Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-02473/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-02473-12/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal - Employment Discrimination

---

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

C-05-2473 DISCOVERY ORDER Page 1 of 4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LAWRENCE ROMANECK, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

DEUTSCHE ASSET MANAGEMENT, ET

AL.,

Defendants.

________________________________/

No. C 05-2473 TEH (JL)

ORDER DENYING WITHOUT

PREJUDICE DEFENDANTS’ MOTION

TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF TO SUBMIT

TO MENTAL AND PHYSICAL

EXAMINATION (Docket # 46)

Introduction

All discovery in this case has been referred by the district court (Hon. Thelton E.

Henderson) as provided by 28 U.S.C. §636(b) and Civil Local Rule 72. The parties met and

conferred in person and through e-mail correspondence but were unable to resolve their

dispute. 

Background

Plaintiff sued Defendants in San Francisco Superior Court and Defendants removed

the case to this district. Defendants are DEUTSCHE ASSET MANAGEMENT, a Delaware

corporation, DEUTSCHE BANK AG, a New York corporation, DEUTSCHE INVESTMENT

MANAGEMENT AMERICAS, INC., a corporation, SCUDDER DISTRIBUTORS, INC.

(hereafter collectively referred to as “defendants” or “DEUTSCHE”.)

Case 3:05-cv-02473-TEH Document 64 Filed 06/06/06 Page 1 of 4
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

C-05-2473 DISCOVERY ORDER Page 2 of 4

 In his Third Amended Complaint filed April 6, 2006, Plaintiff alleges causes of action

for wrongful termination in violation of public policy, whistle blower retaliation under

California Labor Code §1102.5, disability discrimination under the California Fair

Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), breach of implied contract, and breach of the

covenant of good faith and fair dealing. Plaintiff demanded a jury trial. 

Plaintiff worked for Defendants as an investment advisor and claims he was fired for

cooperating with the Securities and Exchange Commission on an investigation into alleged

improper activities by Defendants with respect to shareholders’ accounts. This case

involves a term known within the securities industry as “market timing,” of mutual funds,

which is known as rapid in-and-out trades, frequently prohibited because it can

disadvantage ordinary shareholders. It is estimated that market-timing abuses cost fund

investors approximately five billion dollars per year.

This Motion

Defendants ask this court to order Plaintiff to submit to a one-day mental

examination with their expert, Dr. James Missett, and his consultant, Dr. William Lynch.

The purpose of this examination would be to take evidence to rebut Plaintiff’s testimony

and the anticipated testimony of his health care providers regarding his emotional distress.

Defendants characterize Plaintiff’s claim as beyond “garden variety” emotional distress,

since he testified that her has seen two therapists, two medical doctors and has taken

seven prescribed medications for emotional distress. 

In addition, Defendants requests that the court order Plaintiff to submit to a physical

examination by orthopedist Dr. James Glick to evaluate his alleged disability, an arm injury

in connection with his claim for disability discrimination.

Plaintiff urges the court to deny Defendants’ motion to compel a mental examination,

because he is not claiming emotional distress beyond garden variety and no expert

testimony regarding the usual mental and emotional distress associated with wrongful

termination will be presented at trial. Plaintiff dismissed his claim for intentional infliction of

Case 3:05-cv-02473-TEH Document 64 Filed 06/06/06 Page 2 of 4
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

C-05-2473 DISCOVERY ORDER Page 3 of 4

emotional distress and has never claimed that his emotional condition exceeded the

emotional distress associated with the termination of his employment. 

Plaintiff asks the court also to deny Defendants’ motion to compel a physical

examination. His claim of disability discrimination relates to his physical condition when he

was terminated in May 2004, not his present condition. He was injured in April 2004 and

has a separate worker’s compensation case in which Defendants’ worker’s compensation

representative has already subjected him to multiple medical examinations to ascertain his

physical condition.

After the close of briefing the parties submitted letters in which they disagreed

whether Plaintiff planned to offer at trial the testimony of one or more of his treating

physicians or psychotherapists as a percipient witness to his emotional distress following

his termination.

Analysis and Order

A court will deny a motion by a defendant to compel the mental examination of a

plaintiff where the plaintiff has not brought an action for intentional or negligent infliction of

emotional distress, has not alleged that he suffers from a specific psychiatric injury or

disorder as a result of defendants’ conduct, does not claim to suffer from unusually severe

emotional distress, does not intend to offer expert testimony regarding his emotional

distress and has not conceded that his mental condition is “in controversy.” Rather, he

claims damages for emotional distress which he says that he suffered as a result of

defendants’ actions alleged in his complaint. Turner v. Imperial Stores, 161 F.R.D. 89, 98

(S.D.Cal. 1995)

This maybe the situation in the case at bar. If Plaintiff does not offer the testimony

of any of Plaintiff’s treating physicians or psychotherapists as to his emotional distress

following his termination, then this Court denies Defendants’ motion to compel Plaintiff’s

mental examination. However, if Plaintiff decides to offer the testimony of his treating

physicians or psychotherapists regarding his emotional distress following his termination,

then this Court finds that Plaintiff has introduced the issue of a particular psychiatric

Case 3:05-cv-02473-TEH Document 64 Filed 06/06/06 Page 3 of 4
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

C-05-2473 DISCOVERY ORDER Page 4 of 4

diagnosis or injury and has therefore placed his mental state at issue. Accordingly, if

Plaintiff were to offer such testimony, then Defendant would be entitled to his mental

examination with Dr. Missett and Dr. Lynch. 

At the hearing of this motion, the Court advised Plaintiff’s counsel that she must

decide within twenty-one days of the date of the hearing, May 31, whether or not to call

these witnesses at trial. 

This Court finds that Plaintiff’s intent to offer his own testimony regarding his

emotional distress or his treatment does not justify ordering him to submit to a mental

examination.

With respect to Defendants’ motion to compel a physical examination, Rule 26,

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, permits a party to take discovery of any non-privileged

information which may lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Plaintiff states

convincingly that his physical examination today will not lead to the discovery of admissible

evidence regarding his alleged disability when he was terminated in May 2004.

Consequently, this court denies Defendants’ motion to compel Plaintiff’s physical

examination.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: June 6, 2006

__________________________________

 JAMES LARSON

 Chief Magistrate Judge

Case 3:05-cv-02473-TEH Document 64 Filed 06/06/06 Page 4 of 4