Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-02402/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-02402-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RAHCEL AKEY, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

PLACER COUNTY, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:14-cv-2402 KJM DB

ORDER

On August 19, 2016, this matter came before the undersigned for hearing of defendants’ 

motion to compel. Attorney Patrick Dwyer appeared on behalf of the plaintiffs. Attorney 

Clayton Cook appeared on behalf of the defendants.

Upon consideration of the arguments on file and at the hearing, and for the reasons set 

forth on the record at the hearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Defendants’ July 19, 2016 motion to compel mental health examinations (Dkt. No. 50) 

is granted1; 

2. Pursuant to the parties’ agreement, plaintiffs may videotape the examinations behind a 

mirror;

/////

 

1

 Plaintiffs agreed to submit to these examinations, but sought “conditions” which the 

undersigned will not grant. (Dkt. No. 52 at 2.) 

Case 2:14-cv-02402-KJM-DB Document 61 Filed 08/22/16 Page 1 of 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

2

 3. If plaintiffs elect to videotape the examinations, plaintiffs shall bear the cost of the 

videotaping and transcribing of those examinations; 

4. Plaintiffs’ request that plaintiff Rachel Akey be allowed to watch the examination of 

plaintiff N.D. from behind a mirror is denied2; and

5. Plaintiffs’ request that Rachel Akey’s mental examination be limited to: (a) specific 

events after January 1, 2013 that are relevant to the emotional distress allegations; (b) the 

emotional aspects of the relationships with Cameron Dupree and Ryan Cornacchioli; and (c) any 

symptoms of emotional distress that Ms. Akey may have experienced prior to September 12, 

2013 is denied. 

 

Dated: August 20, 2016 

DLB:6 

DLB1\orders.civil\akey2402.oah.081916.ord

 

2

 “The party seeking the presence of a third party at a Rule 35 examination carries the burden of 

convincing the court that such presence is necessary.” Calderon v. Reederei Claus-Peter Offen 

GmbH & Co., 258 F.R.D. 523, 526 (S.D. Fla. 2009). Here, plaintiffs’ counsel failed to offer any 

authority or persuasive argument for requiring that plaintiff Rachael Akey be allowed to view the 

medical examination of plaintiff N.D. behind a mirror. Moreover, the court has already permitted 

plaintiffs to videotape the examination. 

Case 2:14-cv-02402-KJM-DB Document 61 Filed 08/22/16 Page 2 of 2