Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-01080/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-01080-3/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RICHARD SHAPIRO,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 11cv1080 CAB (MDD)

ORDER GRANTING IN PART

AND DENYING IN PART

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO

COMPEL DISCOVERY, FOR

SANCTIONS, AND FOR AN

INDEPENDENT MEDICAL

EXAMINATION

[DOC. NO. 176]

v.

CITY OF CARLSBAD, et al.,

Defendants.

Before the Court is Defendants’ motion to compel discovery and for sanctions

for non-disclosure. Defendants also seek an order requiring Plaintiff to submit to an

independent medical examination. As provided herein, the motion to compel

complete disclosures under Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(a) is GRANTED. The motion to preclude

from admission documents not produced under Rule 26(a)(ii) is DENIED without

prejudice. The motion to compel an independent medical examination is DENIED. 

1. Rule 26(a) Disclosures

Defendants assert that Plaintiff’s disclosures made pursuant to Rule 26(a) are

deficient. Defendants seek an order precluding the admission of documents not

produced as required by Rule 26(a)(ii), and compelling Plaintiff to supplement his

- 1 - 11cv1080 CAB (MDD)

Case 3:11-cv-01080-CAB-KSC Document 182 Filed 04/19/12 Page 1 of 7
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

disclosures under Rule 26(a)(iii) regarding damages. 

Rule 26(a) provides for the required disclosures of four categories of

information by each party without awaiting a discovery request. Rule 26(a)(1)(C)

governs the timing of the required disclosures (generally 14 days after the discovery

conference under Rule 26(f)) and Rule 26(e) requires that the required initial

disclosures be supplemented as necessary. 

At issue here are the required initial disclosures under Rule 26(a)(ii) and (iii). 

Rule 26(a)(ii) requires the disclosure of:

a copy–or a description by category and location–of all documents,

electronically stored information, and tangible things that the disclosing

party has in its possession, custody, or control and may use to support

its claims or defenses, unless the use would be solely for impeachment.

In his supplemental initial disclosures, in his response number 1, Plaintiff identified 

documents, by Bates number, which had been produced by Defendants. The Court

finds that disclosure to be sufficient. In his supplemental response number 2a,

Plaintiff identified all paper and electronic documents denoted in Plaintiff’s original

and amended statement of undisputed facts and evidence in support of his motion for

summary judgment. Plaintiff explained that the data includes, but is not limited to,

websites, digital audio files and DVDs. Defendants assert that Plaintiff has failed to

produce the underlying documentation and that the reference to this information is

deficient. 

The Court agrees that Plaintiff has not complied properly with the disclosure

requirements of Rule 26(a)(ii) regarding disclosure 2a. Plaintiff must produce, within

14 days of this Order, the underlying documents and data or risk having that

evidence excluded in any hearing on the merits of this case. 

Defendants also object to Plaintiff’s supplemental disclosures 2b and 2c in

which he identifies 50 digital audio files of conversations with his ex-wife and other

audio files of city council meetings and identifies a binder of documents from the

Shapiro v Shapiro case. Plaintiff did not produce the underlying documents and

- 2 - 11cv1080 CAB (MDD)

Case 3:11-cv-01080-CAB-KSC Document 182 Filed 04/19/12 Page 2 of 7
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

tapes. Plaintiff claims that the information may relate to impeachment but will only

be needed and used to refute any insinuation or initmation regarding Plaintiff’s

veracity. (Doc. No. 177 at 2). As noted above, Rule 26(a)(ii) excludes from the

requirement of disclosure evidence that may used solely for impeachment. Unless

Plaintiff provides Defendants with the actual documents and tapes, he runs the risk

of being limited to using them for any other purpose. No further supplementation is

required from Plaintiff unless he intends to make evidentiary use of these materials

other than for impeachment. To the extent Plaintiff intends to use this material as

evidence in support of a claim, he must produce it to Defendants within 14 days of

this Order. By failing to comply, Plaintiff may be precluded from using this evidence

for any other purpose in connection with any hearing on the merits in this case.

