Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-01460/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-01460-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 446
Nature of Suit: Americans with Disabilities Act - Other
Cause of Action: Americans with Disabilities 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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JACK ROBERTSON, Civil No. 13cv1460 W (JLB)

Plaintiff,

ORDER DENYING

DEFENDANT’S RULE 35

MOTION FOR A MENTAL

EXAMINATION OF THE

PLAINTIFF

[ECF No. 41]

v.

CITY OF SAN DIEGO, et al.,

Defendants

On October 31, 2014, DefendantCity of San Diego (“Defendant”) filed a Rule

35 Motion for a Mental Examination of the Plaintiff, along with a declaration of Dr.

Dominick Addario. (ECF No. 41.) Plaintiff Jack Robertson (“Plaintiff”) filed an

Opposition (ECF No. 44), and Defendant filed a Reply (ECF No. 47). For the reasons

set forth below, Defendant’s Motion is DENIED.

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

PlaintiffJack Robertson, a California resident with physical disabilities, filed

a Complaint on June 25, 2013. The Complaint alleges lack of physical accessibility

for persons with disabilities to the La Jolla Children’s Pool, located in La Jolla,

California. (ECF No. 1.) The Complaint further provides:

The only method of access from the public streets and right of way

to the La Jolla Children’s Pool beach is by a flight of stairs. There

1 13cv1460

Case 3:13-cv-01460-W-JLB Document 50 Filed 12/02/14 Page 1 of 5
 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

is no accessible path of travel for persons with disabilities. Each

time that the plaintiff has swum at the Children’s Pool, he has been

bodily carried down the stairs by others. This is scary, frustrating,

discomforting, embarrassing and difficult.Additionally, the plaintiff

is unable to independently gain access to the beach. The lack of

access and the inaccessible paths of travel have precluded the

plaintiff from enjoying the Children’s Pool beach on a full and equal

basis.

(Id. at 3.) The Complaint sets forth two causes of action: (1) violation of American’s

With Disabilities Act; and (2) violation of California Disabled Persons Act. (Id. at 1.) 

On March 25, 2014, Plaintifffiled a Motion for Leave to File a First Amended

Complaint. (ECF No. 17.) On May 21, 2014, United States District Judge Thomas J.

Whelan denied Plaintiff’s Motion. (ECF No. 23.) On October 31, 2014, Defendant

filed the instant Motion, seeking an order from this Court requiring Plaintiff to submit

to a mental examination by the Defendant’s psychiatric expert, Dr. Dominick Addario. 

(ECF No. 41.) 

II. LEGAL STANDARDS

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 35(a) provides that a Court may order a

medical examination if a litigant’s physical or mental condition is “in controversy” and

there is a showing of good cause. “Rule 35 is to be ‘construed liberally to allow the

examination.’” Sanders v. Holdings, No. 11cv1590 LAB (MDD), 2012 WL 2001967,

at *2 (S.D. Cal. June 4, 2012) (citing Tan v. City and Cnty. of S.F., No. C 08–01564

MEJ, 2009 WL 594238, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 4, 2009)). When ordering an

examination, the Court “must specify the time, place, manner, conditions, and scope

of the examination, as well as the person or persons who will perform it.” Fed. R. Civ.

P. 35(a)(2)(B).

“A plaintiff’s mental or physical condition is ‘in controversy’ when such

condition is the subject of the litigation.” Hernandez v. Simpson, No. ED CV

13–2296–CBM (SPx), 2014 WL 4090513, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 18, 2014) (citing

Gavin v. Hilton Worldwide, Inc., 291 F.R.D. 161, 164 (N.D. Cal. 2013)). In

determining whether a litigant’s mental state is “in controversy,” courts in this district

2 13cv1460

Case 3:13-cv-01460-W-JLB Document 50 Filed 12/02/14 Page 2 of 5
 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

apply the test outlined in Turner v. Imperial Stores, 161 F.R.D. 89, 95 (S.D. Cal.

1995).

In Turner, the Court held that a mental examination may be ordered when one

or more of the following circumstances are present:

1) a cause of action for intentional or negligent infliction of

emotional distress; 2) an allegation of a specific mental or

psychiatric injury or disorder; 3) a claim of unusually severe

emotional distress; 4) plaintiff’s offer of expert testimony to support

a claim of emotional distress; and/or 5) plaintiff’s concession that

his or her mental condition is‘in controversy’ within the meaning of

Rule 35(a).

Id. “In assessing whether ‘good cause’ exists, courts have considered ‘the possibility

of obtaining desired information by other means, whether plaintiff plans to prove her

claim through testimony of expert witnesses, whether the desired materials are

relevant, and whether plaintiff is claiming ongoing emotional distress.’” Conforto v.

Mabus, No. 12cv1316 W (BLM), 2014 WL 3407053, at *3 (S.D. Cal. July 10, 2014)

(quoting Juarez v. Autozone Stores, Inc., No. 08cv417 L (BLM), 2011 WL 1532070,

*1 (S.D. Cal. Apr. 21, 2011)).

