:03-cv-05914-MMC Document 152 Filed 09/27/05 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

Ex parte Motion for Rule 35(a) Exam -2-

In addition to those express allegations claiming severe mental injury – severe enough to

cause physical injury, ongoing anxiety disorder and ongoing phobias and millions in damages –

Reddy has also claimed in his Breach of Fiduciary Duty cause of action that as a result of the acts of

among others, Pentalpha and Mr. Rhea, Reddy has suffered “severe emotional distress, depression,

anxiety, etc. and has incurred and continues to incur medical costs . . . .” TAC, ¶ 32. See also, ¶¶ 12

(alleging $2 million in emotional damages), 17 (alleging $3 million in emotional damages) and 27

(alleging $500,000 in emotional damages), all containing the same allegation. Thus, Reddy has

clearly and unequivocally interjected his mental injuries into this case.

B. Pentalpha’s Efforts To Confer With Reddy’s Counsel.

Pentalpha’s counsel discussed the issue of a mental examination of Mr. Reddy on several

occasions and specifically conferred on the issue on September 2. At that time, Pentalpha’s counsel

requested that Reddy submit to a Rule 35(a) examination and identified the reasons that supported

the need for the examination. Reddy’s counsel agreed that Reddy’s mental injuries were at issue in

the case. Stillman Declaration, ¶ 2. Although I had asked Reddy’s counsel to provide me with dates

for the examination, he did not do so. Id. Accordingly, on September 9, Pentalpha’s counsel

requested that Reddy stipulate to a Rule 35(a) Order and gave notice to Reddy’s counsel that

Pentalpha would file an ex parte Application for the Order if he failed to respond. Stillman Decl., ¶

3. Reddy’s counsel has not responded to that request.

ARGUMENT

I.

PENTALPHA AND RHEA ARE ENTITLED TO AN ORDER FOR A MENTAL EXAMINATION

Rule 35(a) requires that a party seeking a mental examination of another party must first seek

an order for the examination, which sets forth the date, time, place and scope of the examination. 

Rule 35(a) has two requirements: (1) that the mental condition of the party be “in controversy” and

(2) good cause. The "in controversy" and "good cause" requirements are "necessarily related."

Schlagenhauf v. Holder, 379 U.S. 104, 118-19, 85 S. Ct. 234, 13 L. Ed. 2d 152 (1964). There is no

bona fide argument that Reddy has not put his mental state “in controversy” and that “good cause”

has not been shown by Pentalpha and Mr. Rhea.

Case 3:03-cv-05914-MMC Document 152 Filed 09/27/05 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

Ex parte Motion for Rule 35(a) Exam -3-

A. Reddy Has Placed His Mental Condition In Controversy.

As set forth in the Third Amended Complaint, Reddy has clearly put his mental condition in

controversy in this case. First, he has alleged a claim for “intentional infliction of emotional distress.” 

That alone is often sufficient to put a plaintiff’s mental condition in controversy. Turner v. Imperial

Stores, 161 F.R.D. 89, 95 (S.D. Cal. 1995) (courts generally order mental examination when claim

involves cause of action for infliction of emotional distress). Lahr v. Fulbright & Jaworski, LLP, 164

F.R.D. 196, 199 (N.D. Tex. 1995) ("although the cases analyzing [the 'in controversy'] requirement

fail to provide a definitive test for deciding the issue, a distinction between the cases has emerged in

favor of an examination when a plaintiff has alleged a separate tort claim for emotional distress"). 

Reddy could not be clearer in alleging that he is suffering from ongoing psychiatric illness, including

depression, anxiety and phobias that he claims were so severe as to cause physical injury, require

him to miss work and cause him a not insignificant $3 million in damages. Therefore, he has put his

mental condition “in controversy.” Duncan v. Upjohn Co., 155 F.R.D. 23, 25 (D. Conn. 1994) ("By

claiming ongoing psychiatric harm . . . the plaintiff has placed his mental state in controversy, which

in turn constitutes good cause for ordering a psychiatric examination...").

