Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-00597/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-00597-9/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Civil Rights Act

---

Stipulation for Rule 35 Physical Examination Case No. 1:13-cv-00597-LJO-SAB 

 

1

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

DANIEL C. CEDERBORG

 County Counsel

MICHAEL R. LINDEN

 Deputy County Counsel – State Bar No. 192485

FRESNO COUNTY COUNSEL

2220 Tulare Street, 5th Floor

Fresno, California 93721

Telephone: (559) 600-3479

Facsimile: (559) 600-3480

Attorneys for Defendants

COUNTY OF FRESNO and TRACY SINK

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA – FRESNO DIVISION

RICHARD P. BERMAN, 

 Plaintiff,

 v.

DEPUTY T. SINK; SGT. GEORGE 

BERTSCH; LT. JOHN REYNOLDS; 

SHERIFF MARGARET MIMS; THE 

COUNTY OF FRESNO, THE JUDICIAL 

COUNCIL OF CALIFORNIA; DOES 1-

10,

 Defendants.

Case No. 1:13-cv-00597-LJO-SAB

 

STIPULATION FOR RULE 35 

PHYSICAL EXAMINATION; ORDER

 

Defendants COUNTY OF FRESNO and TRACY SINK (hereinafter 

“Defendants”), and plaintiff RICHARD BERMAN (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) hereby submit 

the following Stipulation for an order requiring Plaintiff to submit to a physical 

examination, pursuant to Rule 35 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (hereinafter 

“Rule 35”).

///

Case 1:13-cv-00597-SAB Document 41 Filed 01/27/15 Page 1 of 3
Stipulation for Rule 35 Physical Examination Case No. 1:13-cv-00597-LJO-SAB 

 

2

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

RECITALS

WHEREAS, on March 26, 2013, Plaintiff filed his complaint in the Fresno County 

Superior Court, alleging physical injuries resulting from an incident on March 13, 2012, 

when he was arrested in the lobby of the Fresno County Superior Court. Plaintiff 

alleges that when he was arrested by defendant Deputy Tracy Sink, he told her that “he 

was recovering from a recent, serious spinal surgery,” and that as a result of the 

incident, he “injured his back, neck, arm and stomach/groin area.” Complaint, para. 15. 

WHEREAS, on April 23, 2013, Defendants removed Plaintiff’s action to this 

Court. Doc. Nos. 1-5. Under the operative scheduling order, the non-expert discovery 

cut-off date is April 3, 2015. Doc. No. 34. 

WHEREAS, counsel for the parties have conferred with respect to Defendants’ 

desire to have Plaintiff submit to a physical examination pursuant to Rule 35. Plaintiff 

has no objection to submitting to such an examination, so long as he is allowed to 

record the proceedings by either video and/or audio sound recording.

WHEREAS, under Rule 35, the court may order a party whose physical condition 

is in controversy to submit to a physical examination “by a suitably licensed or certified 

examiner.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 35, subd. (a)(1). For the proposed physical examination, 

Defendants will retain Donald R. Heune, M.D., 201 N. Valeria Street, Fresno, CA 93701. 

Dr. Heune is a licensed physician who specializes in orthopedic surgery. Dr. Heune will 

examine Plaintiff concerning the nature and extent of his alleged injuries, including the 

effect that the subject arrest may have had on Plaintiff’s recovery from his spinal 

surgery, and will question Plaintiff only with respect to the issues set forth in this 

paragraph. An appointment has tentatively been scheduled for February 2, 2015, at 

2:00 p.m.; however, the parties may change the date of the appointment if necessary. 

WHEREAS, under subdivision (a)(2)(A) of Rule 35, it states that an order “may 

be made only on motion for good cause and on notice to all parties and the person to be 

examined.” Based on this subdivision, on December 30, 2014, Defendants filed a Rule 

Case 1:13-cv-00597-SAB Document 41 Filed 01/27/15 Page 2 of 3
Stipulation for Rule 35 Physical Examination Case No. 1:13-cv-00597-LJO-SAB 

 

3

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

35 motion. Doc. Nos. 35-37. As Plaintiff previously agreed to submit to a Rule 35 

examination, he did not oppose this motion. However, on January 22, 2015, the Court 

denied the motion without prejudice because there was no showing that the parties 

attempted to meet and confer about the matter, as required by the Local Rules. Doc. 

No. 39. 

STIPULATION

Now, therefore, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, by and between 

the parties, through their respective attorneys of record that good cause exists to have 

Plaintiff submit for a Rule 35 examination, and that Plaintiff will submit to such an 

examination at a day and time mutually agreeable between the parties, and on the 

conditions set out in the recitals.

IT IS SO STIPULATED.

Dated: January 27, 2015

DANIEL C. CEDERBORG

County Counsel

By: /s/ Michael Linden

Michael R. Linden, Deputy

Attorneys for Defendants

Dated: January 27, 2015

LAW OFFICE OF JACOB WEISBERG

By: /s/ Jacob Weisberg

Jacob Weisberg

Attorney for Plaintiff

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 27, 2015 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:13-cv-00597-SAB Document 41 Filed 01/27/15 Page 3 of 3