Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cv-02903/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cv-02903-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 310
Nature of Suit: Airplane Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

Kenney 

& 

Markowitz

L.L.P. 

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 

KYMBERLY E. SPEER (SBN 121703)

KIMBERLY I. MCINTYRE (SBN 184648)

KENNEY & MARKOWITZ L.L.P. 

255 California Street, Suite 1300 

San Francisco, CA 94111 

Telephone: (415) 397-3100 

Facsimile: (415) 397-3170 

Email: kspeer@kennmark.com

 kmcintyre@kennmark.com

Attorneys for Defendant 

AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC. 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 

LAURIE SMITH, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC. and DOES 1 

to 50, 

Defendants. 

CASE NO. C09-02903 WHA 

[PROPOSED] ORDER ON DISCOVERY 

DISPUTES__________________________

This matter came before this Court on March 16, 2010, the Honorable Judge William H. 

Alsup presiding, on the various discovery disputes raised by defendant American Airlines, Inc. 

(“American”) in its letter to the Court of March 4, 2010 (Document 29), plaintiff Laurie Smith’s 

(“plaintiff”) counsel having also submitted a reply letter and exhibits (Document 32) which, 

among other things, requested American’s compliance with its obligations under Federal Rule of 

Civil Procedure 26(a)(1)(A)(ii). Kymberly E. Speer and Kimberly I. McIntyre of Kenney &

Markowitz L.L.P. appeared on behalf of American, and Louis S. Franecke of the Franecke Law 

{30075.302131 0140356.DOC} -1- 

[PROPOSED] ORDER ON DISCOVERY DISPUTES 

CASE NO: C09-02903 WHA

Case3:09-cv-02903-WHA Document40-1 Filed03/25/10 Page1 of 6 Case 3:09-cv-02903-WHA Document 42 Filed 03/26/10 Page 1 of 6
Kenney 

& 

Markowitz

L.L.P. 

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 

Group appeared on behalf of plaintiff. The Court, having reviewed the written submissions of the 

parties, having heard the arguments of counsel, and otherwise having been fully advised at the 

hearing, orders as follows: 

ISSUE 1: PLAINTIFF’S MENTAL EXAMINATION PURSUANT TO FRCP 35

It appearing to the Court that plaintiff’s mental condition is in controversy by virtue of her

Posttraumatic Stress Disorder (“PTSD”) claim (among others), IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

1. Plaintiff shall submit to a mental examination consisting of both a 

neuropsychological examination by Dr. Alan Shonkoff and a psychiatric examination by Dr. 

Bernard Rappaport. 

2. The neuropsychological examination by Dr. Shonkoff shall occur on June 28, 2010 

at 8:30 a.m. at Dr. Shonkoff’s office, which is located at 2340 Ward Street, Suite 102, Berkeley, 

California 94705, tel. (510) 848-0402. Such examination shall last a full day, with a lunch break

and such other breaks as plaintiff requests, and shall consist of a comprehensive 

neuropsychological assessment, including a history and usual testing. Some or all of the following 

tests may be administered as part of the comprehensive neuropsychological assessment: WAISIV; WTAR; WRAT-4; WIAT-2; Trailmaking Test; Stroop Procedure; Wisconsin Card Sorting 

Test; Category Test; Controlled Oral Word Association Test; Boston Naming Test; Ruff Figural 

Fluency; NAB Naming Test; Test of Adolescent/Adult Word Finding; TOMM; WMT; MSVT; 15 

Item Memory Test; MCI; WRAML-2; WMS-IV; RAVLT; Rey-Osterreith Complex Figure Test; 

Taylor Complex Figure Test; Sensory-Perceptual Examination; Lateral Dominance Examination; 

Grooved Pegboard Procedure; MMPI-2; MMPI-2-RF; MCMI-III; BDI-2; Wahler Physical

Symptoms Inventory; Rorshach Psychodiagnostic Procedure; Clinical Interview; and any other 

tests which are ordinarily deemed a part of a comprehensive neuropsychological examination. 

