Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-00688/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-00688-7/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 480
Nature of Suit: Consumer Credit
Cause of Action: 15:1681 Fair Credit Reporting Act

---

1

3:17-cv-688-JM-NLS

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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ATLEY HENRY, LAURA HENRY,

Plaintiff,

v.

OCWEN LOAN SERVICING, LLC, et 

al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: 3:17-cv-688-JM-NLS

ORDER DENYING WITHOUT 

PREJUDICE DEFENDANTS’ EX 

PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN 

ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFFS 

TO SUBMIT TO A MENTAL 

EXAMINATION 

[ECF No. 57]

Before the Court is the Defendants’ ex parte application to conduct a mental 

examination of each of the Plaintiffs pursuant to Rule 35. ECF No. 57. Plaintiffs oppose 

the request. ECF No. 58. For the reasons that follow, Defendants’ request is DENIED

WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 

I. BACKGROUND 

This case arises from a home loan modification and alleges breach of contract and 

violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, Fair Debt Collection Act, and similar state 

statutes. ECF No. 10 (First Amended Complaint). Defendants assert that Plaintiffs are 

seeking emotional distress damages now reaching at least $250,000 per Plaintiff, and 

Case 3:17-cv-00688-JM-NLS Document 59 Filed 06/21/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 5
2

3:17-cv-688-JM-NLS

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

which have been increasing over the pendency of litigation. ECF No. 57 at 1, 9. 

Defendants argue that Plaintiffs have put their mental state in controversy by this high 

value, ongoing claim, which comprises the entirety of the “actual damages” allegation. 

Id. at 7. Defendants conclude the emotional distress therefore qualifes as “unusually 

severe” and the Plaintiffs’ mental health is “in controversy” rendering an independent 

medical examination (“IME”) appropriate under Rule 35. Id. at 6-7. 

Plaintiffs oppose the application and argue, in sum, that the emotional distress 

claims are not “unusually severe” simply because they comprise a high dollar amount. 

See ECF No. 58.1 Plaintiffs reiterate that their emotional distress damages are based on 

general pain and suffering, and do not require an IME or anything beyond Plaintiffs’ own 

testimony. Id. at 4-5. Plaintiffs also argue that the Defendants’ request is premature, as 

there is not yet any discovery that would support the necessity of an IME and expert 

designations are not required until August. Id. at 8-9. 

II. LEGAL STANDARDS

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 35 governs mental examinations and authorizes 

the court to “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.” 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 35(a)(1). The order may be made “only on motion for good cause and on 

notice to all parties and the person to be examined” and “must specify the time, place, 

manner, conditions, and scope of the examination, as well as the person or persons who 

will perform it.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 35(a)(2). 

A Rule 35 examination requires a showing that the party’s mental or physical 

condition is “in controversy” and that there is “good cause” supporting the order. 

 

1 Plaintiffs also raise a procedural objection that there is not good cause for the Court to consider the 

application on an ex parte basis when a noticed motion is called for by Rule 35. ECF No. 58 at 1-3. In 

light of Plaintiffs’ thorough and timely opposition, the Court sees no prejudice in proceeding to the 

merits of the dispute and finds that resolution of the matter under these circumstances is within the 

Federal Rules’ direction that the courts “secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every 

action and proceeding.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 1. 

Case 3:17-cv-00688-JM-NLS Document 59 Filed 06/21/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 5
3

3:17-cv-688-JM-NLS

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

Schlagenhauf v. Holder, 379 U.S. 104, 117 (1964). More than a showing of “mere 

relevance” is required to meet this standard. Id. at 118. A claim of emotional distress 

can place a person’s mental state “in controversy” if accompanied with one or more of 

the following: “(1) a cause of action for intentional or negligent infliction of emotional 

distress; (2) an allegation of a specific mental or psychiatric injury or disorder; (3) a 

claim of unusually severe emotional distress; (4) plaintiff’s offer of expert testimony to 

support a claim of emotional distress; or (5) plaintiff’s concession that his or her mental 

condition is ‘in controversy.’” Turner v. Imperial Stores, 161 F.R.D. 89, 95 (S.D. Cal. 

1995). The following factors are considered in determining if there is “good cause” to 

permit the examination: “(1) the possibility of obtaining desired information by other 

means; (2) whether plaintiff plans to prove her claim through testimony of expert 

witnesses; (3) whether the desired materials are relevant, and; (4) whether plaintiff claims 

ongoing emotional distress.” Mailhoit v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., No. 

CV1103892DOCSSX, 2013 WL 12122580, at *4 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 24, 2013).

