Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_18-cv-07542/USCOURTS-cand-4_18-cv-07542-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1981 Civil Rights

---

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

LAWRENCE HALEY,

Plaintiff,

v.

CLARK CONSTRUCTION GROUPCALIFORNIA, INC.,

Defendant.

Case No.18-cv-07542-HSG (JSC)

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO 

COMPEL

Re: Dkt. No. 26

Now pending before the Court is Defendant’s motion to compel an independent medical 

exam of plaintiff Lawrence Haley pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 35. (Dkt. No. 26.) 

After considering the parties’ written submissions, the Court concludes that oral argument is 

unnecessary, see N.D. Cal. Civ. L.R. 7-1(b), vacates the August 14, 2019 hearing, and GRANTS 

the motion to compel to permit Dr. Kalish to perform an IME on Plaintiff not to exceed five hours.

Plaintiff does not--and cannot--dispute that Defendant is entitled to an IME given that 

Plaintiff is seeking severe emotional distress damages; instead, Plaintiff seeks to limit the scope of 

the IME. In particular, he seeks to “[l]imit the oral and written examination so that it does not 

include family history, sexual history, marital history, or legal history or past medical history 

generally.” He claims such testimony is irrelevant as “Plaintiff has already testified that none of 

these categories caused him distress to the extent he could not go to work and function before the 

incidents alleged here.” (Dkt. No. 40 at 9.) Plaintiff’s proposed limitations fundamentally 

misapprehend the purpose of discovery in general and the IME in particular. Defendant is not 

required to accept Plaintiff’s testimony as to the extent and cause of his distress if any; instead, 

Defendant has the IME performed to independently determine its position as to Plaintiff’s distress 

and the damages he seeks. 

Case 4:18-cv-07542-HSG Document 45 Filed 08/13/19 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

Plaintiff’s reliance on Oliver v. Microsoft, 2013 WL 3855651 (N.D. Cal. July 24, 2013) is 

misplaced as there the court did not impose any limitations; instead, the limitations were agreed 

upon by the parties. Further, while Plaintiff baldly states that “Plaintiff’s proposed limitations 

above have been granted in other matters in the Northern District, notwithstanding whether the 

parties negotiated the limits themselves,” (Dkt. No. 40 at 10), no such case is cited. The Court 

cannot be persuaded by cases of which it has no knowledge.

Nor does the “prior history of alleged misconduct during an IME performed by Dr. Kalish” 

warrant the limitations Plaintiff seeks. Plaintiff is relying on a lawsuit filed by a pro se plaintiff, 

even though the lawsuit was dismissed (and the dismissal affirmed on appeal) based in part on the 

plaintiff’s failure to show a probability of success. Further, the plaintiff sued Dr. Kalish only after 

he unsuccessfully appealed the resolution of the underlying case in which he was examined by Dr. 

Kalish. Parker v. Kalish, 2009 WL 2235838 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009.) Unless Plaintiff possesses 

some other information, it is inappropriate to demand limitations based on the unhappy pro se 

plaintiff’s dismissed allegations.

Finally, there is no basis in the record for the Court to order a deposition of Dr. Kalish. 

Pending before the Court is Defendant’s motion to compel—Plaintiff did not file a motion to 

compel. Indeed, there is nothing before the Court, including in Plaintiff’s 89 pages of exhibits, to 

suggest that Plaintiff has even sought a deposition of Dr. Kalish before filing his opposition to the 

motion to compel or, if he had, that the parties had met and conferred on that issue.

Accordingly, on or before August 23, 2019 Plaintiff shall submit to an IME by Dr. Kalish 

not to exceed five hours. Plaintiff’s motion to strike is denied as moot as the Court did not rely on 

the supplemental declaration.

This Order disposes of Docket Nos. 26 and 41.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 13, 2019

JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 4:18-cv-07542-HSG Document 45 Filed 08/13/19 Page 2 of 2