In addition to the inclusion of an “infliction of mental distress” cause of action – which itself

should be dispositive – other courts have held that the identical allegations in other parts of Reddy’s

counterclaim have themselves warranted a psychiatric examination. For example, in Gattegno v.

Pricewaterhousecoopers, LLP, 204 F.R.D. 228, 231 (D.Conn. 2001), the plaintiff alleged that she

“‘continues to suffer ... mental anguish, physical and emotional distress, humiliation and

embarrassment.’” The court held that “This claim of ongoing mental injury also places the plaintiff's

mental state "in controversy."” Id. Similarly, it is clear that Reddy must present evidence of his

“emotional distress” in support of his claims. In Smedley v Capps, Staples, Ward, Hastings &

Dodson, 820 F. Supp. 1227, 1232 (N.D. Cal 1993), the court compelled the plaintiff to undergo a

psychiatric evaluation because the plaintiff intended "to present evidence of 'normal' emotional

distress." Accordingly, Reddy has placed his past and present mental condition directly at issue.

B. Pentalpha And Mr. Rhea Have Demonstrated “Good Cause.”

The phrase “good cause” has been held to impose a requirement that the moving party

Case 3:03-cv-05914-MMC Document 152 Filed 09/27/05 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

Ex parte Motion for Rule 35(a) Exam -4-

“present sufficient information so that the district judge can fulfill his function mandated by the Rule

[35(a)].” Schlagenhauf, 379 U.S. at 119. The Supreme Court held that there are times when “the

pleadings alone are sufficient to meet these requirements. A plaintiff in a negligence action who

asserts mental or physical injury . . . places that mental or physical injury clearly in controversy and

provides the defendant with good cause for an examination to determine the existence and extent of

such asserted injury.” Id. As fully discussed above, Reddy’s allegations in his Third Amended

Counterclaim clearly and unequivocally put his mental state at issue and constitute the “good cause”

discussed by the Supreme Court.

C. Dr. Smith Is A Qualified Examiner.

As shown by his curriculum vitae, Dr. Smith is a licensed psychologist with the State of

California and is a Qualified Medical Examiner. He has extensive experience in emotional distress

claims and has reserved October 18, 2005 at 9:30 a.m. at his office for a face to face interview

(including a personal history) and testing with Mr. Reddy, including giving Reddy several

psychological tests designed to gauge his emotional distress claim. Dr. Smith believes that the

interview and testing will take a full day. The scope of the examination will be limited to those

matters relating to Reddy’s complaints in his Third Amended Counterclaim, a psychological history

and psychological testing regarding Reddy’s mental condition.

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

Case 3:03-cv-05914-MMC Document 152 Filed 09/27/05 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

Ex parte Motion for Rule 35(a) Exam -5-

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, Pentalpha and Mr. Rhea respectfully request that their ex parte

Application be granted and the Court enter an Order compelling the psychiatric examination by Dr.

Smith on October 18, 2005 at 9:30 a.m. at Dr. Smith’s Office. In the alternative, to the extent that

this Court believes that a motion, not ex parte application is required in this case, Pentalpha and Mr.

Rhea ask for an Order Shortening Time for their motion to be briefed and heard in order to preserve

Dr. Smith’s October 18th date.

Respectfully Submitted,

FLYNN& STILLMAN

Dated: September 13, 2005 By: 

Philip H. Stillman, Esq.

Attorneys for Plaintiff and counter-defendant, PENTALPHA

MACAU COMMERCIAL OFFSHORE LIMITED and GARY

RHEA

On receipt of this ex parte application, the Court ordered the parties to brief the matter and 

scheduled a hearing on the motion for October 11, 2005. On September 27, 2005, Defendant 

Damoder Reddy filed a statement of non-opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for a Rule 35(a) 

Examination. The Court therefore vacates the hearing scheduled for October 11, 2005 and 

grants Plaintiff's Motion for a Rule 35(a) Examination.

Dated: September 27, 2005

Elizabeth D. Laporte

U.S. Magistrate Judge

ORDER

U

NITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IT IS SO ORDERED

Judge Elizabeth D. Laporte

Case 3:03-cv-05914-MMC Document 152 Filed 09/27/05 Page 6 of 6