III. DISCUSSION

In its Motion, Defendant seeks a Court order compelling Plaintiff to undergo

a mental examination. Defendant argues that “Plaintiff’s mental condition is at issue

because Plaintiff intends to seek emotional distress damages allegedly caused by the

City for repeated violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act.” (ECF No. 41 at

1.) Plaintiff opposes the Motion, arguing that he has not put his mental condition at

issue and that Defendant has failed to show that good cause existsfor the examination. 

(ECF No. 44.) 

A. Whether Plaintiff’s Mental Condition Is “In Controversy”

In arguing that Plaintiff has put his mental condition at issue, Defendant

states: 

Since 1997, the Plaintiff has experienced approximately 100

instances of anger, anxiety, nervousness, and feelings of

discrimination allegedly caused by the City’s failure to provide him

3 13cv1460

Case 3:13-cv-01460-W-JLB Document 50 Filed 12/02/14 Page 3 of 5
 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

access to Children’s Pool Beach. His longstanding emotional

problems are now compounded by his disappointment at the City for

its alleged failure to install an access ramp in conjunction with the

construction of a new Lifeguard Station at the Pool. Due to the

duration of Plaintiff’s emotional distress-occurring over four

decades-Plaintiffisseeking damagesfor more than just hurt feelings

or lingering resentment.

(Id. at 6.) Defendant claims that a mental examination is necessary for the City to

defend itself. (Id.) 

To determine if Plaintiff’s mental condition is in controversy, the Court must

evaluate the five Turnerfactors set forth above. Under the first factor, Plaintiff has not

alleged a cause of action for intentional or negligent infliction of emotional distress. 

(See ECF No. 1.) Under the second factor, Plaintiff has not alleged that he suffers from

a specific mental or psychiatric injury or disorder. To the contrary, Plaintiff has

“repeatedly testified that at no point did he ever feel the need to obtain psychiatric

treatment for any of the various emotions he felt as a result of Defendant’s [alleged]

discrimination . . . .” (ECF No. 44 at 3-4.) Under the fourth factor, “Plaintiff has not

offered, and does not plan to offer[,] any expert testimony to support his emotional

distress claim.” (Id. at 5.) As to the fifth factor, Plaintiff does not concede that his

mental condition is in controversy. (See ECF No. 44.) 

Defendant relies solely on the third Turner factor, arguing that Plaintiff’s

emotional distress is unusually severe. Defendant claims that Plaintiff’s distress is not

“garden variety” emotional distress because Plaintiff has suffered over 100 instances

of negative feelings within a time period spanning four decades. (ECF No. 41 at 5-6,

citing Ortiz v. Potter, 2010 WL 796960 at *3 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 5, 2010).) Plaintiff

argues that “he has suffered nothing more than the natural feelings of abandonment,

difficulty, and anger that normally flow from acts of discrimination.” (ECF No. 44 at

5.) 

The Court finds Defendant’s argument unpersuasive. Plaintiff’s emotional

distress can best be characterized as “garden variety.” “Garden variety [claims are]

claims of generalized insult, hurt feelings, and lingering resentment [that] do not 

4 13cv1460

Case 3:13-cv-01460-W-JLB Document 50 Filed 12/02/14 Page 4 of 5
 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

involve a significant disruption of the plaintiff’s work life and rarely involve more than

a temporary disruption to the claimant’s personal life.” Ortiz, 2010 WL 796960 at *3. 

While Plaintiff experienced frustration and disappointment with each instance

of the alleged discrimination, it cannot be said that Plaintiffsuffers from“longstanding

emotional problems” as argued by the Defendant. (ECF No. 41 at 6.) Furthermore,

Plaintiff has stated that he did not seek professional treatment for the distress he

experienced and that he was able to “alleviate [the distress] by [his] own coping

mechanisms.” (Id. at 5.) Under Turner, “garden-variety” emotional distress alone is

insufficient to place a party’s mental state in controversy because “Rule 35(a) was not

meant to be applied in so broad a fashion as to allow courts to order a mental

examination whenever a plaintiff claimed emotional distress.” Tan , 2009 WL 594238

at *1.

Given that none of the five Turner factors are implicated in the instant case, the

Court finds that Defendant has failed to establish that Plaintiff’s mental condition is in

controversy. 

B. Whether Defendant Has Established Good Cause

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 35(a) providesthat a Court may order a medical

examination if a litigant’s physical or mental condition is “in controversy” and there

is a showing of good cause. Because Plaintiff’s mental condition has not been placed

in controversy, the Court finds that Defendant has failed to meet the standard for

compelling an examination. 

IV. CONCLUSION

For the reasons addressed above, Defendant’s Rule 35 Motion For A Mental

Examination of the Plaintiff is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: December 2, 2014

JILL L. BURKHARDT

United States Magistrate Judge

5 13cv1460

Case 3:13-cv-01460-W-JLB Document 50 Filed 12/02/14 Page 5 of 5