Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_04-cv-02660/USCOURTS-cand-5_04-cv-02660-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Employment Discrimination

---

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 The holding of this court is limited to the facts and the particular circumstances

underlying the present motion.

ORDER, page 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

DAVID HALTERMAN,

Plaintiff,

v.

LEGATO SOFTWARE, a Division of

EMC CORPORATION, dba EMC

PERIPHERALS, INC. and DOES 1-10,

Defendants.

__________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: C 04-02660 JW PVT

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND

DENYING IN PART MOTION TO

COMPEL AN INDEPENDENT

MENTAL EXAMINATION AND

ANSWERS TO DEPOSITION

QUESTIONS

On July 26, 2005, the parties appeared before Magistrate Judge Patricia V. Trumbull for

hearing on a motion to compel filed by Defendant Legato.1 Based on the briefs and arguments

presented,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants’ motion to compel is GRANTED in part and

DENIED in part.

///

///

Case 5:04-cv-02660-JW Document 56 Filed 08/09/05 Page 1 of 8
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

 The background facts are taken from the parties’ submissions.

ORDER, page 2

I. INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff Halterman is claiming emotional distress stemming from his employer’s

actions.2 Defendant Legato hired Plaintiff in 2002 to the position of Senior Products Manager. 

Plaintiff worked with a team of analysts on calculations of historical, current and projected

financial performance of certain Legato products. Plaintiff alleges that during the course of his

work, he found that Legato renewal rates were lower than claimed and that the company was

overstating projected revenue. At that time, Legato was preparing for an acquisition by the EMC

Corporation. 

In late April and May of 2003, when Plaintiff informed his superiors of the problem, they

allegedly rebuked him for exposing the negative information. On May 15, 2003, Plaintiff’s

manager expressed concern about Plaintiff’s calculations and suggested that Plaintiff was not

focused and was exhibiting “mood swings.” Plaintiff explained that he was worried about his

son, who was in the military and deployed in Iraq. Plaintiff also informed his manager that he

was seeing a doctor and taking medication for depression. 

Plaintiff alleges that his manager (and later Legato’s vice president) instructed him not to

disclose to anyone the information he had discovered. Plaintiff says he objected, claiming that he

“intended to escalate his concerns over this censorship.” On June 12, 2003, after Plaintiff’s

multiple attempts to address his concerns about the revenue projections with management,

Legato placed Plaintiff on administrative leave, barring him from their offices and prohibiting

him from talking to anyone. Legato fired Plaintiff on July 7, 2003. Plaintiff claims that as a

result of his alleged mistreatment and termination by Legato, he suffers from sleeplessness, loss

of appetite, irritable bowels, general withdrawal, and isolation. 

While Plaintiff consents to a mental examination, he insists 1) that the examination be

limited to eight hours; 2) that the inquiry not address Plaintiff’s sexual or financial matters; 

3) that the inquiry be limited to five years prior to Plaintiff’s employment with Legato; and

4) that the psychiatric interview not be tape-recorded and if it is recorded, that the tapes not be

Case 5:04-cv-02660-JW Document 56 Filed 08/09/05 Page 2 of 8
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

 

3 At several points in their submissions, Defendants allege that they need twelve hours to

conduct a mental examination of Plaintiff. According to Defense counsel’s May 17, 2005 letter,

however, only eleven hours were originally requested.

ORDER, page 3

provided to counsel. Defendants move to compel an examination 1) lasting eleven hours;3

2) addressing Plaintiff’s sexual history; 3) spanning Plaintiff’s entire lifetime; and 4) recorded

onto audiotape. Defendants also ask that Plaintiff be ordered to answer questions at his

deposition about his mental health during the course of his life. 

II. DISCUSSION

A. Legal Standards

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 35(a) allows a court to order a party to submit to a mental

examination by a suitably licensed or certified examiner or to produce for examination the person

in the party's custody or legal control if the mental condition of that party is in controversy. 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. Additionally, the order shall specify the time, place, manner,

conditions, and scope of the examination and the person or persons by whom it is to be made. 

FED. R. CIV. P. 35(a). 

 When a party opposing a Rule 35 examination admits that his or her mental state is in

controversy, the burden of showing why an inquiry into his or her mental state should be limited

rests on that party. See in re Lifschutz, 2 Cal. 3d 415, 436 (1970). In order to have a court limit

the length of a mental evaluation, a party must offer persuasive evidence that the amount of time

is unreasonable. See, e.g., Greenhorn v. Marriott Intern., Inc., 216 F.R.D. 649, 654 (D. Kan.

2003); Abdulwali v. Washington Metro Area Transit Authority, 193 F.R.D. 10, 15 (D.D.C. 2000)

(rejecting plaintiff's request that the Rule 35 examination be limited to three hours where plaintiff

failed to offer any basis for the limitation and to do so would subvert the truth-finding function

inherent in Rule 35 examinations). 

A plaintiff does not necessarily place his mental condition in controversy when he makes

a “garden-variety” claim of emotional distress. Houghton v. M & F Fishing, Inc., 198 F.R.D.

