Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_18-cv-01402/USCOURTS-cand-4_18-cv-01402-12/pdf.json

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

---

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

GEORGETTE G. PURNELL,

Plaintiff,

v.

RUDOLPH AND SLETTEN INC.,

Defendant.

Case No. 18-cv-01402-PJH (KAW)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S 

MOTION TO APPOINT; GRANTING

DEFENDANTS' REQUEST FOR AN 

IME

Re: Dkt. Nos. 104, 105

On June 24, 2019, Defendants filed a discovery letter regarding their request for an 

independent medical exam (“IME”). (Dkt. No. 95.) Because the letter did not include both 

parties’ positions, and “Defendants did not even afford Plaintiff one full business day to respond,” 

the Court terminated the letter. (July 8, 2019 Ord. at 1, Dkt. No. 99.) The Court, however, noted 

that there appeared to be good cause to require that Plaintiff undergo an IME, as “Plaintiff appears 

to have put her mental condition at issue by seeking $2 million in emotional distress, and has 

alleged psychiatric injuries including ongoing emotional distress, sleeplessness, paranoia, and 

extreme stress.” (Id. at 2.) The Court also stated that it “w[ould] not ‘appoint’ a medical 

examiner; absent a concrete showing of lack of qualifications or bias, the Court would be inclined 

to allow Defendants to choose a medical examiner of their choice.” (Id.) The Court explained 

that “[t]his would not preclude Plaintiff from presenting her own doctors or experts at her own 

expense,” and that “if Plaintiff desires to have her own psychiatrist sit in during the examination --

again, at Plaintiff’s own expense -- she should discuss this condition with Defendants.” (Id.)

The parties subsequently met and conferred, but were unable to come to an agreement on 

Plaintiff having her own psychiatrist attend the examination. (See Plf.’s Mot. to Appoint at 1-2, 

Dkt. No. 104; Defs.’ Discovery Letter at 1-2, Dkt. No. 105.) Defendants did, however, offer to 

Case 4:18-cv-01402-PJH Document 116 Filed 08/19/19 Page 1 of 6
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

allow Plaintiff to record the examination. (Defs.’ Discovery Letter at 1.) Defendants 

subsequently sent Plaintiff a joint discovery letter; Plaintiff, however, refused to participate and 

provide her position. (Defs.’ Discovery Letter, Exh. A.) Instead, on July 22, 2019, Plaintiff filed 

her motion to appoint Marcie Bastein to sit with her during the examination. (Plf.’s Mot. to 

Appoint at 2-3.) On July 23, 2019, Defendants filed their unilateral discovery letter.

Having reviewed the filings, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s refusal to participate in the 

joint discovery letter is unwarranted and improper. As Plaintiff has repeatedly been informed, the 

parties are required to file joint discovery letters, including both parties’ position. (See July 8, 

2019 Ord. at 1 n.1; April 23, 2019 Ord. at 2, Dkt. No. 85; Mar. 6, 2019 Ord. at 4, Dkt. No. 71; 

Dec. 11, 2018 Ord. at 2, Dkt. No. 58.) Plaintiff’s justifies her noncompliance by arguing that 

Defendants may misrepresent her position; this is not adequate.1 (Plf.’s Mot. to Appoint at 4.) 

Plaintiff is not entitled to file a unilateral motion in lieu of a joint discovery letter.

Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ motion for an IME as unopposed. Plaintiff 

is again warned that failure to comply with the meet and confer requirements, including providing 

her position for the joint discovery letter, will result in the Court granting Defendants’ discovery 

requests. (See Apr. 23, 2019 Ord. at 3 (“In the future, Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the meet 

and confer requirements will result in the Court granting Defendants’ discovery requests.”).)

Even if Plaintiff had not failed to provide her position for the joint discovery letter, the 

Court finds that an IME is warranted. As explained in the July 8, 2019 order, Federal rule of Civil 

Procedure 35(a)(1) states, in relevant part, that “[t]he court where the action is pending may order 

a party whose mental or physical condition . . . is in controversy to submit to a physical or mental 

examination by a suitably licensed or certified examiner.” “A mental condition is ‘in controversy’ 

when it is itself the subject of the litigation.” Gavin v. Hilton Worldwide, Inc., 291 F.R.D. 161, 

164 (N.D. Cal. 2013). Thus, “courts will order plaintiffs claiming emotional distress damages to 

 

1 To the extent Plaintiff suggests that Defendants misrepresented the July 8, 2019 order, the Court 

disagrees. The Court stated that the parties should discuss Plaintiff’s request to have her 

psychiatrist sit in on the examination. (July 9, 2019 Order at 2.) The Court did not grant this 

condition; rather, the Court simply ordered the parties to meet and confer on this issue, in the hope 

that the parties could resolve the matter on their own.

