Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-00170/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-00170-10/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 790
Nature of Suit: Other Labor Litigation
Cause of Action: 05:704 Labor Litigation

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JENNIFER HUH,

Plaintiff,

v.

MONO COUNTY OFFICE OF 

EDUCATION, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:19-cv-00170-WBS-KJN

ORDER

(ECF No. 59)

Presently before the court is an informal discovery dispute concerning plaintiff’s request 

for test questions and book materials that defendants’ expert plans on using during plaintiff’s 

Rule 35 mental examination. (ECF No. 59.) At the informal hearing Catherine J. Roland 

appeared for plaintiff; Anthony N. DeMaria appeared for defendants. The parties have agreed to 

the mental examination, and its general parameters, but disagree as to whether plaintiff is entitled 

to these materials. 

Defendants’ position is that providing plaintiff with these materials would violate 

copyright and trademark laws. (Id. at 2.) Defendants cite to the Ethics Code of the American 

Psychological Association, which instructs psychologists to maintain the “integrity and security 

of test materials.” (Id.) As a result of this position, defendants state that they are willing to 

provide plaintiff with the materials if plaintiff designates an expert who is appropriately “licensed 

and qualified.” (Id.) 

Case 2:19-cv-00170-WBS-KJN Document 61 Filed 06/16/20 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

Defendants’ position is at odds with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2)(B)(ii) and 

relevant precedent. Rule 26(a)(2)(B)(ii) requires testifying experts to provide a report that 

contains the “facts and data considered by the witness in forming [the expert’s opinions.]” As the 

Northern District of California held, “The raw data from [plaintiff’s] psychological examination 

fall within this category.” Starkey v. McHugh, 2015 WL 6438762, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 23, 

2015). The undersigned agrees with the court in Starkey, and therefore holds that defendants 

must produce the raw data—the questions as well as the book materials— to plaintiff’s counsel 

after the Rule 35 examination takes place. Regarding defendants’ arguments raising privacy 

concerns from the disclosure of these materials, the court orders plaintiff, or defendant if plaintiff 

produces similar material, to not disseminate, distribute, or publish the materials beyond as 

reasonably necessary to prosecute this specific case.1

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that if the Rule 35 examination proceeds, the 

parties must produce the relevant raw data—the test questions as well as the book materials—

with one another in accordance with Rule 26(a)(2)(B). Additionally, the parties shall not

disseminate, distribute, or publish the materials beyond as reasonably necessary to prosecute this 

specific case.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: June 15, 2020

/170.huh

1 As discussed in the informal hearing in this matter, the parties are encouraged to stipulate to any 

additional protections that would facilitate production. 

Case 2:19-cv-00170-WBS-KJN Document 61 Filed 06/16/20 Page 2 of 2