666, 669 (S.D. Cal. 2001) (finding mental state not at issue for a plaintiff who alleged “garden

variety” emotional distress and did not concede that his mental condition was "in controversy"

Case 5:04-cv-02660-JW Document 56 Filed 08/09/05 Page 3 of 8
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

ORDER, page 4

within the meaning of Rule 35(a)). Garden-variety emotional distress is "ordinary or

commonplace emotional distress," that which is "simple or usual." In contrast, emotional distress

that is not garden variety "may be complex, such as that resulting in a specific psychiatric

disorder." Fitzgerald v. Cassil, 216 F.R.D. 632, 637 (N.D. Cal. 2003) (quoting Ruhlmann v.

Ulster County Dep't of Soc. Servs., 194 F.R.D. 445, 449 n. 6 (N.D.N.Y. 2000)). Although

Plaintiff in this case claims emotional distress that is easily qualified as “garden variety” and

therefore arguably did not have to agree to a mental examination, he has conceded that his mental

state is in controversy, presumably because he wants to offer at trial his own expert’s testimony

on this matter. 

B. Defendants Are Allowed Eleven Hours To Conduct the Mental Examination

Plaintiff concedes that his mental state is in controversy, but wishes to limit the time

allowed to Defendants to conduct a mental examination. In the instant case, Plaintiff has failed

to meet this burden of showing why the inquiry into his mental state should be limited. 

Plaintiff argues that the examination should be limited to eight hours because depositions

are limited to seven hours by Rule 30(d)(2). Rule 30(d)(2), however, does not govern mental

examinations and is not relevant to the question at hand.

Plaintiff also contends that the “norm” for the sort of mental examination Defendants

wish to conduct is “four hours or less” and that Defendants’ expert, Dr. Zeitz, “has confirmed

that he would diagnose and begin to treat a patient in his practice in less time than he proposes to

spend with Plaintiff.” However, Plaintiff has failed to support this contention with any evidence. 

Defendants submitted an affidavit by Dr. Zeitz, who has conducted such evaluations since

1983, stating that a twelve-hour examination is required in this case. In their motion to compel,

however, Defendants request an examination totaling eleven hours, with Dr. Zeitz requiring

seven hours and Dr. Hooker requiring four hours. The court will not second-guess the

uncontradicted professional judgment of a board-certified psychiatrist with twenty-two years of

experience. See Simpson v. Univ. of Colo., 220 F.R.D. 354, 363 (D. Colo. 2004). Nevertheless,

the court will not order an intrusive examination to run longer than the moving party requested. 

Accordingly, it is ordered that Defendants’ expert be allowed eleven hours to examine Plaintiff.

Case 5:04-cv-02660-JW Document 56 Filed 08/09/05 Page 4 of 8
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

 In his declaration, Dr. Zeitz states that he plans to determine “whether Plaintiff has a

distorted perception of his interactions with Defendant.” (Id. at ¶ 6.) Such a determination

would assess the Plaintiff’s credibility, and it is improper to use expert testimony to impugn a

party’s psychiatric credibility. Nichols v. Am. Nat’l Ins. Co., 154 F.3d 875, 883 (8th Cir. 1998). 

Accordingly, Dr. Zeitz shall not make any inquiry into whether Plaintiff has a distorted

perception of his interactions with Defendant.

ORDER, page 5

C. Subject Matter Scope of Mental Examination 

Defendants ask to allow Dr. Zeitz to inquire into:

employment experiences that contributed to the alleged complaints of distress;

any medical or psychological treatment for symptoms from the alleged distress;

experiences between the end of Mr. Halterman’s employment and the time of his

examination to assess the stress factors contributing to the continuing symptoms;

Mr. Halterman’s current cognitive and emotional functioning; and Mr.

Halterman’s past personal history involving his family, significant developmental

experiences, educational and occupational history, dating, and marital history,

litigation history, history of disability and unemployment claims, financial history,

and past medical and psychiatric history.

(Defs.’ Mot. Compel at 6.) The above-proposed scope of the examination is warranted to allow

assessment of the nature, cause and extent of Plaintiff’s emotional distress.

4

Defendants also wish to ask Plaintiff questions about his sexual history. Dr. Zeitz alleges

that inquiries into Plaintiff “sexual history” are “potentially” relevant for a diagnosis because

they “may” reveal “causes or effects.” The request smacks of a fishing expedition.

At no point in his complaint does Plaintiff allege any problem, misconduct or other issue

remotely concerning sexuality or any sexually related matter. However, some questions

regarding Plaintiff’s sexual history may be appropriate in connection with his dating and marital

history. Accordingly, Dr. Zeitz may ask Plaintiff questions pertaining to Plaintiff’s sexuality

only to the extent those questions fall within the scope of the inquiry into Plaintiff’s dating and

marriage history as it bears on his emotional distress claim.

D. Examination of Plaintiff’s Entire Mental History is Allowed

Plaintiff seeks to confine the mental examination to a time period extending to five years

prior to Plaintiff’s employment with Legato. Plaintiff has not met his burden of showing such a

limitation is warranted.