3. The psychiatric examination by Dr. Rappaport shall occur on June 29, 2010 at 9:00 

a.m. at Dr. Rappaport’s office, which is located at 3 Altarinda Road, Suite 207, Orinda, California 

94563, tel. (925) 253-1990. Such examination, the estimated time for which is four to six hours

depending upon plaintiff’s pace, shall consist of two parts as follows: 

{30075.302131 0140356.DOC} -2- 

[PROPOSED] ORDER ON DISCOVERY DISPUTES 

CASE NO: C09-02903 WHA

Case3:09-cv-02903-WHA Document40-1 Filed03/25/10 Page2 of 6 Case 3:09-cv-02903-WHA Document 42 Filed 03/26/10 Page 2 of 6
Kenney 

& 

Markowitz

L.L.P. 

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) an oral examination including: 

(a) taking a complete history (family history, educational history, social 

history, past medical history, past psychological/psychiatric history, 

employment history, legal history, history of the incident, 

subsequent clinical course and psychological/psychiatric treatment); 

and 

(b) an oral mental status examination (specific questions to assess 

mental functioning, mood, affect, capacity for abstraction, judgment, 

etc.); and 

(2) the administration of three psychological test instruments, which shall be

coordinated with Dr. Shonkoff to ensure that plaintiff will not be subjected 

to duplicative psychological test instruments during the mental

examination: 

(a) the MMPI-2 (Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory – 2); 

(b) the MCMI-III (Million Clinical Multiaxial Inventory – III); and 

(c) the Rotter Incomplete Sentences Blank. 

4. No one other than plaintiff shall be present during the aforesaid examinations. 

ISSUE 2: AUTHORIZATION FOR PLAINTIFF’S PSYCHIATRIC RECORDS

It appearing to the Court that plaintiff’s mental condition is in controversy by virtue of her

PTSD claim (among others), IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

1. Plaintiff shall sign an authorization permitting Quest Discovery Services (“Quest”) 

to obtain, on behalf of American and its counsel, all of her psychiatric and/or psychological 

records, including but not limited to the records of Dr. Lev Basin and Barbara Largent, MFT, 

dating back to January 1, 1997. In the event plaintiff fails to sign said authorization by March 23, 

2010, this Court shall Order the production of such records to Quest upon request by American, 

and without further hearing on the matter. Along with the authorization, Quest shall be served 

with a copy of this Order setting forth its duties and responsibilities with regard to the subject 

records. 

{30075.302131 0140356.DOC} -3- 

[PROPOSED] ORDER ON DISCOVERY DISPUTES 

CASE NO: C09-02903 WHA

Case3:09-cv-02903-WHA Document40-1 Filed03/25/10 Page3 of 6 Case 3:09-cv-02903-WHA Document 42 Filed 03/26/10 Page 3 of 6
Kenney 

& 

Markowitz

L.L.P. 

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. The records, once they are copied and received in Quest’s office, shall be bates 

stamped and, at that time only, one set sent to plaintiff’s attorney, Louis S. Franecke, Esq., 

Franecke Law Group, 1115 Irwin Street, Suite 100, San Rafael, California 94901, for review, 

redaction or removal of pages. No other counsel are to receive the records at this time. Mr. 

Franecke shall have ten days from the date Quest sends him the records in which to review the 

records, notify Quest and counsel for American as to objections or changes (which shall be noted 

in a privilege log or list of pages removed and the reason for removal), and return the records to 

Quest along with the privilege log or list of pages removed and the reason for removal. The

records as to which plaintiff has no objections are then to be processed and sent out to the parties 

who requested them. 

3. In the event American objects to plaintiff’s redaction or removal of pages from 

those records obtained by Quest, the privilege log or list of pages removed, together with complete

copies of the medical records in dispute, shall be submitted to the Court for in camera, ex parte

review and a determination as to whether the challenged records are privileged and to be withheld 

or not privileged and to be produced. 

ISSUE 3: PLAINTIFF’S DISCLOSURE OF TREATING PHYSICIANS AND REPORTS

American, having challenged the completeness of plaintiff’s Rule 26 disclosures as they 

relate to the identification, by name and address, of all treating physicians and/or health care 

providers plaintiff may use to support her claims, and having challenged plaintiff’s compliance 

with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 35(b)(3), IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

1. Plaintiff shall have one week, until March 23, 2010, to supplement her Rule 26 

disclosures as they relate to the identification, by name and address, of all treating physicians 

and/or health care providers she may use to support her claims, and in particular provide the 

addresses and telephone numbers for each of the following seven physicians and providers: (1) 

Dr. Claudia LeMoine; (2) Dr. James O’Donohue; (3) Dr. Andrew Oh; (4) Dr. Janice Moy; (5) Dr. 