More significantly, Defendants challenge Plaintiff’s disclosures under Rule

26(a)(iii). Rule 26(a)(iii) requires the disclosure of 

a computation of each category of damages claimed by the disclosing

party–who must also make available for inspection and copying as under

Rule 34 the documents or other evidentiary material, unless privileged

or protected from disclosure, on which each computation is based,

including materials bearing on the nature and extent of the injuries

suffered.

In his disclosures under this subsection, Plaintiff incorporated by reference the

statement of damages attached to his second amended complaint. (Doc. No. 61 at 37). 

Having reviewed the statement of damages, particularly damage claims A through C,

the Court finds that it is not a sufficient disclosure under Rule 26(a)(iii). Although it

may qualify as a “computation,” the statement of damages in the second amended

complaint is conclusory and no basis for the computation is provided. Plaintiff must

provide underlying documents, to the extent any exist, to support his computation.

Such disclosures must be made within 14 days of the date of this Order. Should he

fail to do so, Plaintiff may be precluded from using any such document to establish

his damages at any hearing on the merits in this case.

In his disclosure regarding damages number 2, Plaintiff also referred to

- 3 - 11cv1080 CAB (MDD)

Case 3:11-cv-01080-CAB-KSC Document 182 Filed 04/19/12 Page 3 of 7
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

approximately 50 digital audio files of conversations with his ex-wife and other audio

files of city council meetings. To the extent that Plaintiff intends to present any of

these files in support of his damages claim, he must produce them to Defendants

within 14 days of the date of this Order. Otherwise, Plaintiff may be precluded from

introducing these files to document his damages at any hearing on the merits in this

case. 

2. Independent Medical Examination

Fed.R.Civ.P. 35(a) provides, in relevant part:

When the mental or physical condition ...of a party... is in controversy,

the court in which the action is pending may order the party to submit

to a physical or mental examination by a suitably licensed or certified

examiner .... The order may be made only on motion for good cause

shown and upon notice to the person to be examined and to all parties

and shall specify the time, place, manner, conditions, and scope of the

examination and the person or persons by whom it is to be made.

Under this Rule, a party is entitled to conduct a mental examination of

another party if the movant demonstrates that: (1) the plaintiff has placed his mental

condition in controversy; and (2) good cause exists for the examination. See, e.g.,

Schlagenhauf v. Holder, 279 U.S. 104, 116-117 (1964); Tan v. City and County of San

Francisco, et al., 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21639 at *2-*3 (N.D.Cal. 2009); Turner v.

Imperial Stores, et al., 161 F.R.D. 89, 92 (S.D.Cal. 1995). Although there is a

constitutional right to privacy, that right is “conditional rather than absolute” and “is

waived when a plaintiff raised before the court issues concerning her mental and

emotional condition and seeks damages for mental and emotional injuries.” Enwere v.

Terman Assoc., LP, et al., 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 101901 at*5 (N.D.Cal. 2008)(citing

Caesar v. Mountanos, 542 F.2d 1064, 1066-70 (9th Cir. 1976). Rule 35 is to be

“construed liberally to allow the examination.” Tan, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21639 at

*5. 

The initial inquiry in this case is whether Plaintiff has placed his mental

condition sufficiently in controversy. A plaintiff puts his mental state in controversy

- 4 - 11cv1080 CAB (MDD)

Case 3:11-cv-01080-CAB-KSC Document 182 Filed 04/19/12 Page 4 of 7
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

if one or more of the following aggravating factors are present: (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; or (5) plaintiff concedes that her mental condition is “in

controversy” within the meaning of Rule 35(a). See, e.g., Tan, 2009 U.S.Dist.LEXIS

at *4; Turner, 161 F.R.D. at 98. Although mental state may not be “in

controversy” where only “garden variety” emotional distress damages are claimed,

presence of one of these factors is sufficient to place mental state in controversy. See

Ayat v. Societe Air France, et al., 2007 U.S.Dist.LEXIS 31285 (N.D.Cal 2007). 