Dr. Zeitz contends that “[a]t least 90% of a psychiatric diagnosis is based on history” and

that a five-year time limit “critically impairs” his ability to diagnose the Plaintiff. In response,

Case 5:04-cv-02660-JW Document 56 Filed 08/09/05 Page 5 of 8
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 The expert’s report may contain general information obtained during the examination,

but must not quote Plaintiff.

ORDER, page 6

Plaintiff argues that filing a claim of emotional distress does not automatically waive

psychotherapist-patient privilege. However, Plaintiff has conceded that his mental state is “in

controversy,” and has failed to present any evidence to support a five-year limit. Defendants, on

the other hand, have supported the extent of their inquiry into Plaintiff’s mental state with an

affidavit by a qualified expert. Thus, the court will not limit the temporal scope of the

examination. 

E. The Mental Examination May Be Taped

There does not appear to be any well-settled federal law either requiring or prohibiting the

recording of Rule 35 examinations. Gavenda v. Orleans County, 174 F.R.D. 272, 274

(W.D.N.Y. 1996). Some courts, however, have ordered examinations recorded. See generally

Zabkowicz v. West Bend Co., 585 F. Supp. 635 (E.D.Wis.1984); Gavenda, 174 F.R.D. at 274. 

Moreover, California law provides that both the examiner and the examinee “shall have the right

to record a mental examination on audiotape.” CAL. CIV. PROC. CODE § 2032.530(a).

Dr. Zeitz wishes to record the examination on audio tape. Plaintiff opposes the recording

of the examination because he fears Defendants will use it as a “second deposition.” If such

recording is allowed, Plaintiff requests permission to record the examination as well. Without

the court’s permission or a stipulation by the parties, a second deposition would violate Federal

Rule of Civil Procedure 30(d)(2). While there is no evidence that Defendants intend to engage in

any misconduct with the taped examination, it is nevertheless important to ensure that the

examination does not become a “second deposition.” 

Since there is no prohibition on such recording and the audio tape of the examination may

be useful to Dr. Zeitz in rendering a diagnosis, it is hereby ordered that both Dr. Zeitz and

Plaintiff be allowed to tape the examination. However, Dr. Zeitz may not disclose to anyone the 

tape, nor any of Plaintiff’s verbatim statements, absent Mr. Halterman’s consent. 5

F. Plaintiff Shall Answer Deposition Questions Regarding Mental History Over

Five Years Prior to Working for Legato

During his deposition, Plaintiff’s attorney instructed Plaintiff not to answer questions

Case 5:04-cv-02660-JW Document 56 Filed 08/09/05 Page 6 of 8
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

 

6 There shall be no discussion between Defendants’ counsel and the examiner while the

examination is pending.

 

7

 Dr. Hooker’s examination shall be limited to the following psychological tests: 1) the

Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale III; 2) the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory 2; 

3) the Rorschach Psychodiagnostic Test, Exner Scoring; and 4) the Thermatic Apperception test.

ORDER, page 7

concerning his mental history over five years prior to working for Legato. As discussed above,

Plaintiff’s mental state is at issue in this case and Defendants have a right to discover information

pertaining to Plaintiff’s mental history. Since Plaintiff has not presented any persuasive

arguments in support of his refusal to answer the deposition questions, Defendants’ motion to

compel is granted on this point.

It became evident during the hearing that the parties agreed to fourteen hours for the

deposition of Plaintiff and that only about thirty minutes of those fourteen hours remain unused. 

In order to facilitate fair and equitable discovery, it is hereby ordered that Defendants shall have

two more hours, in addition to the remaining thirty minutes, to depose Plaintiff regarding his

mental history over five years prior to working for Legato.

III. CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants’ motion to compel a Rule 35 examination is

GRANTED.6 Dr. John A. Zeitz shall conduct the psychiatric portion of the examination at 2471

Washington Street, San Francisco, California. Dr. William D. Hooker shall conduct the

psychological portion of the examination at 350 Parnassus Avenue, Suite 309, San Francisco,

California.7 The date and time of the examination shall be mutually agreed to by the parties. The

examination shall last no longer than eleven hours. The subject matter of the examination shall be

limited to the nature, cause and extent of Plaintiff’s emotional distress. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that both Plaintiff and Dr. Zeitz may tape the examination.

However, Dr. Zeitz may not disclose to anyone the tape, nor any of Plaintiff’s verbatim

statements, absent Mr. Halterman’s consent to disclose to all counsel.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants’ motion to compel Plaintiff to answer

deposition questions regarding his mental history over five years prior to working at Legato is

Case 5:04-cv-02660-JW Document 56 Filed 08/09/05 Page 7 of 8
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

ORDER, page 8

hereby GRANTED. Defendants shall have two hours, in addition to the thirty minutes remaining

from the prior deposition, to question Plaintiff about his mental history over five years prior to

working at Legato 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defense counsel shall promptly provide a copy of this

order to Dr. Zeitz and Dr. Hooker.

Dated: 8/8/05

 /s/ Patricia V. Trumbull 

PATRICIA V. TRUMBULL

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:04-cv-02660-JW Document 56 Filed 08/09/05 Page 8 of 8