Preete Bhanot; (6) Dr. Inserra; and (7) Barbara Largent, MFT. Failure to timely supplement may 

result in exclusion of evidence under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(c). 

{30075.302131 0140356.DOC} -4- 

[PROPOSED] ORDER ON DISCOVERY DISPUTES 

CASE NO: C09-02903 WHA

Case3:09-cv-02903-WHA Document40-1 Filed03/25/10 Page4 of 6 Case 3:09-cv-02903-WHA Document 42 Filed 03/26/10 Page 4 of 6
Kenney 

& 

Markowitz

L.L.P. 

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. Plaintiff shall have one week, until March 23, 2010, to comply with her reciprocity

obligations under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 35(b)(3) and provide American with reports of 

examinations pertaining to her alleged brain injury, to the extent such reports exist and have not 

yet been provided to American. Plaintiff shall recognize that her obligations under Rule 35(b)(3) 

are ongoing and apply to all future examinations of her condition. 

ISSUE 4: INFORMATION AND DOCUMENTATION PERTAINING TO WAGE LOSS

It appearing to the Court that plaintiff has not complied with her obligations under Federal

Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(1)(A)(iii), IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

1. Plaintiff shall have one week, until March 23, 2010, to comply with her obligations 

under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(1)(A)(iii) and provide American with the documents 

or other evidentiary material upon which her wage loss computation of damages is based. Failure 

to comply may result in exclusion of evidence under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(c). 

ISSUE 5: DEPOSITION SUBPOENA FOR PLAINTIFF’S HUSBAND

American, having unsuccessfully attempted to serve plaintiff’s counsel with a deposition 

notice and subpoena for plaintiff’s husband, Callan Smith (“Mr. Smith”), when the parties met and 

conferred prior to this hearing, plaintiff’s counsel not being under any obligations to accept such 

subpoena, and American having subsequently personally served Mr. Smith with the deposition 

notice and subpoena on March 20, 2010, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

1. Plaintiff’s counsel shall have one week, until March 23, 2010, to advise American’s 

counsel when, during the week currently noticed for Mr. Smith’s deposition, to wit, the week of 

May 24, 2010, Mr. Smith is available for deposition. 

ISSUE 6: PROVISION OF DOCUMENTS IDENTIFIED IN AMERICAN’S 

SUPPLEMENTAL INITIAL DISCLOSURES

Plaintiff, having requested that American produce the documents identified pursuant to

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(1)(A)(ii) in its Supplemental Initial Disclosures dated 

October 9, 2009, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

1. American shall have one week, until March 23, 2010, to provide plaintiff with the 

documents identified in its Supplemental Initial Disclosures dated October 9, 2009. The

{30075.302131 0140356.DOC} -5- 

[PROPOSED] ORDER ON DISCOVERY DISPUTES 

CASE NO: C09-02903 WHA

Case3:09-cv-02903-WHA Document40-1 Filed03/25/10 Page5 of 6 Case 3:09-cv-02903-WHA Document 42 Filed 03/26/10 Page 5 of 6
Kenney 

& 

Markowitz 

L.L.P. 

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 

{30075.302131 0140356.DOC} -6- 

[PROPOSED] ORDER ON DISCOVERY DISPUTES 

CASE NO: C09-02903 WHA 

documents shall be “for counsel’s eyes only” while American and plaintiff work out a protective 

order covering those documents that are claimed to be of a trade secret or sensitive nature, 

including but not limited to Sensitive Security Information (“SSI”) as that term is used in 49 

C.F.R. §1520 et seq. Failure to comply may result in exclusion of evidence under Federal Rule of 

Civil Procedure 37(c). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

 

DATED: ____________________ 

 ___________________________________ 

 WILLIAM H. ASLUP 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case3:09-cv-02903-WHA Document40-1 Filed03/25/10 Page6 of 6

March 25, 2010.

U

NITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

APPROVED

Judge William Alsup

Case 3:09-cv-02903-WHA Document 42 Filed 03/26/10 Page 6 of 6