Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-00399/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-00399-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 375
Nature of Suit: False Claims Act
Cause of Action: 31:3730 Qui Tam False Claims Act

---

1

18cv399-BAS (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

TRICIA MULLINS,

Plaintiff,

v.

HORIZON PHARMA USA, INC., and 

DOES 1-10, inclusive,,

Defendants.

Case No.: 18cv399-BAS (NLS)

ORDER:

(1) GRANTING JOINT MOTION 

FOR INDEPENDENT MEDICAL

EXAMINATIONS OF PLAINTIFF; 

and 

(2) GRANTING JOINT MOTION TO 

EXTEND EXPERT DISCLOSURE 

DEADLINE

[ECF Nos. 23, 24]

Before the Court is the parties’ joint motion for an Independent Medical 

Examination (“IME”) of Plaintiff Tricia Mullins (“Plaintiff”). ECF No. 24. 

Additionally, the parties also request that the Court extend certain expert disclosure 

deadlines. ECF No. 23. For the reasons set forth below, the Court (1) GRANTS the 

motion for Plaintiff to sit for an IME; and (2) GRANTS the motion to extend the expert 

disclosure deadline. 

//

Case 3:18-cv-00399-BAS-NLS Document 25 Filed 03/18/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 6
2

18cv399-BAS (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

1. MOTION FOR INDEPENDENT MEDICAL EXAMINATION

Since the reason parties assert for requesting the extension of expert disclosure 

deadlines is the need for an IME, the Court will first address whether an IME will be 

granted.

a. Background

In her complaint, Plaintiff alleges that she was wrongfully terminated by 

Defendant Horizon Pharma USA, Inc. (“Defendant”). ECF No. 1 at ¶ 1. Prior to 

working for Defendant, in 2013 Plaintiff alleges that she filed a whistleblower action 

against her then employer, Aegerion Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (“Aegerion”), pursuant to the 

False Claims Act. Id. at ¶ 12. In September 2017, Aegerion plead guilty to criminal 

charges and agreed to pay a $28.8 million settlement, which resolved Plaintiff’s 

whistleblower action. Id. at ¶ 14. Plaintiff alleges that three months after Defendant was 

notified that she had been a whistleblower in the Aegerion case, she was terminated. Id. 

at ¶ 19. Plaintiff alleges that she had received positive feedback from her supervisors 

regarding her job performance, yet was terminated due to misconduct, which she denies

and categorizes as pretext. Id. at ¶¶ 20, 22. As a result of her termination, Plaintiff 

alleges that she has “suffered damages in the form of severe emotional distress, . . . 

mental anguish, and trauma[.]” Id. at ¶ 40. Among other relief, Plaintiff seeks emotional 

distress damages from her retaliation and wrongful termination claims. Id. at ¶¶ 29, 32, 

36. In addition, she alleges a cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional 

distress, and seeks damages pertaining to this claim as well. Id. at ¶¶ 40-41. 

b. Legal Standard

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 

Case 3:18-cv-00399-BAS-NLS Document 25 Filed 03/18/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 6
3

18cv399-BAS (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

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. 

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).

c. Discussion

Here, the Court finds that ordering Plaintiff to submit for an IME is appropriate. 

Several of the factors under Mailhoit are met here. Plaintiff has put her mental state “in 

controversy” since she maintains a cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional 

distress. See ECF No. 1 at ¶¶ 38-41. Plaintiff has also indicated that certain “nonretained expert witnesses, her treating physicians, will offer testimony regarding the 

effect of stress on her multiple sclerosis symptoms and/or treatment[.]” ECF No. 24 at 2. 

Additionally, the desired IME is relevant to her claim of intentional infliction of 

emotional distress, as well as her request for emotional distress damages for other claims. 

Moreover, in light of the posture of the claims at issue and the Court’s preference for 

Case 3:18-cv-00399-BAS-NLS Document 25 Filed 03/18/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 6
4

18cv399-BAS (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

deciding cases on the merits, the Court finds it appropriate to permit the exam. 

d. Scope of Examination

The parties propose that Dr. Ben Frishberg and Dr. Mark Kalish evaluate Plaintiff 

at Dr. Frishberg’s office, located at 6010 Hidden Valley Rd, Suite 200, Carlsbad, CA 

92011. ECF No. 24 at 2. Dr. Frishberg intends to conduct an exam regarding Plaintiff’s 

multiple sclerosis diagnosis, and Dr. Kalish intends to conduct a psychiatric interview

and psychiatric testing, which may include the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality 

Inventory 2 (“MMPI-2”). Id. The parties estimate that the IME will take seven hours, 

exclusive of breaks. Id. The parties also plan to record the IME via audio tape. Id.

The Court agrees that Dr. Kalish’s examination is needed because of Plaintiff’s 

emotional distress claims, and finds that Dr. Frishberg’s examination is also needed, and 

not duplicative, because Plaintiff has claimed that the emotional distress exacerbated her 

multiple sclerosis. See id. at 2. Thus, the Court finds the scope of the examination to be 

appropriate. 

Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the motion and ORDERS as follows:

(1) Plaintiff is ordered to undergo an IME with Dr. Ben Frishberg and Dr. Mark 

Kalish, to be conducted on April 16, 2019 at 8:30 a.m. at 6010 Hidden 

Valley Rd, Suite 200, Carlsbad, CA 92011. 

(2) The examination will be conducted for the purpose of determining the nature 

and extent of plaintiff’s emotional distress as alleged in the first complaint in 

this action. The examination shall last no more than seven hours, 

encompassing both doctor’s exams, interviews, and the psychological testing 

components.

2. MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF EXPERT DISCLOSURE DEADLINE

The parties request a limited extension of expert disclosure deadlines, only as to 

the doctors performing the IME, Dr. Frishberg and Dr. Kalish. ECF No. 23. The parties 

contend that they have been working diligently and in good faith to find available dates 

for the IME, but were unable to identify any mutually agreeable dates in March. Id. at 2. 

Case 3:18-cv-00399-BAS-NLS Document 25 Filed 03/18/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 6
5

18cv399-BAS (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

Since the Court has granted the IME, the Court finds good cause to GRANT the request 

for a limited extension; however this extension will not alter any other dates in the 

scheduling order. The Court will extend the expert disclosure deadline for Dr. Ben 

Frishberg and Dr. Mark Kalish to April 30, 2019. All other dates shall remain as 

previously set. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: March 18, 2019

Case 3:18-cv-00399-BAS-NLS Document 25 Filed 03/18/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 6
Case 3:18-cv-00399-BAS-NLS Document 25 Filed 03/18/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 6 of 6