Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-01765/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-01765-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

FILED 

DEC - 4,2015 

CLERK, U.S. DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

BY rA r. L. DEPUTY 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

10 JASON A. REDON, 

11 

12 vs. 

13 

14 ANDRES RUlZ, et aI., 

15 

16 

Plaintiff, 

Defendants. 

CASE NO. 13cvI765-WQH(KSC) 

ORDER GRANTING 

DEFENDANTS' EX PARTE 

APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER 

COMPELLING A RULE 35 

MENTAL EXAMINATION OF 

PLAINTIFF 

[Doc. No. 42.] 

17 Before the Court is defendants' Ex Parte Application for an Order Compelling 

18 a Rule 35 Mental Examination of Plaintiff [Doc. No. 42] and plaintiffs Response 

19 thereto [Doc. No. 45]. Defendants also requested a Rule 35 examination in a prior 

20 Ex Parte Application [Doc. No. 34-1, at pp. 6-7], and plaintiff opposed this request 

21 [Doc. No. 36, atpp. 54-55]. For the reasons outlined more fully below, the Court finds 

22 that defendants' Ex Parte Application must be GRANTED. Defendants must be 

23 permitted to conduct a Rule 35 mental examination of plaintiff, because the allegations 

24 in plaintiffs Complaint have placed plaintiffs mental health "in controversy," and 

25 there is "good cause" for the requested examination. 

26 / / / 

27 / / / 

28 / / / 

- 1 - 13cv1765-WQH(KSC) 

Case 3:13-cv-01765-WQH-KSC Document 51 Filed 12/04/15 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 11
1 Backeround 

2 In this civil rights action, plaintiff is proceeding pro se. 1 [Doc. No.8, at p. L] 

3 The remaining causes of action in the Amended Complaint ("Complaint") filed on 

4 December 23, 2013 are for alleged constitutional violations under Section 1983 for 

5 excessive force; false arrest; deprivation of property without Due Process; and cruel 

6 and unusual punishment Plaintiff also alleges that defendants violated the Americans 

7 with Disabilities Act (ADA) during the incidents alleged in the Complaint [Doc. No. 

8 8, at pp. 3-15; Doc. No. 23, at pp. 6-8.] Plaintiffs factual allegations relate to two 

9 separate incidents on May 3, 2011 and August 19,201 L In both of these incidents, 

10 plaintiff claims that police officers conducted themselves in an unconstitutional or 

11 unlawful manner and subjected him to excessive force. [Doc. No.8, at pp. 3-15.] 

12 

13 A. 

Discussion 

Defendant's Request for a Rule 35(a) Examination. 

14 In a prior Ex Parte Application, defendants requested an order compelling a Rule 

15 35 mental examination of plaintiff for the following reasons: "Defendants want to 

16 independently psychologically examine plaintiff by using a certified psychiatrist, 

17 outside the presence of any lawyers[,] in order to determine if plaintiff suffered from 

18 a mental disorder at the time of the incident[s] and/or any pre-existing injury 

19 contributed to the incident or damages, the nature and extent of any emotional distress, 

20 etc. Plaintiff has refused to submit to [a] properly notice [independent medical 

21 examination] with Dr. Addario." [Doc. No. 34-1, at p. 7.] 

22 The instant Ex Parte Application includes a more detailed request for an order 

23 compelling a Rule 35 mental examination and a request for an order requiring plaintiff 

24 to reimburse defendants for his failure to appear at a previously scheduled examination. 

25 

1 Pro se litigants are afforded some leniency to compensate for their lack 

26 of legal training. "In CIvil rights cases where the 2laintiff apR ears pro se, the court 

must construe The j)leadin~ liberally and must afford "plaintiff tlie benefit of any 27 doubt" Jackson v. Carey, 3-53 F.3d 750, 757 (9th Cir. 200j) (internal citation omitted)~ This also aRRlies to motions. Bernhardt v. Los Angeles County, 339 F.3d 920, 925 

28 (9th Cir. 20m). Accordingly, plaintiffs pro se status will be taken into consideration 

by the Court when his filings are reviewed. 

