Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_12-cv-01892/USCOURTS-cand-4_12-cv-01892-12/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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MAURICE CALDWELL,

Plaintiff,

v.

CITY OF SAN FRANCISCO, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 12-cv-01892-EDL 

ORDER

Re: Dkt. No. 218

On October 13, 2015, this Court granted Defendants’ motion to compel a mental 

examination of Plaintiff and ordered the Parties to meet and confer as to the specific tests which 

will be administered. On October 22, 2015, the Parties filed a joint letter indicating that three 

disputes remain with regard to the scope of the examination: (1) whether both the MMPI-2 and the 

MCMI-III tests should be administered; (2) whether the clinical interview portion of the 

examination should be limited to two hours; and (3) whether the examination should be audio 

recorded.

Defendants’ psychologist, Dr. Berg, states the MMPI-2 “has many clinical scales assessing 

mental health problems such as depression, anxiety, and post-traumatic stress disorder” and that it 

will help her “corroborate or contradict [her] conclusions about [Plaintiff] by cross referencing 

[her] findings with the test’s empirical data.” (Berg Decl. ¶ 11.) She also states that the test “is 

good at detecting deception or self-deception of a patient, which are both critical to understanding 

a person’s psychological profile and damage.” Although Plaintiff argues, without citation, that the 

MCMI-III is duplicative of the MMPI-2, Dr. Berg states that the MCMI-III is “not redundant or 

the same as the MMPI-2, though they are similar in that they both rely on self-reporting” and that 

“both are critical components of completing a full psychological diagnosis.” (Id. ¶ 12.) 

Moreover, Dr. Berg states that the “MCMI-III is much more narrowly focused on determining if a

Case 4:12-cv-01892-DMR Document 223 Filed 10/26/15 Page 1 of 2
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

patient meets the specific criteria for a diagnosis.” (Id.) Accordingly, Dr. Berg may administer 

both the MMPI-2 and the MCMI-III tests, as well as the Rorschach and Rotter tests to which 

Plaintiff does not object.

Furthermore, Plaintiff’s requests to limit the clinical interview to two hours and to audio 

record that portion of the examination are denied. Although Plaintiff asserts that Dr. Berg “is 

certainly capable of conducting her interview” in two hours, Plaintiff cites no evidence that this is 

in fact sufficient time or than an interview longer than two hours would be unduly burdensome. 

Additionally, Plaintiff points to no compelling reason why an audio recording of the interview is 

necessary in this case. See Ayat v. Societe Air France, 2007 WL 1120358, at *8 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 

16, 2007) (Larson, J.) (rejecting a request for either a third party observer or an audio recording at 

an independent medical examination and noting, in part, that “[t]he mere fact that [defendant’s] 

experts were hired by [defendant], standing alone, does not create enough concern to warrant a 

third party observer”); Newman v. San Joaquin Delta Cmty. Coll. Dist., 272 F.R.D. 505, 514 (E.D. 

Cal. 2011) (“In the same way third party observation of mental exams is disfavored, the presence 

of recording devices during such exams is also disfavored.”).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 26, 2015

________________________

ELIZABETH D. LAPORTE

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 4:12-cv-01892-DMR Document 223 Filed 10/26/15 Page 2 of 2