Defendants assert that Plaintiff has placed his mental condition in controversy

within the meaning of Rule 35(a) referencing Plaintiff’s second amended complaint

wherein he claims $120,000 in damages, including $20,000 for emotional distress.

(Doc. No. 61 at 37). Defendants also reference Plaintiff’s Statement of Damages in

which he claims that he suffered physical and emotional damage but was unable, due

to his personal circumstances, to see a physician or mental health professional. (Doc.

No. 76). 

The Court finds that Plaintiff has not put his mental condition sufficiently in

controversy to require an independent mental examination under Rule 35(a). 

Although Plaintiff has alleged intentional infliction of emotional distress, he has done

so merely in a conclusory manner. Moreover, it appears to the Court that the claim,

despite its verbage, really is nothing more than garden variety emotional distress

allegedly caused by his 16 hours of incarceration and the bringing of criminal charges

that later were dismissed. 

Similarly, the Court finds that Plaintiff has not placed his physical condition

sufficiently in controversy to merit an independent physical examination. The

physical injuries alleged by Plaintiff, bruising and the like resulting from his

incarceration and long walk home, are long past. A physical examination at this

- 5 - 11cv1080 CAB (MDD)

Case 3:11-cv-01080-CAB-KSC Document 182 Filed 04/19/12 Page 5 of 7
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

point would be meaningless to determine the extent of injuries Plaintiff suffered in

2010. 

If Plaintiff had put his physical or mental condition sufficiently in controversy,

the Court would move to the next inquiry. The second and final inquiry is whether

there is good cause to order the examination. A factor used by the courts to assess

“good cause” in this context is whether a party has alleged some type of ongoing 

injury. See, e.g., Enwere, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 101901 at *8 (citing Bridges v.

Eastman Kodak Co., 850 F.Supp. 216, 221-22 (S.D.N.Y. 1994); Duncan v. Upjohn,

155 F.R.D. 23, 25 (D.Conn. 1994); (Hodges v. Keane, 145 F.R.D. 332, 334 (S.D.N.Y.

1993)(ordering mental examination where Plaintiff demonstrated ongoing mental

injury by alleging that her mental health injuries require “continuing medical

treatment”); Ragge v. MCA/Universal Studios, 165 F.R.D. 605, 608 (C.D.Cal. 1995). If

a Plaintiff alleges ongoing mental injury or the likelihood of future mental distress,

there is typically good cause for a mental examination. See, e.g., Gabriel, 2007

U.S.Dist.LEXIS 89298 at * 5 (ordering an examination when plaintiff alleged

anticipated future emotional distress); Ayat, 2007 U.S.Dist.LEXIS 31285 at *11

(ordering mental examination when plaintiff stated that he “suffered and continues

to suffer from depression...”).

Here, Plaintiff has not alleged ongoing physical or mental injury. Accordingly,

even if Plaintiff had placed his physical or mental condition sufficiently in

controversy the Court would not find good cause to order an independent medical

examination. 

Conclusion

Accordingly, the motion to compel complete disclosures under Rule 26(a) is

GRANTED. Plaintiff must make any additional required disclosures within 14 days

of the date of this Order or risk being precluded from introducing this evidence at any

hearing or trial on the merits in this case, except for impeachment. Defendants’

- 6 - 11cv1080 CAB (MDD)

Case 3:11-cv-01080-CAB-KSC Document 182 Filed 04/19/12 Page 6 of 7
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

motion to preclude the use of this evidence is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 

Defendants’ motion for an independent medical examination is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED:

DATED: April 19, 2012 

 

 Hon. Mitchell D. Dembin

 U.S. Magistrate Judge

- 7 - 11cv1080 CAB (MDD)

Case 3:11-cv-01080-CAB-KSC Document 182 Filed 04/19/12 Page 7 of 7