Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-00597/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-00597-8/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- 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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RICHARD P. BERMAN,

Plaintiff,

v.

JOHN REYNOLDS, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:13-cv-00597-LJO-SAB

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 

PHYSICAL EXAMINATION WITHOUT 

PREJUDICE

ECF NO. 35

On December 30, 2014, Defendants County of Fresno and Tracy Sink (“Defendants”)

filed a motion for a physical examination pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 35. (ECF 

No. 35.) The hearing on the motion was set of January 28, 2015.

Local Rule 251 governs discovery motions filed pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure 26 through 37 and 45. See Local Rule 251(a). Accordingly, Local Rule 251’s 

requirements apply to the motion filed by Defendants under Rule 35. Local Rule 251(b) states 

that discovery motions “shall not be heard unless (1) the parties have conferred and attempted to 

resolve their differences, and (2) the parties have set forth their differences and the bases therefor 

in a Joint Statement re Discovery Disagreement.” Local Rule 251(a) states that the Joint 

Statement re Discovery Disagreement must be filed at least seven (7) days before the scheduled 

hearing date and the Court may drop the hearing from calendar without prejudice if it is not 

timely filed. To date, no Joint Statement re Discovery Disagreement has been filed by the 

Case 1:13-cv-00597-SAB Document 39 Filed 01/22/15 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

parties.

Defendants’ motion makes no mention of any efforts to confer with Plaintiff and attempt 

to resolve any differences regarding a physical examination pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 35. Accordingly, it is unclear what issues, if any, are in dispute between the parties 

regarding such an examination. In the absence of the required joint statement, the time, place, 

manner, conditions, and scope of the examination strikes the Court as issues that can be easily 

resolved informally by the parties without Court intervention.

The Court is cognizant of the fact that Rule 35, unlike the other discovery mechanisms, 

requires the party seeking such discovery to first obtain the Court’s permission. Local Rule 

251’s requirements inform the Court as to whether there are disputed issues regarding 

Defendants’ Rule 35 request. In this case, it is unclear. Plaintiff has not filed an opposition to 

Defendants’ motion, but that could be because he does not oppose the motion or it could be 

because, under Local Rule 251, no opposition is required and the onus is on the movant to meet 

and confer beforehand and for the parties to jointly prepare a Joint Statement re Discovery 

Disagreement.

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants’ motion for a physical 

examination is DENIED without prejudice. The hearing set for January 28, 2015 is taken off 

calendar and the parties shall not appear at that time.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 22, 2015 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:13-cv-00597-SAB Document 39 Filed 01/22/15 Page 2 of 2