- 2 - 13cvI765·WQH(KSC) 

Case 3:13-cv-01765-WQH-KSC Document 51 Filed 12/04/15 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 11
1 [Doc_ No_ 42_] Defendants represent thatDL Addario is a certified forensic psychiatrist 

2 licensed by the State of Cali fomi a_ The proposed examination includes a three or four 

3 hour face-to-face interview to conduct a "standard comprehensive psychiatric 

4 evaluation" and three to four hours of standardized psychological testing_ [Doc_ No. 

5 42-1,atpp.3-4.] 

6 Essentially, defendants argue that the Court should issue an order compelling 

7 plaintiff to submit to an examination by Dr. Addario, because the allegations in 

8 plaintiffs Complaint affirmatively place his mental condition in controversy in this 

9 case, and there is good cause for the examination. Without a Rule 35 examination, 

10 defendants contend they will be deprived of an opportunity to discover information that 

11 will assist them in evaluating the case and preparing their defense for trial. Defendants 

12 believe plaintiffs mental condition is particularly relevant to his cause of action for 

13 false imprisonment. In this regard, defendants cite plaintiffs allegations that police 

14 officers unconstitutionally arrested and/or detained plaintiff "with no basis in fact or 

15 law" and transported him to a mental health facility for a "72 hour hold" against his 

16 will after friends and relatives became concerned and requested "that Mental Health 

17 officials go check on him." [Doc. No. 42-1, at pp. 10-11; Doc. No.8, at pp. 4, 12.] In 

18 addition, defendants argue they are entitled to discover information about plaintiffs 

19 mental health in order to defend themselves against plaintiffs "alleged emotional 

20 damages." [Doc. No. 42-1, at p. 10.] 

21 Plaintiff opposes plaintiffs request for an order compelling him to appear for a 

22 Rule 35 examination on various procedural grounds. [Doc. No. 45, atpp. 1-5.] Plaintiff 

23 also argues that his mental condition is not at issue in the case, because his Complaint 

24 only includes a claim for "garden variety" damages. [Doc. No. 36, at p. 54_] 

25 / / / 

26 / / / 

27 / / / 

28 / / / 

- 3 - 13cv1765-WQH(KSC) 

Case 3:13-cv-01765-WQH-KSC Document 51 Filed 12/04/15 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 11
1 

2 

3 

4 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 35(a) provides in part as follows: 

The court where the action is pending may order a party whose mental or 

physical condition ... is in controversy 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 .... 

5 Fed.R.Civ.P.35(a)(1)&(2). 

6 Rule 35(a) does not pennit "sweeping examinations of a party who has not 

7 affinnatively put into issue his own mental or physical condition .... " Schlagenhauf 

8 v. Holder, 379 U.S. 104, 121 (1964). The "in controversy" and "good cause" 

9 requirements "are not met by mere conclusory allegations ofthe pleadings-nor by mere 

10 relevance to the case-but require an affinnative showing by the movant that each 

11 condition as to which the examination is sought is really and genuinely in controversy 

12 and that good cause exists for ordering each particular examination." Id. at 118. To 

13 justify an examination, "the movant must produce sufficient information, by whatever 

14 means." Id. at 119. "Of course, there are situations where the pleadings alone are 

15 sufficient to meet these requirements." Id. 

16 Detennining whether the Rule 35(a) "in controversy" and "good cause" 

17 standards have been met is analogous to the standard for determining whether the 

18 plaintiff has placed his mental condition at issue so as to waive the psychotherapist19 patient privilege. Stevenson v. Stanley Bostitch, Inc., 201 F.R.D. 551,557 (N.D. Ga. 