Case 4:18-cv-01402-PJH Document 116 Filed 08/19/19 Page 2 of 6
3

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

undergo an IME when . . . the plaintiff alleges a specific mental or psychiatric injury or disorder.” 

Id. Such is the case here, where Plaintiff seeks $2 million in emotional distress, and has alleged 

severe psychiatric injuries as a result of Defendants’ actions. (Defs.’ Discovery Letter at 2, 4.) 

Thus, an IME is warranted. Notably, even if the Court was to construe Plaintiff’s motion as her 

position, Plaintiff does not oppose the IME itself; rather, she requests that her psychiatrist be 

appointed to sit in on the exam. 

As to Plaintiff’s motion to appoint Dr. Bastein, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s request. In 

general, although “courts have the discretion to allow for the presence of a third party under 

appropriate circumstances[, t]he ‘overwhelming’ majority of federal courts to consider the 

question have disallowed third parties to attend IMEs.” Lureen v. Doctor’s Assocs., 4:17-cv-4016-

LLP, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 167116, at *5-6 (D.S.D. Oct. 10, 2017). In particular, “[c]ourts have 

recognized that the presence of third parties during mental examinations may be distracting and 

may alter the results of the testing.” Newman v. San Joaquin Delta Cmty. College, 272 F.R.D. 

505, 513-14 (E.D. Cal. 2011); see also Ragge v. MCA/Universal, 165 F.R.D. 605, 609-10 (C.D. 

Cal. 1995) (“Third party observers may, regardless of their good intentions, contaminate a mental 

examination.”).

In support of her motion, Plaintiff does not raise objections to Defendants’ selected expert 

based on his qualifications. Instead, Plaintiff argues that a third party is necessary because she 

does not trust Defendants or their selected expert. (Plf.’s Mot. to Appoint at 2.) This is not a 

sufficient reason to permit Dr. Bastein to be present. See Ragge, 165 F.R.D. at 609 (“Although the 

Court is not required to accept defendants’ proposed examiner as the examining psychiatrist, only 

if plaintiff raises a valid objection will the Court appoint a different examiner.”). Furthermore, 

Plaintiff asks that the Court appoint Dr. Bastein, and to apparently pay her fees because “Plaintiff 

cannot pay the fees to hire her own psych to sit with her during and throughout the exam . . . .” 

(Id.) While Plaintiff is indigent, the Court has no authority to pay for Plaintiff’s experts, nor does 

the Court find good cause to do so in this case. Additionally, to the extent Plaintiff is concerned 

about the integrity of the IME, Defendants have offered to allow Plaintiff to record the session. 

The Court finds this condition appropriate, as Plaintiff can present the recording to her 

Case 4:18-cv-01402-PJH Document 116 Filed 08/19/19 Page 3 of 6
4

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

psychiatrist, and discuss any concerns she has with her psychiatrist.

Thus, for the reasons stated above, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion to appoint, and 

GRANTS Defendants’ request for an IME. The Court notes that Plaintiff filed no objections to 

Defendants’ proposed order. Accordingly, Plaintiff shall submit to an IME with Dr. Paul Berg no 

later than 45 days from the date of this order, unless otherwise agreed to by the parties and Dr. 

Berg. The IME shall be conducted pursuant to the terms and conditions set forth below.

1. Dr. Berg will conduct a psychological examination of Plaintiff to assist Defendants 

in understanding Plaintiff’s allegations of mental, emotional, and/or psychiatric/psychological 

injury. The examination may not involve any physical examination or entail any blood tests. The 

examination may not be unnecessarily painful, protracted, or intrusive.

2. The examination will take no more than seven (7) hours of examination time (i.e., 

excluding breaks) at Dr. Berg’s office. Should Plaintiff refuse to cooperate with Dr. Berg, 

Defendants shall submit a declaration from Dr. Berg to the Court and seek additional examination 

time.

