Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_04-cv-02873/USCOURTS-azd-2_04-cv-02873-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Other 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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Pearl Wilson, Personal Representative of

the Estate of Phillip Wilson, deceased;

Terry Wilson and Pearl Wilson, surviving

parents of Phillip Wilson,

Plaintiffs, 

vs.

Maricopa County, a public entity, et al.,

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 04-2873 PHX-DGC

ORDER

On April 12, 2006, the Court held a discovery conference call with the parties.

Several issues were addressed. On the basis of the conference call, the Court enters the

following orders:

1. On or before April 28, 2006, Plaintiff Terry Wilson shall appear for the

completion of his Rule 35 psychological examination by Dr. Hammer. Completion of the

examination shall be limited to two hours. Dr. Hammer will be permitted to videotape and

audio tape the completion of the examination. The Court will not limit the scope of Dr.

Hammer’s examination.

On or before April 28, 2006, Plaintiff Pearl Wilson shall appear for a Rule 35

psychological examination by Dr. Hammer not to exceed seven hours, excluding breaks. The

examination may be audio taped and videotaped by Dr. Hammer. The Court will not limit

the scope of Dr. Hammer’s examination.

Case 2:04-cv-02873-DGC Document 108 Filed 04/14/06 Page 1 of 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

- 2 -

Within 48 hours of the completion of each examination, Defendants shall provide

Plaintiffs’ counsel with complete copies of the audio and video recordings of the

examinations. The Court has not ruled that the recordings will be admissible at trial. The

parties retain all available objections to the admissibility of such recordings. 

The Court has reviewed relevant case law. There is no uniform rule in the federal

courts on whether the recording of Rule 35 examinations is permitted or prohibited. Sidari

v. Orleans County, 174 F.R.D. 275, 291 (W.D.N.Y. 1996). The decision is case-specific.

The need for flexibility is illustrated by the fact that the examined party in this case opposes

recording, whereas the examined party in other cases often demands recording. The Court

concludes that recording the examinations in this case will not interfere with the examination,

will create a complete record of the questions asked and answered, and will not be admissible

in evidence without the parties first having a complete opportunity to address admissibility

issues. 

2. Because of the delay in completing the examinations of Plaintiffs, Defendants

seek an extension of time to file Dr. Hammer’s expert report. During the telephone

conference, Defendants’ expert requested until June 5, 2006, to complete her report. The

Court will not grant such a lengthy extension. The order setting an expert disclosure date of

April 14, 2006, was entered by the Court on November 9, 2005. Doc. #62. Defendants had

ample notice of the need to schedule examinations of Plaintiffs in order to prepare their

expert report. Despite this fact, Defendants did not schedule the examinations until late

March 2006, and did not issue the notice for the examinations until March 22, 2006.

Although Defendants stated during the conference call that they attempted to discuss

scheduling with Plaintiffs before the notice was issued, it is evident that Defendants waited

more than four months to begin the process of scheduling the examinations. Defendants have

had ample time to schedule the examinations, and the Court will not grant an extension of

the expert disclosure dates that will alter the ultimate deadline in this case for filing

dispositive motions. 

Thus, with respect to Dr. Hammer’s report only, Defendants will have until

Case 2:04-cv-02873-DGC Document 108 Filed 04/14/06 Page 2 of 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

1

 Although this is less time than Plaintiffs had under the Court’s original schedule, the Court

concludes that Plaintiffs unnecessarily delayed resolution of the examination issue by

unilaterally terminating the examination of Terry Wilson.

- 3 -

May 22, 2006, to file an expert report. Plaintiffs shall have until June 16, 2006 to file a

rebuttal report.1

 The expert deposition of Dr. Hammer shall be completed no later than

June 30, 2006, and dispositive motions shall be filed on July 14, 2006. All other deadlines

in this case shall remain in place for all other experts and all other matters.

3. The Court will permit Plaintiffs to take a total of 19 fact depositions. The

Court concludes that this number is needed to reasonably complete discovery, and notes that

Defendants did not object to exceeding the 10-deposition limit either in the stipulation filed

by the parties on November 3, 2005 (Doc. #61) nor when the number of depositions actually

exceeded 10. Fourteen depositions have been completed to date.

4. The Court ordered that the privilege and work product issues regarding a letter

written by Mr. Crowley to Sheriff Arpaio be addressed in the briefing to be filed by the

parties pursuant to the Court’s order dated March 29, 2006 (Doc. #102). To permit the

parties to address this issue, the initial memoranda shall be extended from five pages to seven

and the reply memorandum shall be extended from three pages to five. Defendants shall

submit a copy of the letter to the Court with their briefing. 

5. The Court declined to hear argument concerning the number of requests for

production served by Plaintiffs in this case because Defendants did not raise that issue with

Plaintiffs’ counsel before the conference call.

DATED this 14th day of April, 2006.

Case 2:04-cv-02873-DGC Document 108 Filed 04/14/06 Page 3 of 3