20 2001). In this regard, Federal Courts have generally agreed that the "in controversy" 

21 requirement of Rule 35(a) requires more than allegations of the type of "garden 

22 variety" emotional distress or anguish that an average person might suffer as a result 

23 of being injured or victimized. See, e.g., Ornelas v. Southern Tire Mart, LLC, 292 

24 F.R.D. 388, 393-394 (S.D. Tex. 2013). 

25 "[C]ourts will order plaintiffs to undergo mental examinations where the cases 

26 involve, in addition to a claim of emotional distress, one or more of the following: 1) a 

27 cause of action for intentional or negligent infliction of emotional distress; 2) an 

28 allegation of a specific mental or psychiatric injury or disorder; 3) a claim of unusually 

- 4- 13cv1765·WQH(KSC) 

Case 3:13-cv-01765-WQH-KSC Document 51 Filed 12/04/15 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 11
1 severe emotional distress; 4) plaintiff's offer of expert testimony to support a claim of 

2 emotional distress; andlor 5) the plaintiff's concession that his or her mental condition 

3 is "in controversy" within the meaning of Rule 35(a)." Turner v. Imperial Stores, 161 

4 F.R.D. 89, 95 (S.D. Cal. 1995). Courts have also concluded that a plaintiff's 

5 allegations of an ongoing mental injury or continuing emotional distress are enough to 

6 place his or her mental health in controversy. Gattegno v. Price Waterhouse Coopers, 

7 LLP, 204 F.R.D. 228, 231-232 (D. Conn. 2001). 

8 In an Order Granting Defendants' Ex Parte Application for an Order Compelling 

9 Plaintiff to Provide Written Discovery Responses and Release of Medical Records, 

10 which is being issued concurrently with this Order, this Court concluded based on the 

11 allegations in plaintiff's Complaint that he has put his mental health at issue in the case 

12 and has therefore waived the psychotherapist-patient privilege as to certain mental 

13 health records. These same allegations establish that plaintiff's mental health is "in 

14 controversy" under Rule 35(a)(1) and that there is "good cause" under Rule 35(a)(2) 

15 to allow defendants to conduct a Rule 35 mental health examination of plaintiff. 

16 As the Court stated in the concurrent Order Granting Defendants' Ex Parte 

17 Application for an Order Compelling Plaintiffto Provide Written Discovery Responses 

18 and Release of Medical Records, the Complaint includes a number of allegations 

19 demonstrating that plaintiff's mental health is a key issue in the case. These allegations 

20 demonstrate that plaintiff is not merely seeking to recover for "garden variety" 

21 emotional distress resulting from defendants' alleged misconduct as plaintiff contends. 

22 First, the Complaint alleges that plaintiff suffers from "fear and anxiety" and "severe 

23 emotional distress" as a result of the incidents described in the Complaint. [Doc. No. 

24 8, at p. 9.] More specifically, the Complaint states that these incidents have "created 

25 an environment of fear and anxiety for the [plaintiff and his wife] making the most 

26 basic of daily activities such as travel to and from work wrought with fear, danger and 

27 uncertainty, creating severe emotional distress." [Doc. No.8, at p. 9.] 

28 III 

- 5 - 13cv1765-WQH(KSC) 

Case 3:13-cv-01765-WQH-KSC Document 51 Filed 12/04/15 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 11
1 The first cause of action alleges that plaintiffs "mental health arrest" by police 

2 was unconstitutional. [Doc. No.8, at pp. 4, 9-10.] The third cause of action in the 

3 Complaint alleges that officers used excessive force against plaintiff which resulted in 

4 "both physical and mental injuries," as well as "serious personal injuries and loss of 

5 companionship of his wife and child for a period of 4 months .... " [Doc. No.8, at p. 