3. The examination will consist of a face-to-face interview, mental status examination, 

and two standardized tests: (1) the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2; and (2) the 

Millon Clinical Multiaxial Inventory III.

4. The interview may cover all relevant topics, including background information, the 

reported circumstances of onset of the alleged emotional injury or injuries, and how those 

symptoms have unfolded over time to the present, including any other assessments, treatment, or 

functional impairment. Pertinent areas of inquiry with regard to Plaintiff’s background may 

include, in Dr. Berg’s professional discretion, developmental history, education, employment, 

social and marital history, legal history, general medical history, prior psychiatric/psychological 

history, substance and/or alcohol use, and family history.

5. Dr. Berg may inquire into whether any blood relatives have a history of 

psychiatric/psychological disorders, substance or alcohol use, or neurological disorders, and, if so, 

which family member(s), the diagnosis, and a general description of treatment, but may not 

inquire as to the names of the family member(s) or their clinician(s).

Case 4:18-cv-01402-PJH Document 116 Filed 08/19/19 Page 4 of 6
5

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

6. Dr. Berg may inquire about whether psychiatric/psychological disorders have been 

present throughout Plaintiff’s life, and if so, specifics regarding the diagnosis and treatments 

received (i.e., when, where, the number of sessions of treatment, the name of the health care 

provider, and the general reasons for the treatment). In any instance where more than one person 

may have participated in counseling with Plaintiff, Dr. Berg may not ask Plaintiff to name such 

participants.

7. Plaintiff will be entitled to take reasonable breaks during the examination process, 

including, but not limited to, a lunch break, rest breaks, and bathroom breaks. The time spent on 

such breaks shall not impact the Court-ordered time limit.

8. No one other than Plaintiff and Dr. Berg will be permitted to be present during the 

examination. However, Plaintiff will be permitted to record (whether voice or video) the 

examination, either digitally or via audio tape. Plaintiff may play portions of the recording at trial.

9. Dr. Berg will be permitted to voice record the examination, either digitally or via 

audio tape, for use in making his assessment and drafting any report. Defendants may also play 

portions of the recording at trial.

10. Plaintiff and Defendants agree that the results of the psychological testing in this 

matter will be kept confidential and only used for purposes of the litigation. The records and any 

report may be used by defense counsel in preparation for trial, in trial, and in other proceedings in 

this matter, but for no other purpose. These records may not be used as exhibits to documents 

filed with the Court prior to trial unless filed under seal. At the conclusion of the litigation in this 

matter, whether by way of settlement or final judgment, counsel for Defendants and/or Dr. Berg 

shall maintain or destroy all such records in accordance with the above-described confidential 

nature of these records.

11. Defendants are instructed to transmit a copy of this Order to Dr. Berg, who must 

abide by its terms.

12. Defendants shall pay Dr. Berg’s fee for Plaintiff’s IME and the costs of any 

associated testing.

13. If Plaintiff needs to cancel due to unavoidable conflict, she must do so within three 

Case 4:18-cv-01402-PJH Document 116 Filed 08/19/19 Page 5 of 6
6

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

business days of her scheduled examination. If she fails to do so, or if she fails to show for the 

IME without notice, Plaintiff will be responsible for paying a cancellation fee of $500.00. 

Defendants may also move the Court for sanctions if Plaintiff fails to show without reasonable 

justification.2 Regardless of any cancellation, Plaintiff must comply with the deadline for the 

examination set forth above.

14. Exchange or delivery of reports based on this examination shall be in compliance 

with the provisions of Rule 35 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. For example, Rule 

35(b)(1) provides that “[t]he party who moved for the examination must, on request, deliver to the 

requester a copy of the examiner’s report . . . .” Failure to deliver the report may result in the 

exclusion of the examiner’s testimony at trial.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 19, 2019

__________________________________

KANDIS A. WESTMORE

United States Magistrate Judge

 

2 The Court notes that although Plaintiff is indigent and cannot afford to pay fees and/or sanctions, 

her failure to comply with her discovery obligations may result in this Court recommending 

terminating, if not monetary, sanctions.

Case 4:18-cv-01402-PJH Document 116 Filed 08/19/19 Page 6 of 6