Although FRCP 35 “is to be construed liberally in favor of granting discovery,” 

“garden-variety” emotional distress is insufficient to put Plaintiff's mental state in 

controversy. Turner, 161 F.R.D. at 96; see also Schlagenhauf, 379 U.S. at 118. “One 

district court has characterized garden-variety claims for emotional distress as ‘claims of 

generalized insult, hurt feelings, and lingering resentment’ that ‘do not involve a 

significant disruption of the plaintiff's work life and rarely involve more than a temporary 

disruption of the claimant's personal life.’” Ortiz v. Potter, 2010 WL 796960, at *3 (E.D.

Cal. Mar. 5, 2010) [quoting Javeed v. Covenant Medical Center Inc., 218 F.R.D. 178, 

179 (N.D. Iowa, Apr. 3, 2001) ]. Another district court distinguished a garden-variety 

claim of emotional distress from “a claim of psychic injury or psychiatric disorder.” 

Houghton v. M & F Fishing, Inc., 198 F.R.D. 666, 668 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 10, 2001) 

[quoting Sabree v. United Broth. of Carpenters & Joinders of America, Local No. 33, 126 

F.R.D. 422, 426 (D. Mass. June 8, 1989) ]. See also, Nguyen v. Qualcomm Inc., CIV. 09-

1925-MMA WVG, 2013 WL 3353840, at *3 (S.D. Cal. July 3, 2013).

Case 3:17-cv-00688-JM-NLS Document 59 Filed 06/21/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 5
4

3:17-cv-688-JM-NLS

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

“Regardless of whether the ‘good cause’ requirement is met, it is within the Court's 

discretion to determine whether to order an examination.” Nguyen v. Qualcomm Inc., 

2013 WL 3353840, at *4.

III. DISCUSSION 

The Court agrees with Plaintiffs that the request for an IME is premature at this 

juncture. An IME may, eventually, be appropriate in this case because Plaintiffs are 

claiming significant emotional distress damages of an ongoing nature, and those damages 

comprise the only actual damages alleged. See Nguyen v. Qualcomm Inc., 2013 WL 

3353840, at *5 (“In concluding that Plaintiff's mental condition is ‘in controversy,’ the 

Court also considers that a large portion of her claimed damages are for emotional 

distress. Numerous district courts have held that ‘when emotional distress damages are a 

major component of a damages claim, a litigant's mental health is in controversy.’ 

[collecting cases]”)(internal citations omitted). Arguably, there is little else “in 

controversy” in this case, which is otherwise governed by contract and statutes that, once 

decided, leave little in the way of damages to dispute. See ECF No. 10 (First Amended 

Complaint). 

However, at this juncture no other Turner factors are satisfied. Id. at *6 (S.D. Cal. 

July 3, 2013) (noting courts generally require the party seeking to compel the evaluation 

to establish one of the five Turner factors). There are no allegations for intentional or 

negligent infliction of emotional distress or a concession that mental condition is in 

controversy. Nor is there testimony from Plaintiffs to show that Plaintiffs are making the

claims of “significant” or “egregious” as opposed to “garden variety” emotional distress, 

which may show that either or both of the Plaintiffs’ claims are unusually severe or that 

they have suffered a specific mental or psychiatric injury or disorder. See ECF No. 58 at 

7 (citing to Olsen v. County of Nassau, 615 F. Supp. 2d 35, 46 (E.D.N.Y. 2009)).2 Nor is 

 

2 Plaintiffs’ brief incorrectly attributes its quote to an in-circuit and in-district opinion relied on by both 

parties: Nguyen v. Qualcomm Inc., 2013 WL 3353840. 

Case 3:17-cv-00688-JM-NLS Document 59 Filed 06/21/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 5
5

3:17-cv-688-JM-NLS

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

it clear whether Plaintiffs intend to offer expert testimony to support their claims. Should

Plaintiffs’ testimony or expert designations alter the current landscape of the litigation, an 

IME may be appropriate and could be conducted during the expert discovery period. See, 

Luque-Villanueva v. County of San Diego, 16CV2945-GPC (NLS), 2018 WL 2149366, at 

*2 (S.D. Cal. May 10, 2018) (permitting IME during expert discovery period). 

IV. Conclusion

At this phase of litigation, the allegations are for “garden variety” emotional 

distress and the Court will exercise its discretion to DENY WITHOUT PREJUDICE

the Defendants’ ex parte application to conduct an IME.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: June 21, 2018

Case 3:17-cv-00688-JM-NLS Document 59 Filed 06/21/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 5