6 12.] Plaintiffs fourth cause of action for false arrest alleges that defendants had "no 

7 basis in fact or law" to arrest or detain plaintiff and that as a result of defendants' 

8 alleged unconstitutional acts plaintiff "suffered serious personal injuries and special 

9 damages." [Doc. No.8, at p. 12-13.] Plaintiffs seventh cause of action for violations 

10 ofthe ADA alleges that officers acted in a discriminatory manner "based on actual and 

11 perceived mental health issues .... ,,2 [Doc. No.8, at p. 14.] The Court notes that a 

12 discrimination claim against a governmental entity under the ADA generally requires 

13 proofthat the plaintiff is a "qualified individual with a disability." Duvall v. County 

14 ojKitsap, 260F3d 1124, 1135 (9th Cir. 2001). 

15 Based on the foregoing, the above-cited allegations in plaintiff s Complaint are 

16 more than enough to satisfy the "in controversy" and "good cause" requirements of 

17 Rule 35(a) and(b). As defendants point out in their moving papers [Doc. No. 42-1, at 

18 p. 11], "Rule 35 is considered an attempt to fairly place the parties on a somewhat 

19 equal footing." Tomlin v. Holecek, 150 F.R.D. 628, 632 (D. Minn. 1993). Withoutan 

20 opportunity to evaluate plaintiffs mental health, defendants' cannot "adequately and 

21 thoroughly evaluate the case or prepare for trial." [Doc. No. 42-1, at p. 11.] Therefore, 

22 the Court finds that defendants' request for an order compelling plaintiff to submit to 

23 a Rule 35 mental examination must be GRANTED. 

24 

25 2 Defendants also state in the Ex Parte Application that plaintiff claims he 

"now suffers anxiety seeking mental health care for fear it may oe used to falsely 26 imprison or defame him in tlie future" and that he and his family "suffer PTSD type 

symptoms as a result of his treatment at the hands ofSDPD and the City of San Diego." 27 rDoc. No. 42-1, atf. 9.] However) the source of these claims is unclear. [Doc. No. 42-

1, at p. 9.] Plaintif indlcates in hls Response to defendants Ex Parte Application that 

28 these claims were included in his responses to defendants' interrogatories. [Doc. No. 

45, at p. 5.] 

- 6 - 13cvI765-WQH(KSC) 

Case 3:13-cv-01765-WQH-KSC Document 51 Filed 12/04/15 PageID.<pageID> Page 6 of 11
1 B. Plaintiff's Objections to the Proposed Examiner. 

2 If the Court determines that a Rule 35 examination is necessary, plaintiff 

3 challenges Dr. Addario' s qualifications and his credibility to provide testimony about 

4 plaintiffs mental state at the times in question, because he was "not present," 

5 presumably when the acts giving rise to this lawsuit took place. [Doc. No. 36, atp. 54.] 

6 Plaintiff also states that he "has concerns as to [Dr. Assario's] expertise and 

7 understanding of specific medications plaintiff takes" and therefore seeks to question 

8 him before agreeing to having him conduct an independent medical examination. 

9 [Doc. No. 36, at p. 54.] He believes Dr. Addario's testimony would have "zero value" 

10 as an expert unless he is qualified to testifY about these specific medications. [Doc. No. 

11 36, at p. 54.] In addition, plaintiff appears to be concerned that Dr. Addario may be 

12 biased, as he wants to know how many times he has testified for or against the 

13 government and how much he gets paid for his testimony and evaluation. [Doc. No. 36, 

14 at p. 54-55.] 

15 As noted above, Rule 35(a) authorizes the Court to order "a party whose mental 

16 or physical condition . . . is in controversy to submit to a physical or mental 

17 examination by a suitably licensed or certified examiner." Fed.RCiv.P. 35(a) 

18 (emphasis added). This provision "expressly" authorizes the Court "to assess the 

19 credentials of the examiner to assure that no person is subj ected to a court-ordered 

20 examination by an examiner whose testimony would be of such limited value that it 

21 would be unjust to require the person to undergo the invasion of privacy associated 

22 with the examination. . .. If the proposed examination and testimony calls for an 

23 expertise that the proposed examiner does not have, it should not be ordered, even if 

24 the proposed examiner is a physician." Fed.RCiv.P. advisory committee's note. 

