Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-05444/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-05444-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:2000e Job Discrimination (Employment)

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

*e-filed 6/1/07*

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

JAMILAH ABDUL HAQQ, 

Plaintiff,

 v.

STANFORD HOSPITAL AND CLINICS, et al.,

Defendants. /

NO. C 06-05444 JW (RS)

ORDER GRANTING MOTION

TO COMPEL INDEPENDENT

MEDICAL EXAMINATION

I. INTRODUCTION

Defendants Stanford Hospital and Clinics and Lucile Packard Children’s Hospital at Stanford

(collectively “Stanford”) move to compel plaintiff Jamilah Abdul Haqq to submit to an independent

mental examination. Haqq opposes the motion, arguing that such an exam is not warranted in an

ordinary employment case such as this. The Court finds this matter suitable for disposition without

oral argument, pursuant to Local Rule 7-1 (b). In view of Haqq’s claims of severe ongoing

emotional distress and the fact that such alleged injury is the “primary source” of her claim for

damages, the motion will be granted.

 

Case 5:06-cv-05444-JW Document 58 Filed 06/01/07 Page 1 of 5
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

II. DISCUSSION

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 35(a), provides, in relevant part:

When the mental or physical condition... of a party...is in controversy, the court in

which the action is pending may order the party to submit to a physical or mental

examination.... The order may be made only on motion for good cause shown and

upon notice to the person to be examined and to all parties and shall specify the time,

place, manner, conditions, and scope of the examination and the person or persons by

whom it is to be made.

Accordingly, to justify a mental examination under Rule 35, the defendants must demonstrate (a)

that the plaintiffs have placed their mental condition “in controversy,” and (b) “good cause” for the

examination. Schlagenhauf v. Holder, 379 U.S. 104, 85 S.Ct. 234, 241-43, 13 L.Ed.2d 152 (1964). 

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

subject of the litigation. Robinson v. Jacksonville Shipyards, Inc., 118 F.R.D. 525, 531 (M.D. Fla.

1988). Among other things, courts have held that a separate tort claim for emotional distress places

the plaintiff’s mental condition in controversy. See Turner v. Imperial Stores, 161 F.R.D. 89, 95

(S.D. Cal. 1995) (intentional infliction of emotional distress claims place mental condition in

controversy.). 

“Good cause” generally requires a showing of specific facts justifying discovery. Factors

that courts have considered include, but are not limited to, 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. See Turner, 161 F.R.D. 89, 97-98 (expert testimony); Ragge v. MCA/Universal

Studios, 165 F.R.D. 605, 608 (C.D. Cal. 1995) (ongoing emotional distress); Schlagenhauf, 379 U.S.

104, 118-119 (availability by other means). 

Even if good cause is shown, it is still within the court’s discretion to determine whether to

order an examination. Stinchcomb v. United States, 132 F.R.D. 29, 30 (E.D. Pa. 1990). Although

the rule is to be construed liberally to allow the examination, the court must take into account the

interest of the party to be examined in avoiding unnecessary invasion of privacy balanced against the

moving party’s right to a fair trial. Curtiss v. Express, Inc., 868 F. Supp. 467, 468 (N.D. N.Y. 1994). 

As noted above, where a separate tort claim for emotional distress is alleged, courts have

Case 5:06-cv-05444-JW Document 58 Filed 06/01/07 Page 2 of 5
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

 A complete copy of Haqq’s interrogatory responses is part of the record herein at Docket

No. 27 (Isom Declaration in opposition to plaintiff’s motion for a protective order). Accordingly,

Stanford’s failure to include the relevant interrogatory response (No. 19) in the materials filed in

support of the present motion is not fatal.

3

held that plaintiff’s mental condition is thereby placed in controversy. Turner v. Imperial Stores, 161

F.R.D. 89, 95 (S.D. Cal. 1995). Haqq has expressly alleged no such separate claim here. 

Nevertheless, the “controversy” for the purpose of Rule 35 need not be disclosed in the formal

pleadings. Swift v. Swift, 64 F.R.D. 440 (E.D. NY 1974). An alleged ongoing mental or emotional

illness puts the claimant’s mental condition in controversy. See Ragge v. MCA/Universal Studios,

165 F.R.D. 605, 608 (C.D. Cal. 1995); Jansen v. Packaging Corporation of America, 158 FRD 409

(N.D. Ill. 1994). Here, Haqq contends that she has suffered and continues to suffer severe emotional

distress and symptoms arising from Stanford’s alleged treatment of her. Additionally, it appears the

overwhelming majority of her claim for monetary damages arises from her alleged emotional

distress.1

As such, this does not appear to be a “garden variety” claim where emotional distress

damages are sought only as an adjunct to other claims. By claiming ongoing severe mental distress

and basing her damages claim thereon, Haqq has put her mental state in controversy and Stanford is

entitled to an independent examination.

Finally, Haqq suggests that certain aspects of the exam proposed by Stanford are

inappropriate in any event. While the Court is authorized to place limits and conditions on the

exam, Haqq has not shown that any specific limitations should be imposed here. There is no reason

to believe that the examiner will not act professionally and or will subject Haqq to unnecessary

testing or inquiry.

Case 5:06-cv-05444-JW Document 58 Filed 06/01/07 Page 3 of 5
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

4

III. CONCLUSION

Stanford’s motion is granted. The parties shall cooperate to schedule the exam at the earliest

practicable time.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 1, 2007 

RICHARD SEEBORG

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:06-cv-05444-JW Document 58 Filed 06/01/07 Page 4 of 5
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

5

THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT NOTICE OF THIS ORDER HAS BEEN GIVEN TO:

Marcie Sarah Isom misom@gordonrees.com

Matthew Rafat willworkforjustice@yahoo.com

Counsel are responsible for distributing copies of this document to co-counsel who have not

registered for e-filing under the Court's CM/ECF program. 

Dated: 6/1/07 Chambers of Judge Richard Seeborg

By: /s/ BAK 

Case 5:06-cv-05444-JW Document 58 Filed 06/01/07 Page 5 of 5