Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06556/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06556-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

HOLLY LOUEN, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

vs. ) 

)

FRESNO POLICE OFFICER BRIAN )

TWEDT; THE CITY OF FRESNO, )

CALIFORNIA, )

)

Defendants. )

 )

1:04-cv-06556-REC-SMS

ORDER re: CITY DEFENDANT’S

MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES

TO DISCOVERY AND PLAINTIFF

TO SUBMIT TO AN INDEPENDENT

MEDICAL EXAMINATION 

(Doc. Nos./Entries:

46, 51, 52, 53, 55)

City Defendant’s Motion to Compel Plaintiff to Respond to

Discovery and to Compel Plaintiff to Submit to an Independent

Medical Examination (“IME”) came on regularly for hearing on

November 4, 2005 at 9:30 a.m. in Courtroom No. 4 before the

Honorable Sandra M. Snyder, United States Magistrate Judge. Kevin

G. Little, Esq., appeared telephonically on behalf of plaintiff. 

James D. Weakley, Esq., and Catherine J. McCord, Esq., of Weakley,

Ratliff, Arendt & McGuire, LLP, appeared on behalf of defendants.

City defense counsel submitted a proposed order for this

Court’s signature on November 18, 2005 (Doc. 51). Plaintiff’s

counsel filed objections thereto regarding submission to an IME

also on November 18, 2005 (Doc. 52). City defendant filed a reply

thereto on November 21, 2005 (Doc. 53). The Court conducted

Case 1:04-cv-06556-OWW -SMS Document 57 Filed 12/22/05 Page 1 of 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

2

another informal telephonic discovery dispute regarding the IME on

November 30, 2005.

After considering the motion, oppositions, and arguments of

counsel, both on and off the record, this Court HEREBY ORDERS as

follows:

1. City Defendant’s Motion to Compel Discovery is MOOT,

except for the continuing obligation of the parties to update the

names and addresses of witnesses.

2. City Defendant’s Motion to Compel an IME is GRANTED, and

plaintiff is HEREBY ORDERED to so submit, to be conducted on

December 2, 2005, by:

Harold L. Seymour, Ph.D.

5740 N. Palm Avenue, #105

Fresno, CA 93704

(559) 431-1900 

Dr. Seymour will conduct a one-on-one examination with plaintiff,

which will consist solely of a question-and-answer session. 

Pursuant to plaintiff’s request, the examination will be audiotaped. Thereafter, if Dr. Seymour deems any testing to be

necessary, he will so inform City defense counsel, who will then

meet-and-confer with plaintiff’s counsel. If no resolution can be

reached, plaintiff’s counsel will be required to file a noticed

motion, seeking a protective order regarding any psychological

testing.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 22, 2005 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-06556-OWW -SMS Document 57 Filed 12/22/05 Page 2 of 2