25 The Court would only consider the appointment of a different examiner from the 

26 one proposed by defendants if plaintiff raised valid objections. Powell v. United States, 

27 149 F.RD. 122 (B.D. Va. 1993). "The 'valid objection' requirement provides 

28 defendants with the same opportunity as plaintiffs in choosing an expert witness. 

-7- \3cv1765·WQH(KSC) 

Case 3:13-cv-01765-WQH-KSC Document 51 Filed 12/04/15 PageID.<pageID> Page 7 of 11
1 Defendants have absolutely no say in detennining which physician a plaintiff chooses 

2 as a treating physician or an expert witness; likewise, a plaintiff should be limited in 

3 his ability to object to the selection of the defendant's expert witnesses." Id. at 124. 

4 The plaintiff in Powell v. United States argued that defendant's proposed examiner was 

5 biased, because he was regularly retained by insurance companies and defendants to 

6 perfonn medical examinations. The Court rejected this argument because the plaintiff 

7 did not demonstrate personal bias on the part of the proposed examiner. Id. at 124. 

8 Here, defendants have represented that Dr. Addario is a certified forensic 

9 psychiatrist licensed to practice in the State ofCalifomia. [Doc. No. 42-1, at p. 3.] 

10 Plaintiff has not presented any valid reason why Dr. Addario should not be allowed to 

11 conduct the requested examination. Plaintiffs objections are conc1usory and pre12 mature. While plaintiff s objections may be appropriate matters for cross-examination 

13 at trial, they are not enough to disqualify Dr. Addario from conducting a Rule 35 

14 examination in his certified area of expertise - psychiatry. 

15 Plaintiff also wants the Court to limit the scope of questions and issues during 

16 the examination and prohibit any standardized testing. There is, however, nothing 

17 unusual or improper about the scope of the proposed examination as delineated in 

18 defendants' Ex Parte Application. Defendants have provided a list of matters to be 

19 covered during the examination. They seek to conduct a "standard comprehensive 

20 psychiatric evaluation" and certain standardized tests. [Doc. No. 42-1, at pp. 3-4.] 

21 Accordingly, plaintiffs objections to Dr. Addario are overruled. 

22 C. Defendants' Request for Repavment of Costs. 

23 In their Ex Parte Application, defendants explain that they served plaintiffwith 

24 a notice for a Rule 35 examination to be conducted by Dr. Addario on July 10,2015, 

25 but plaintiff did not serve them with an objection and failed to appear for the 

26 examination. [Doc. No. 42-1, atp. 2-4,11.] As a result, defendants seek reimbursement 

27 in the amount of$I,500 to be paid directly to Dr. Addario as a "non appearance fee." 

28 [Doc. No. 42-1, at p. 2, 11.] 

- 8 - 13cv1765·WQH(KSC) 

Case 3:13-cv-01765-WQH-KSC Document 51 Filed 12/04/15 PageID.<pageID> Page 8 of 11
1 In his Response, plaintiff argues he should not be required to pay for 

2 Dr. Assario's time, because defense counsel indicated to plaintiff on July 7, 2015 that 

3 defense counsel was cancelling all depositions and the examination. [Doc. No. 45, at 

4 p. 6.] Plaintiff also argues that he should be required to pay this "non appearance fee," 

5 because defendants have not submitted any proof showing they were even billed by Dr. 

6 Addario for his time on the date in question. [Doc. No. 45, at p. 6.] 

7 Based on the foregoing, the Court finds that defendants request for an order 

8 compelling plaintiff to pay a $1,500 non appearance fee must be DENIED. The Court 

9 finds that defendants have not provided sufficient justification for their request. 

10 Conclusion 

11 For the reasons outlined above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that defendants' 

12 Ex Parte Application must be GRANTED in part and DENIED in part as follows: 

13 1. Defendants' request for an order compelling plaintiff to appear for a 

14 mental health examination pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 35 is 

15 GRANTED. The Court finds that the scope of examination proposed by defendants 

16 in their Ex Parte Application is appropriate. [Doc. No. 42-1, at pp. 3-4.] 

17 2. Defendants' requestfor an order compelling plaintiffto pay a $1,500 non 

18 appearance fee is DENIED. 

19 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT: 

20 1. Plaintiff shall appear for an examination within 60 days of the date this 

21 Order is filed. The examination shall be conducted by Dr. Dominic Addario at his 

22 office, which is located at 3010 First Avenue, San Diego, California 92103. Federal 

23 Rule of Civil Procedure 35(a)(2)(B) states that the Court must "specify the time" for 

24 the examination. 

25 2. The Court finds that the examination should be conducted during normal 

26 business hours (i.e., Monday through Friday between the hours of9:00 a.m. and 5:00 

27 p.m.) at a time that takes plaintiff's schedule into consideration. Since the entire 

28 examination is expected to take a total of six to eight hours, it may, at plaintiff's option, 

-9- 13cvI765-WQH(KSC) 

Case 3:13-cv-01765-WQH-KSC Document 51 Filed 12/04/15 PageID.<pageID> Page 9 of 11
1 be conducted on one day or on two separate days (i.e., one day of three to four hours 

2 for a face-to-face interview and a second day ofthree to four hours for standardized 

3 testing). 

4 3. No later than December 18. 2015, plaintiff shall serve defendants with 

5 a Notice of Availability. In this Notice, plaintiff shall advise defendants of his 

6 preferred dates and times for the examination. Plaintiff shall specifically provide 

7 defendants with the following information: 

8 (a) A list ofJifteen OS) week days when plaintiff can make himself 

9 available for the examination. As noted above, these fifteen (15) week days must be 

10 after January 8, 2016 and within 60 days ofthe date this Order is filed. 

11 (b) Whether plaintiff prefers the examination to be completed in one 

12 day or on two separate days. If he prefers that his examination take place on two 

13 separate dates, plaintiff shall advise defendants whether he prefers to begin at 9:00 a.m. 

14 or at 1 :OOp.m. 

15 (c) If plaintiff prefers to complete the examination on one day, the time 

16 for the examination shall be from 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., with a one-hour lunch break 

17 from noon to 1: 15 p.m., one ten-minute break in the morning, and one ten-minute break 

18 in the afternoon. 

19 Once a~ain.plaintiffis forewarned that he mustparticipate in the discovery 

20 process as provided in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and as ordered by the 

21 Court. Ifplainti(ffails to appear (or an examination with Dr. Addario as ordered 

22 by the Court. sanctions may be imposed a~ainst him. up to and includin~ dismissal 

23 ofthe entire action. Fed.R.Civ.P.37. 

24 4. No later than January 8. 2016, defendants shall serve plaintiff with a 

25 Notice of an Independent Medical Examination to be held at one of the times specified 

26 in plaintiff's Notice of Availability. 

27 / / / 

28 / / / 

- 10- 13cvI765-WQH(KSC) 

Case 3:13-cv-01765-WQH-KSC Document 51 Filed 12/04/15 PageID.<pageID> Page 10 of

 11
1 5. If plaintiff fails to provide defendants with a Notice of Availability as 

2 ordered by the Court, defendants shall notify the Court in a Status Report filed with the 

3 Court and served on plaintiff no later than January 8. 2016. 

4 

5 Date: ,2015 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

- 11 - I3cv1765-WQH(KSC) 

Case 3:13-cv-01765-WQH-KSC Document 51 Filed 12/04/15 PageID.<pageID> Page 11 of

 11